Evolutionists, being ever desperate to save their old earth models from this problem caused by the laws of physics, have posed some solutions. In this part, we will look at a particular solution that has been proposed illustrating why it really does not fix the problem.
This proposed solution claims that continental location affects tidal drag. While this is true since the closer the Moon the stronger its pull on the Earth the rate of change tends to get very large. The result is that to save the old Earth model it becomes necessary to virtually eliminate the effect of the continents.
Eugene Poliakow's paper “Numerical modeling of the paleotidal evolution of the Earth-Moon System” is an effort to calculate the effect of continental movement-based actual estimates of past continental movement. Because of limitations of the methods used to estimate past continental movement, it only projects back 600 million years, but this is enough to evaluate the results.
The way to judge the validity of a mathematical model is to see how well it produces known data. Poliakow’s calculations give (as seen in the above chart) a figure of 2.91 cm/yr as the Moon’s recession current rate and 1.59 seconds/year/century as the rate of the slowing of Earth’s rotation. The problem with these figures is that they both differ significantly from the values actually observed. The Moon’s recession current rate has actually been measured at 3.82 cm/yr, which is nearly a 3rd larger than Poliakow’s model indicates. Furthermore, the slowing of Earth’s rotation has been measured at 0.8812 seconds/year/ century which is just 55% of what Poliakow’s model indicates.
At first glance, the fact that Poliakow’s model overestimates the deceleration rate of Earth’s rotation would seem to be a plus but the limiting factor of the age of the Earth-Moon system is the position of the Moon, not the Earth's rotation rate. Since the Moon’s recession rate is actually higher than in Poliakow’s model, the error would be a clear negative. The real problem is the decencies between the model and real-world data show there to be a fundamental flaw in the model. It means that Poliakow overlooked one or more major factors that could easily nullify his results. Furthermore, there are three fundamental flaws in this argument.
The first flaw in this model is that it does not produce results constant with paleontological evidence. Any old Earth model for the evolution of the Earth-Moon system would have to agree with both present system data and paleontological evidence, but Poliakow’s model disagrees with both.
The second flaw in this model is the fact that it only projects back about 600 million years. This means that it does not demonstrate that a 4-.5-billion-year-old earth can be saved by this model. This means that it does not really do the job required of it.
The final flaw in this model comes from the fact that it requires keeping the continents at the poles for significant portions of the Earth's history. This is because such a configuration is highly unstable this is because the rotation of the earth would tend to bring the continents to the equator rather than keeping them at the polls. This means that the positions that this model requires cannot be maintained long enough to be helpful in solving the problem.
In part five we will deal with yet another effort to save the world earth model from this problem.
Help support these articles.
https://tinyurl.com/GSM-give yeah
References
http://gscim.xyz/Articles/Advanced/Lunar_recession_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth/
http://gscim.xyz/Articles/Intermediate/Lunar_recession_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth/
