Even using your own numbers here, William, your math doesn’t check out, and the fact that I’m taking the time to do the math here only shows how desperate I am to avoid mowing the lawn right now.
1510^6 yrs * 25 leap seconds / 43 yrs is about 8.710^6 leap seconds that would have been added over that stretch of time (pretending that your ironically uniformitarian assumptions all hold – which I am doing just to play along.) So going backwards and subtracting all those leap seconds out of our currently full complement of 360024365.25 (= 31.610^6) seconds gives us about 2310^6 seconds in a year 15 million years ago. That’s roughly 260 (of today’s days) long. Far from being 100 times faster, that’s a “modest” (relatively speaking) 40% increase over today’s speed (or in other words only about 1.39 times as fast).
You shouldn’t be tying your faith to your faulty conclusions – especially when they are based on faulty math. Don’t stay deceived. Listen and learn from God’s word and works instead of your own desperately anti-deep time screeds. And while you meditate and penitently reflect on these cautions, as I’m sure you will, I’ll be mowing the lawn (and also meditating). Hold me to it. Maybe my back-of-the-envelope math is wrong. In which case I’ll shortly be the penitent here. But we can’t both be right.
The natural laws on the cooling down of a sphere of liquid rock did not change since the Victorian Era. These laws simply contradict that the earth (a bulb of liquid rock with a thin crust) is 4 billion years old.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If not, the theory turns into a belief or a religion.
In the Pre Victorian Era, the Alchemists believed that in matter a hidden power was present, which could make simple, cheap substances turn themselves into complicated, precious substances. Even Isaac Newton believed this. Emperical science has proved this belief to be false. Darwinsm, however, has brought back the faith of the Alchemists. Today, many (even highly educated) people believe that (organic) molecules possess an intrinsic desire to organize themselves into increasingly complex structures, and that gain in complexity is a natural process. This Pre Victorian Era, Alchemistic view of matter is diametrically opposed to the fundamental properties of our reality and the physical laws that describe this reality. In matter no hidden power is present, and every complex structure of matter decays sooner or later by natural processes into the smallest possible units and towards the lowest possible energy level. Any difference in elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, tension, will equalize sooner or later by natural processes, according to the natural laws for elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, stress.
Please accept the basic scientific facts, as mentioned in the peer reviewed article I referred to. Living nature adapts to changing circumstances by the mechanism of gene regulation and the recombination and selection of gene variants form the gene pool of a population. Not by mutations (= changes of the DNA that are antagonized by the mutation repair systems in every cell).
From common sense. Any engineer will agree with this time limit. And you would too, if you would imagine for 5 minutes that you had never heard of the theory of evolution.
Any radio dating method is dependent of the assumptions made on the initially present daughter isotopes in the sample that is under investigation. That is a scientific fact.
One of the many assumptions that are made when dating layers of rock, is that the fossils in them are formed when dead organisms, fallen in a river, lake or sea, are slowly covered by sand or mud in a gradual process of millions of years. In normal circumstances, however, dead organisms decays within a few days or weeks by digestion by micro-organisms, and disappear. Only very rapid, catastrophic, airtight covering of organisms by layers of earth, can prevent this natural process of decay and makes the forming of fossils possible. The presence of fossils in earth layers falsifies the theory that these layers of rock are formed in a slow, gradual process covering hundreds of millions of years. According to the playing rules of empirical science, that theory must be rejected.
The fact of empirical science that fossils can only have been formed under catastrophic conditions, is supported by the presence of fossils of tree trunks and vertical shafts made by worms, which intersect layers of earth that would differ hundreds of millions of years in age. These trunks and worm shaft prove that the radio metric dating of the intersected layers of rock, is invalid. According to the playing rules of empirical science, the radio metric dating of these layers of rock must be rejected.
Many research reports from certified laboratories date fossils of dinosaurs on no more than hundreds of thousands of years old. According to the playing rules of empirical science, the theory that these fossils are hundreds of millions of years old is fasified, and must be rejected. In addition, these reports from certified laboratories contradict your claim that radio metric methods all provide the same answers.
You are right, 15 million years ago, the Earth was spinning about 1.4 times faster than today. This means that 150 million years ago, the Earth was spinning 14 times faster than today, making the existence of the organisms as we know today impossible, because after ‘one hour’ of light, darkness returns. For Evolutionary Fundamentalists, no problem because their unshakable faith is untouchable for facts, empirical laws, or the playing rules of empirical science. For empirical scientists, however, this fact is a problem, and will make them to reconsider current evolutionary theory. Try to live with it.
