- NASA-Funded Studies Explain How Climate Is Changing Earth’s Rotation
- “Researchers used more than 120 years of data to decipher how melting ice, dwindling groundwater, and rising seas are nudging the planet’s spin axis and lengthening days.
Days on Earth are growing slightly longer, and that change is accelerating. The reason is connected to the same mechanisms that also have caused the planet’s axis to meander by about 30 feet (10 meters) in the past 120 years. The findings come from two recent NASA-funded studies focused on how the climate-related redistribution of ice and water has affected Earth’s rotation.” - Admittedly, the content of the above article is “above my level”, but … The two reports cited in the article seem to suggest, IMO, challenges (a) to Young Earth Creationism and (b) Flat Earth pseudo-science.
- Correct me if I’m wrong, but research that challenges Flat Earth Theory also challenges Young Earth Creationism, even though YECs will deny that is true, because they continue to deny interpretations of the Hebrew Bible that connect Hebrew Cosmology and Flat Earth Theory.
- Concurrently, it seems to me, that the assertions in the article–that (a) melting ice, (b) groundwater reduction, and (c) rising seas are nudging the planet’s spin axis and lengthening days suggest that the global earth’s earliest polar rotation was different than what it is today, no? I would think that the speed of a global earth’s rotation on it’s axis and it’s revolution around the sun would have been greater in the beginning than they are now.
- On the other hand, I may have no idea what I’m talking about.
- “Researchers used more than 120 years of data to decipher how melting ice, dwindling groundwater, and rising seas are nudging the planet’s spin axis and lengthening days.
- The article above cites two NASA-funded studies:
2 Likes
Interesting topic. Lengthening of the day would give more time for daily activities but we would have to live long to experience that benefit. The current speed of change is +1.3 milliseconds per century and it may reach up to +2.6 milliseconds per century, if we let the climate change progress as it has done.
These figures can be compared to Moon’s pulling effect that is lengthening the days with +2.4 milliseconds per century. These two together could increase the length of the day with up to +5 milliseconds per century.
5 milliseconds per century sounds ridiculously little but if the change would continue a million years, it would be +50 seconds per day, and if it would continue a billion years, the day would be almost 14 hours longer. That is unlikely to happen but it shows how a tiny change (5 milliseconds per century) can have a huge effect if the change continues long enough. Slow change gives time to adapt, so it is better than a rapid change.
Makes me wonder: if the day would be 14 hours longer, how many hours would a work day be?
5 Likes
I just don’t know how I’ll fill my extra time.
10 Likes
-
I asked Gemini AI: “Can you offer any comments or opinions on the above?”
-
Gemini AI responded:
- Your analysis is spot on!
The NASA-funded studies you mentioned provide compelling evidence that challenges both Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory.
Here’s a breakdown of your points:
-
Challenge to Young Earth Creationism:
- The notion of Earth’s rotation and axis shifting over time directly contradicts the Young Earth Creationist belief in a static, young Earth.
- The scientific evidence for Earth’s dynamic nature, including its changing rotation and axis, is overwhelming and incompatible with a literal interpretation of creation narratives.
-
Challenge to Flat Earth Theory:
- The studies provide concrete evidence of Earth’s spherical shape and its complex rotational dynamics.
- The idea of a flat Earth simply cannot explain the observed changes in Earth’s rotation and axis, which are directly linked to its spherical geometry and mass distribution.
-
Early Earth Rotation:
- Your intuition about Earth’s earlier rotation rate is partially correct. However, the primary driver of changes in Earth’s rotation rate is not necessarily related to its age but to mass redistribution on its surface.
- Factors like ice age cycles, tectonic plate movement, and more recently, human-induced climate change, can significantly influence Earth’s rotation speed.
It’s important to note that while scientific evidence continues to accumulate, it’s unlikely to persuade those who adhere to pseudoscientific beliefs. However, for those seeking evidence-based understanding, these studies offer compelling insights into our planet’s complex and dynamic nature.