That is true. But what did change since the Victorian era is our understanding of low-levels of radioactive energy being released throughout the core and throughout the mantle.
and
Secondly, plate tectonics and the nature of the Mantle layer itself is also new since the Victorian era.
And that is where your analysis fails you. I will not comment any further on your fixation on inaccurate analysis of the Earth’s interior - - you don’t seem to know much about it.
This still isn’t right. Even though we corrected your math – you still have an erroneous assumption in place: that the increase of time per day has been neatly linear (or at least averaged to that) over the last 150 million years – and more seriously – that this average is revealed by the pattern of how leap seconds have been added over the last 40 years. It apparently is just not that simple, as you may gather from this paragraph from a U.S. Navy site history of time keeping site:
The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century. This deceleration causes the Earth’s rotational time to slow with respect to the atomic clock time. Thus, the definition of the ephemeris second embodied in Newcomb’s motion of the Sun was implicitly equal to the average mean solar second over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern studies have indicated that the epoch at which the mean solar day was exactly 86,400 SI seconds was approximately 1820. This is also the approximate mean epoch of the observations analyzed by Newcomb, ranging in date from 1750 to 1892, that resulted in the definition of the mean solar day on the scale of Ephemeris Time. Before then, the mean solar day was shorter than 86,400 seconds and since then it has been longer than 86,400 seconds.
I don’t pretend to understand everything in the paragraph above without more research and study, but what I do gather is that the 1.4 ms per day per century would be closer to some long term average rate of change than what you get from your assumptions on recent additions of leap seconds. And even this better average from the last couple centuries would not accurately represent longer term (millions of years) changes which may be closer to 2 ms/day per century. This represents much more modest changes between now and, say dinosaur times. Days were still faster, to be sure – but on a matter of an hour or two. Scientists apparently think the earth’s day may have been about 6 hours long way way back to when the moon was formed by the theorized giant impactor (and that would be billions of years ago). Much of that is probably educated guess work still.
The point in all of this though, is that the problem is not nearly so simple as you want to make it. Rates of spin decrease are themselves changing even in our lifetimes such that it is not predictable enough for them to announce more than about 6 months in advance whether or not a leap second will be needed in any given year. Too many different factors affect it. And back when the continents looked different, tidal drag would have had different (probably less) effect than it does today, to name one such long term factor. Many smaller factors have more rapidly variable effects as one could imagine.
@WilliamDJ I have got to ask this question before I begin. What are you trying to show? The age of the earth and evolution are not joined at the hip but you act as if they are. There are many OEC who admit the earth is 4 billion years old but do not accept evolution. So what is your position?
Sorry but this is one engineer that does not agree (Yes I am an actual, degreed Engineer with 40+ years of experience). For what it is worth.
Only in your mind. There are methods that don’t depend on this assumption but you refuse to do to the work to learn this.
Fossils aren’t used to date rock. Simple rule in geology for sedimentary rocks. The rocks on the bottom are older than the rocks on top. So fossils found on the bottom are older than the fossils found on the top. Fancy name is The Law of Superposition. First proposed in the 17th century.
Microorganisms require oxygen so any environment which is oxygen poor does not support rapid decay. Plus what turns into fossils is the hard parts which are not subject to rapid decay. I have a nice collection of fossils right now on my desk that I found in my walks around the building here at work. And guess what, they are all shells of marine creatures. No soft parts found.
And this is actually seen in the fossil record so it does happen. Ever hear of mud slides or flash floods?
Oh I have got to see the reference for this. The tree trunks I have heard of but not worm shafts. Worm shafts are frequently found in the fossil record but they are always contained in one rock layer AFAIK. If fact they are a good sign that the rocks were not put down during a global flood.
Reference please. But even if the hundreds of thousands of years is correct then you still have to throw out Genesis so what do you gain?
You are extrapolating the data without knowing what is causing the data. Major error. We have explained to you the cause of the leap seconds and the slowing of the earth is not the only component.
The low levels of radioactivity inside the earth are unable to maintain the liquidity of the flows of rock underneath the thin earth’s crust for 4,543 billion years.
Plate tectonics is an energy dissipating process, that will shorten the time that flows of rock keep their liquidity.
Empirical science cannot kneel down for a religion that needs the earth to have an age of 4,543 billion of years.
Take a boiled and an unboiled egg and spin both around. The boiled egg keeps spinning for about 20 seconds, in contrast to the unboiled egg that keeps spinning for about 2 seconds as a result of the dissipating forces produced by the fluid content of the egg.
The earth is a bulb of fluid rock below a thin crust. Therefore, an unboiled egg is an adequate model for the earth. When spinning around, the earth slows down by the dissipating forces produced by the fluid content below the thin earth crust (the ‘unboiled-egg-effect’)
Accurate measurements with modern technology during the past 40 years have revealed that the spinning of the earth is slowing down substantially. The measured rate of the slowing down means that 150 million years ago, the earth was spinning 14 times faster than today: after one hour of daylight the night began, for one hour, etc. Poor dinosaurs. According to the playing rules of empirical science, the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old must be rejected. Based on the measurements by modern technology, a new theory on the age of the earth must be formulated.
The spinning of the earth is also slowing down by the dissipating forces following from the attraction of the flows of water at the surface of the earth by the moon. But this is only a minor contribution to the slowing down of the spinning of the earth, compared to the slowing down by the ‘unboiled- egg-effect’.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable. As a consequence, it must be testable and be open for critical discussion, based on empirical facts and empirical laws. If empirical facts and empirical laws contradict a scientific theory, it must be rejected, according to the playing rules of empirical science.
Evolutionary Fundamentalism has paralyzed your common sense. As an engineer you should be ashamed of yourself to contend that a bulb of liquid rock with a radius of 1 meter will not lose its liquidity within 100.000 hours when it is put at a temperature of 2 degrees Kelvin.
Radiometric dating is no ‘rocket science’. To date a rock by measuring the number of parent and daughter isotopes, you also need to know the number of daughter isotopes in your sample at the time the rock was formed. You were not there, 4,543 billion years ago, so you have to make assumptions. If you use statistical methods to make an estimate of the daughter isotopes in your sample at the time the rock was formed, you need multiple samples from layers of rocks of which you assume that they are formed at the same time. These assumptions, in turn, are based on a load of additional assumptions.
I am not defending the Bible, but empirical science.
Any spinning object will slow down by forces of resistance. The sum F of these forces will cause at least an uniformly slowing down movement: vt= v0 - a.t ; where F=a.m Only in Wonderland a spinning object keeps spinning without resistance for 4,543 billion years.
CONCLUSIONS
[1] Four empirical facts contradict the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old.
a) The earth is a spinning sphere of liquid rock with a thin crust. By the ‘unboiled-egg-effect’ it slows down. The past 40 years, 25 extra seconds were added to the official time. This means that 150 million years ago, the earth was spinning 14 times faster. Daylight then disappeared after 1 hour, followed by a night of 1 hour, etc., making life as we know it impossible.
b) A sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 1 m, placed at a temperature of 2 degrees Kelvin, loose its liquidity within 100.000 hours. This means that that a sphere of liquid rock with a radius of 6,378 km will loose its liquidity within 72 million years.
c) The magnetic field of the earth is decreasing. Since 1830, the field has diminished in strength by 10%. Counting back, 10 million years ago the magnetic field of the earth would have been 100 times stronger as now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
d) The youngest mountains on earth (for instance the Alps) are dated at 80 million years old. Due to wind and weather erosion of 0.1 mm per year, they would have been eroded completely now. In stead, there are rough, sharp and pointed.
[2] The theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old, appears unfalsifiable. Therefore it looses its scientific status.
In the discussion above, it appears that the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old, is untouchable for empirical facts, empirical laws and the playing rules of empirical science. It cannot be falsified. As a consequence, the theory loses its status as a scientific theory. It turns into a belief and must be moved form the domain of science to the domain of religion.
[3] Evolutionary Fundamentalist act as enemies of empirical science.
In the discussion above, it appears that Evolutionary Fundamentalists are untouchable by empirical facts and natural laws. In addition, they appear not interested in the basic scientific facts on how living nature adapts to changing circumstances and is protected against mutations by mutation repair systems in every cell. Moreover, they reintroduce an Alchemistic view on matter from Pre Victorian Ages, by contending that (organic) molecules possess an intrinsic desire to organize themselves into increasingly complex structures, and that gain in complexity is a natural process. This Pre Victorian Era Alchemistic view of matter is diametrically opposed to the fundamental properties of our reality and the physical laws that describe this reality. In matter no hidden power is present, and every complex structure of matter decays sooner or later by natural processes into the smallest possible units and towards the lowest possible energy level. Evolutionary Fundamentalist do not care, but keep preaching theories that can only happen in Wonderland.