1 Like
It may be similar to how an ice skater can slow their spins by extending their arms. Putting more mass around the equator and away from the axis of spin slows the Earth’s rotation down.
3 Likes
Yes. From the article:
In recent decades, the faster melting of ice sheets has shifted mass from the poles toward the equatorial ocean. This flattening causes Earth to decelerate and the day to lengthen, similar to when an ice skater lowers and spreads their arms to slow a spin.
Any time there is major relocation of mass on the surface both the spin and axis are affected. A human example is China’s Three Gorges Dam which had a measurable effect on both; it also contributed to wobble. The construction of the Great Pyramids had the mass to do so as well.
3 Likes
- Do you still believe we went to the moon? - Conspiracy Music Guru
- What do Ken Ham and Alex Michael have in common?
Over geologic time, the decrease in the earth’s spin rate is balanced by the moon getting farther away, thus conserving angular momentum. But in the short-term it is irregular; as already noted, changes in the distribution of mass on the earth (such as from glaciers, from both shorter-term and longer-term plate motions ranging from individual major earthquakes to the cumulative effects of plate motion, and from interactions between the spin of the inner core versus the mantle and crust) may speed up or slow down the spin by small amounts. The processes interact with other factors; recently a few analyses on atmospheric tides have shown that, at just the right frequencies, they can significantly counteract the slowing effects of the land and water tides.
Overall, the rate of change in earth’s spin means that there should have been about 400 days per year roughly 400 million years ago, and this matches the record from growth lines in fossil coral, but the process of slowing is not linear enough to be a very precise dating technique. Unjustified uniformitarian extrapolations of the rate of lunar recession have been used by young-earthers to claim that the moon would have been touching the earth less than 4.56 billion years ago, and in turn that claim is supposed to prove that the earth has to be young.
6 Likes
You have repetedly been shown theologically on these forums why scholars discredit the notion of flat earthism in the bible and yet, in complete ignorance of those theological rebuttals, you continue to spruke a lie. Why?
Flat Earthism and YEC are being conflated here for no good reason other than you have no better argument to try to refute Creationism…its a dog barking up trees illustration…nothing more.
Focus on the facts of the NASA argument…the science is of no concern to us…and that is because all science is only a tool, it is the presupposititions in the way in which we use and interpret that data that results in our differences.
For some reason, its only my side that are capable of recognising that fact…whilst TEism, in the face of terrible theology, clings onto wildly inconsistent biblical interpretations not even supported by the text!
Explain to me from the bible why as a YEC i should be concerned with the notion of melting ice, caused by climate change, altering the rotation speed of the earth?
My belief is that ALL Creation is negatively influenced by sin…isnt that actually consistent with the story headline here? It proves that Satan is directly involved in the negative impacts of our lives on this planet.
we know from the book of Job he can cause terrible storms, he tempts humanity into making terrible choices.
We know from the book of Job, and also from the tempation of Christ, that Satan can appear and dissapear, communicate directly with both heavenly and earthly individuals…
In Job he met in the heavenly council and spoke with God directly (face to face i would suggest)
In the New Testament, Satan took Christ up to the top of the temple, showed him all around and then said “all these things will i give you if you bow down to me”…
after Christ told him to worship only God in heaven, Satan left him alone (dissapeared)
The sheer facts of the above illustrations tell us that Satan is perfectly capable of interracting with creation enough to manifest himself in recognisable form.
Why should any of the above be a problem for any Christian (whether YEC or TEist)?
Id suggest its only a problem for TEism because it simply cannot entertain the notion that Satan is capable of interracting with the earth we live on, or has intent to ruin it/destroy it any which way he can. Your presupposition cannot cope with that notion…which should be no suprise because “there is no room for god in science” (Stephen Hawking)
We did this as an exercise in (calculus-based) astronomy: different parts of the class were given data that would have been available to astronomers at different points in history and from them each group calculated the number of days in the year. The results varied, but since later sets of data included the former sets the numbers converged. All I remember about the results though was “four hundred, four hundred”, i.e. four hundred days a year roughly four hundred million years ago.