[4] Discussing the age of the earth functions as a litmus test that distinguishes people who respect empirical science from people who don’t.
The discussion above of the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old makes a distinction between people who respect empirical facts, empirical laws and the playing rules of empirical science, and people who don’t.
Please show your calculations, including the effect of decreasing radioactivity over time.
Plate tectonics dissipates its energy into the earth’s crust in the form of thermal energy.
Empirical science concluded a couple of centuries ago that the earth is very old. Subsequent findings have only reinforced and refined that conclusion.
I can see some considerable contemplation was involved in your crafting of these three points. They were not frivolously written. I can see how they reflect some of the deepest principles you are attempting to touch with your Very Robust treatment of the topic of the Earth’s core … consistently presented along a few themes.
My answer will not, perhaps, satisfy you and your deeply held views. But my answer is also a deeply held position:
Your three objections above are your beliefs about the Earth, that are not supported by any math, or geological projections.
You reject low levels of radioactivity - - because it is inadequate on its own. But you have not even included mathematically its contribution to the issue. You ignore the reality deep-earth radioactivity in any of your discussions because you trivialize it as irrelevant.
You reject plate tectonics because you see it as a “net facilitator” to heat loss, but you have not included any mathematics on this score as well. You ignore the reality of plate tectonics in any of your discussions because you trivialize it as irrelevant at best, since you think it is actually supportive of your position. So you don’t need to mention it.
Your final “refutation” is that Science is somehow too proud to acknowledge the truth that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old … which is a half-statement really. Because even using your own, limited, scope of mathematics you arrive at an age that doesn’t correspond to any other religion - - specifically the 6000 year age invoked by Creationism.
And so you find yourself at a loss as to why your position is so ignored by just about everybody.
I would propose that it is ignored by most everybody because you have turned this topic into your own religion.
You don’t use math applications that scientists use. Because you don’t need them.
You attack Science as inadequate, because it seems to intentionally ignore the facts as you see them, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Creationism.
And so you have found the one place where your critique of the Scientific Establishment seems appropriate - - even though your conclusions fit with no religion, philosophy or worldly expectation: you aren’t helping the Creationist movement, and you aren’t helping the Scientific movement. You appear to be your own movement … in solitary isolation as you pursue your Quixotic tilting at the windmills.of Bad Science.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor: get one good book (or a few?) that actually does the mathematics of Deep Earth heat dynamics. And use that knowledge to show that you are not a johnny-one-note about the Earth’s core.
Do the calculations on the influence of plate tectonics.
Do the calculations on low-grade radioactive energy deep within the earth.
Include these (supposedly) irrelevant findings in your future discussions. So that at least people will see you are trying to be fair in your attacks on the Scientific Establishment.
Because as it stands now, I don’t think you are being fair-minded, and that you are deliberately shielding your eyes from reality… even if you sincerely think you are not doing so.
This is a fascinating phenomenon, but you have a faulty assumption in place: that spinning an egg on the counter is the same as an already spinning object in a vacuum (say – a planet). Here is what you are up against: conservation of angular momentum. In the absence of external forces no angular momentum can be lost for any object or system (no matter its physical state). It can be a solid, liquid, gas, or even collection of loose stuff. When you spin the egg (or any container of liquid) the fluid inside was not spinning with it, and therefore slows the container down after you stop accelerating it. Once the liquid inside is fully spinning with the container, the effect goes away. So only your almost-dismissed point #4: moon slowing earth down with tidal drag – does any work toward your thesis (and it is insufficient for your thesis as you seem to have noted). The moon is external to the earth and therefore does actually slow it down. Phenomena internal to the earth can do no such thing.
I think you’ve completely misunderstood isochron dating here. It does not blindly assume that the rocks were formed at the same time. On the contrary, it includes a test to confirm that the rocks were formed at the same time. If they weren’t, the isochron plot would not give a straight line.
The earth’s magnetic field does not uniformly decay according to a specific formula, exponential or otherwise. On the contrary, it fluctuates chaotically, and sometimes reverses.
Favorite “kooky idea”: In fact, I think the reason Earth’s magnetic field flips occasionally is because the Earth’s core is not without the occasional hiccups … either through a temporary deformation of its spheroid profile, or because of intrusions from the rock layer above:
Sorry to burst your bubble but the age of the earth isn’t a theory. It is a collection of empirical facts that point to one conclusion, 4.543 billion years.
Not so, but your “what ever it is” certainly seems to have done so to you.
I would be ashamed of myself if I accepted a number uncritically. Show me how you came up with the number and then we can talk. I have asked you before and you refuse to answer.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Is all you know C-14 dating?
For uranium-lead dating which is used to date rocks I quote the all knowing Wikipedia: “Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age.” Notice no mention made of having to know the initial numbers of daughter isotopes. I have pointed you to this informaton before but you chose to ignore it.
You are definitely not defending empirical science. You are attacking empirical science to support creationism is my guess.
Do you know what this equation means? Do you know what assumptions have to be made before you can use this equation (and there are a ton of them). BTW, I do. Instead of trying to quote mine laws of physics (a first AFAIK) you might want to read a text book on the subject. And it is obvious to someone who knows physics that you don’t.
I got the impression from his quote that he does know more than C-14 dating. The fact that he talked about multiple samples suggests to me that he has at least heard of isochron dating, but he’s either misunderstood it or else read something that intentionally misrepresents it.
He has brought up multiple samples as a way of casting doubt on the method. You know “the evil evolutionist geologists just pick and chose samples to get the date they want to support evolution” kind of message.
From some of the ideas he has presented he has been reading the YEC sites for sure.
Scientific theories always stay open for discussion and for contradiction and rejection. If not, they lose their scientific status.
The 4 empirical facts mentioned in my previous post #98, reopen the discussion.
As an empirical scientist and engineer (Applied Mathematics; University of Technology Delft), I follow the standards of empirical science in presenting 4 empirical facts that contradict the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old. [quote=“gbrooks9, post:101, topic:35581”]
You ignore the reality deep-earth radioactivity in any of your discussions because you trivialize it as irrelevant.
[/quote]
There is no gigantic nuclear power plant beneath our feet, that is keeping rocks fluid for 4,543 billion years yet. The radiation from such a nuclear power plant would make life on earth impossible. Please start using your common sense.
I am not defending the Bible, but empirical science, its facts, its laws and its playing rules.
Empirical science needs open discussion and theories that are falsifiable.
Spin an unboiled egg around for a few minutes, till its content has adapted to the spinning of its shell. Then stop. The egg will keep spinning for a while and stops within about 2 seconds. A boiled egg stops after about 20 seconds.
The circulating flows of fluid rock inside the earth largely follow the spinning shell of the earth and produce the shielding magnetic field of the earth. However, the circulating flows of rock continuously change a bit of direction in a chaotic process. This continual change of direction of the flows of liquid rock inside the earth slows down the spinning of the earth.
The earth’s magnetic field is produced by the flows of liquid rock moving around the iron kernel of the earth. As a result of the cooling down of the earth, the movement of the flows of liquid rock slows down, and the magnetic field decreases.
The flows of liquid rock follow the spinning of the earth. Their direction can fluctuate a bit through time, but the flows cannot start moving into an opposite direction, because the force to make that happen does not exist. For example: take a spinning wheel of your bike between both hands. Only a friend can stop it with great effort and make it spin into the opposite direction.
Fossils can only be formed by very rapid, catastrophic, airtight covering of organisms by layers of earth, preventing them to be digested by micro-organisms within weeks or months. The layers of earth containing fossils show to be pushed up and down and forward and backward during the catastrophic circumstance when they were formed. Some of the earth layers have been pushed together into waves and folds, and some of these folds have flipped over, resulting in a flip of the characteristics in these earth layers that can be linked to the direction of the magnetic field of the earth.
The state of a system at a certain moment of time is dependent of the process of change that is imposed on the system AND the initial state of the system at the moment the change process began. Please accept this scientific fact.
After measuring the number of parent isotopes and the number of daughter isotopes in a sample of rock, its age can only be calculated if its initial state is known (described by the number of parent isotopes or the number of daughter isotopes at the moment of formation). This is a scientific fact. Please accept it, although some Wikipedia pages somewhere on our planet do not mention this condition.
The isochron plot reflects the mathematical model that is chosen to describe the relationship between the measured number of Parent and Daughter isotopes in a sample of rock and the number of Daughter isotopes at the moment the sample of rock was formed. Countless other models can be chosen.