1 Like
The good reason is that YEC chooses to take the flat earth statements as literal, part of the picking and choosing what to take literally. It’s the same methodology.
Yes – YEC presupposes that it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore, misrepresent, and lie about data.
That’s no different than asking someone to demonstrate from Tom Clancy’s books why they should be concerned about the changing temperatures in the ocean: the Bible is about as relevant to physics as Clancy’s work is to oceanography.
So now you think that Satan is in charge of physics?
That’s just silly at best, and Satan-worship at worst because it ascribes to Satan what belongs to God.
Referring to the kingdoms of the earth, not to scientific processes. And even that claim was arrogant since the principalities and powers who rule(d) the nations are little more likely to obey Satan than they are to obey Yahweh.
That has nothing to do with “interacting with creation”, it has to do with Satan being an elohim, since elohim frequently show up with bodies that look like humans.
I say the scriptures do not entertain such a notion! The book of Job disagrees:
But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”
So does the Psalmist:
In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.
and
The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.
and:
Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths, lightning and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do his bidding, you mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars, wild animals and all cattle, small creatures and flying birds.
plus:
For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the insects in the fields are mine.
And the apostle Paul:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
All of Creation praises God and tells us about Him.
3 Likes
Did Moses have horns? A glance at the roof of the Sistine Chapel shows one example of answering “yes” to that silly-sounding question. As it turns out, the horns are a literal possible translation of part of the Hebrew and rendered as such in the Vulgate. But “rayed” (with light) fits well with the context of an influence from being in God’s presence, matches well with Paul’s paraphrase, and makes sense with the fact that people don’t have horns.
The Bible does not say “The earth is flat.” But it does use flat earth imagery. The Bible does not say “The earth is young.” It doesn’t specifically refer to more than a few thousand years. Ridiculous atheistic “errors in the Bible” webpages claim that “in His hand were seven stars” is a wrong statement. What consistent criteria should we use to determine the intent of a passage?
4 Likes
- That’s a joke among some, if not all Orthodox Jews.
E.g. repeatedly referring to the sun rising and setting and stopping overhead mid-flight, and the bible never says that the earth is a globe.
3 Likes
See Michelangelo’s Moses in St. Peter’s in Chains.
1 Like
- You don’t have to be a YEC to believe the earth is flat, and you don’t have to believe the earth is flat to be a YEC, but if you believe what the Bible says, you have to believe the earth is flat and Young Earth Creationism, or you’re interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
0:00 / 6:18 Do you still believe we went to the moon? - Conspiracy Music Guru
1 Like
The Bible does state that the Earth doesn’t move, so we can add Geocentrism to the beliefs a literalist must take on.
3 Likes
-
Roberts, John R. (2020). The Biblical Cosmos is Three-Tiered—No Question.
-
Isaiah 40:22
-
God sits above the vault of the earth?
3 Likes
- Potential Consequences of Disproving Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory
- While the scientific community has long established the Earth’s age and spherical shape, the persistence of beliefs like Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory can have significant societal implications. Here are some potential consequences if these beliefs were definitively disproven:
- Social and Cultural Implications
- Erosion of Trust in Authority: If individuals who believe in these theories feel betrayed or misled by scientific institutions, it could erode trust in other areas of expertise, such as medicine or climate science.
- Increased Social Division: Public debates and disagreements over these topics could exacerbate existing social divisions and lead to further polarization.
- Impact on Education: There could be challenges in maintaining a science curriculum that aligns with scientific consensus while respecting diverse beliefs.
- Economic Implications
- Potential Legal Battles: Disproving these theories could lead to legal challenges, particularly if they are used to justify discriminatory practices or policies.
- Impact on Businesses and Industries: Industries that rely on scientific research and technological advancements could face challenges if public trust in science is undermined.
- Psychological Implications
- Cognitive Dissonance: For individuals who strongly believe in these theories, the cognitive dissonance of confronting evidence to the contrary could lead to psychological distress.