Maybe, there is no mathematical relationship at all between the measured number of Parent and Daughter isotopes in a sample of rock and the number of Daughter isotopes at the moment a sample of rock was formed. Maybe, the numbers of Parent isotopes and Daughter isotopes at the moment of the formation of the sample of rock, are the outcome of the specific conditions at the specific place on earth, at the specific moment of time, when this specific sample of rock was formed. Who knows? We cannot verify our assumptions.
If the isochron plot for several samples of rock does not give a straight line, these samples are considered not to be formed at the same time, and they are put aside.
Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that plate tectonics cannot increase the energy content of the earth.
Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that the youngest mountains on earth (assumed age: 80 million years) would be eroded completely now. In stead, they are rough, sharp and pointed.
Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that the spinning of earth is slowing down, and that the earth would have been spinning 14 times faster 150 million years ago, making day and night last only 1 hour.
Without accurate calculations, it is obvious that a bulb of liquid stone with a radius of 1 meter will have lost its liquidity within 100,000 hours. From this follows that the earth would lose its liquidity within 72 million years and its shielding magnetic field, which is produced by the flows of liquid rock around the iron kernel of the earth.
Please accept that there is NO gigantic nuclear power plant beneath our feet, with the capacity and fuel to keep rocks fluid for 4,543 billion years. The radiation produced by such a power plant would make life on earth impossible. Only in the Wonderland of Evolutionary Fundamentalists, such a power plant can exist without producing life destroying radiation.
Imagine for a moment that you have never heard of the theory of evolution. It’s hard to do, but try. Subsequently, reactivate your paralyzed common sense and critical attitude. Now reconsider the 5 empirical facts above, which contradict the theory that the earth is 4,543 billion years old, and join me in rejecting that theory, according the playing rules of empirical science.
I’m sorry, but your analogy isn’t valid. You can’t compare a rigid body such as a bicycle wheel with fluid dynamics. Yes, linear and angular momentum are conserved overall, but you do have to deal with turbulence on all sorts of scales. A more realistic comparison would be with the earth’s atmosphere. To try to extrapolate current rates of change in the earth’s magnetic field, as YECs do, requires one to completely disregard the basics of fluid dynamics, chaos theory, and common sense.
This would not give the close correlation that we see everywhere between radiometric ages and geomagnetic reversals.
What other models? You’ve made an unjustified assertion here: please provide us with some details.
This is irrelevant. The whole point of isochron dating is that it does not make assumptions about the original ratios of parent and daughter isotopes.
Yes we can. Take two different dating methods whose assumptions are independent of each other, and see if they give the same results. In more than 90% of cases, they do.
You have to account for the cases where the isochron plot does give a straight line.
Where are your calculations to justify this assertion?
Sorry, but without accurate calculations, these are not obvious. Please show your working.
I pointed you to Wikipedia because it is easy to access and has references you can check if you want to, but of course you won’t want to as it contradicts your belief. And at least Wikipedia does have references unlike you.
Does your accurate calculations include the fact that the young mountains are still growing?
Do you just make up this stuff? The record of the earth’s magnetic field is recorded in igneous rocks not sedimentary rocks. Do you know the difference? See Wikipedia if you want the real explanation.
Agreed – that @WilliamDJ’s analogy isn’t valid, but it isn’t just a trivial aside that angular momentum is conserved. That law of conservation is the hard reality that no amount of complication will help him address, nor is it necessary to bring in any complications to defeat this conjecture.
To address his attachment to the spinning egg – I will form a hypothesis here: when spinning an un-boiled egg on a hard surface, an asymmetrical object like an egg probably will not spin cleanly on one rigid axis through itself. I.e. – I’ll bet there is considerable wobble and this would mean a migrating point of contact between the egg and the hard surface supporting it. This also then would mean that the semi-fluid stuff in it will never have fully “found” its commensurate spin with the shell but is always kept in disequilibrium by the jostling motion – thereby contributing to the loss of the egg’s spin to increased friction with the surface. If we take your same un-boiled egg up into space where it can float (no contact with any hard surface or air) and give it a spin up there, it spins forever to the extent that it is uninfluenced by anything external to it; just like a planet. Make the insides as liquid as you want, it won’t matter. If this is not true, then this would be a defeat for a major, long-accepted and verified law of motion.