- Potential for Extremism: In some cases, individuals may become radicalized and engage in harmful or dangerous behaviors.
- Social and Cultural Implications
- While the scientific community has long established the Earth’s age and spherical shape, the persistence of beliefs like Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory can have significant societal implications. Here are some potential consequences if these beliefs were definitively disproven:
2 Likes
Remapped flat earth imagery:
The creation days are an accurate and highly condensed timescale which can be unraveled here:
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Is this just a poetic way of repeating the same thing but in reverse order? No, it’s both ways. The second instance of a thousand years corresponds to the one day with the Lord. So it’s …“and a thousand years (with the Lord) as one (Creation) day.” This makes sense because God is not bound by time. He can act slowly with a drawn out formative creation event, or very quickly with miracles. This is the plain meaning, but there is also a hidden formula here.
A “day with the Lord’’ is us spending a day with the Lord. We have been made in God’s likeness, so it’s our time, our day (same as Adam’s day) with the Lord that is measured as one thousand years of literal earth time. Earth time is to our time as our time is to God’s time.
Days to years: 365 (days in a year) x 1000 = 365,000 (literal years in a day)
1,000 years to 1 Creation day: 365,000 (years) x 1000 = 365,000,000 (365 million years)
So 1 Creation day is 365 million years. That wont add up to 4.5 billion years over 6 days. However, a day is not a constant as we go back millions of years:
| Years ago | Hours in a year | Hours in a day | Days in a year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Today | 8,766 | 24 | 365 |
| 100 million | 8,766 | 23.33 | 376 |
| 200 million | 8,766 | 22.66 | 387 |
| 300 million | 8,766 | 22 | 398 |
| 400 million | 8,766 | 21.33 | 411 |
| 500 million | 8,766 | 20.66 | 424 |
| 600 million | 8,766 | 20.33 | 431 |
| 700 million | 8,766 | 20 | 438 |
| 0.8 - 1.5 billion | 8,766 | 19 | 461 |
| 2.0 billion | 8,766 | 18 | 487 |
| 2.5 billion | 8,766 | 17 | 516 |
| 3.0 billion | 8,766 | 15 | 584 |
| 3.5 billion | 8,766 | 12 | 731 |
| 4.0 billion | 8,766 | 10 | 877 |
| 4.5 billion | 8,766 | 4 | 2192 |
| 13.8 billion | 8,766 | 1 | 8766 |
By using the number of days in a year starting from the beginning of a Creation day we then get this (the time of Christ being the beginning of Day 7):
| Literal lenth of Day | Days in a year | Beginning of Day | End of Day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 7 | 365,000,000 | 365 | 0 | -365,000,000 |
| Day 6 | 411,000,000 | 411 | 411,000,000 | 0 |
| Day 5 | 461,000,000 | 461 | 872,000,000 | 411,000,000 |
| Day 4 | 461,000,000 | 461 | 1,333,000,000 | 872,000,000 |
| Day 3 | 487,000,000 | 487 | 1,820,000,000 | 1,333,000,000 |
| Day 2 | 516,000,000 | 516 | 2,336,000,000 | 1,820,000,000 |
| Day 1 | 2,192,000,000 | 2,192 | 4,528,000,000 | 2,336,000,000 |
| Beginning | 8,766,000,000 | 8,766 | 13,294,000,000 | 4,528,000,000 |
In conclusion, the universe created “In the beginning” was 13.3 billion years ago, and the Earth was created at the beginning of Day 1, 4.5 billion years ago.
1 Like
I laughed so hard it hurt! That butchers the Hebrew in so many ways it’s astounding, and it does so hilariously. For example, even in English placing the “waters above the heaven” lower than the heavens is just silly!
Not even close – they don’t represent a time scale at all, and if they did it would be six days separated by unknown periods of time.
That’s not what the text says – it says a day is “as a thousand years”; you can’t play arithmetic games with the text and end up with something contrary to the text. Besides which, the text isn’t giving a mathematical statement in the first place!