It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by diamondsmith
None of you have ever ask why the year is 2000(2012).
That is a falsehood.
Many people including me have asked for your reasoning and you have refused.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Spiratio
There is no proof that it has had a 360 day year or less (this does not mean that it hasn't).... the notion that it is slowing down is based solely on data that has been collected in recent history.
There is evidence from hundreds of millions of years that the number of days is decreasing.
Here is a link to a fascinating fossil deposit in Canada I recommend everyone to visit. It describes the methods that shows that in Devonian times the day was 22 hours long.
Here is another site that even has audio to describe how the Earth is slowing.
This article talks about other issues such as 620Ma sedimentary processes showing that the Earth is slowing down.
My quick search did not find an article about shells also showing similar effects seen in coral fossils.
Thats all very well and good research and data but unless there is continuous evidence of progression over the periods of recorded history in ratio increments that reflect conformity over such large counts of time then there is no way to tell if a 22 hour day was not occurring due to a previous cycle of increase which has since decreased and repeated many times before arriving where we are... The data shows that the day was 22 hours that long ago...it doesn't tell one for how long 22 hour days were in swing. It also doesn't tell one if there are other variables that may have cause acute extremities in yearly turnovers in the near or ancient past...such as large astrological bodies asteroids and such.
Originally posted by diamondsmith
No he is not because he never lie,hard to believe,isn't it?..Yes it is...breathtaking..because what we don't understand we destroy.
1. They don't deal with far in the past prehistory tho (that is what I'm getting at there is room for unknown variables) the data and graphs that use prehistoric fossils and such are estimates defined by assumption that its been slowing at continuous and increasing pace and that there have been no variables so it is very much estimation and speculation in favour of logical probability... however logic is sometimes fallible
2. There is no know way to dramatically alter the Earths rotation (except ---->).... you assume that there haven't been asteriods with mass equal to or greater than the moon -- this also does not require them to be monsterous in size comparably... tho its a possibility.
This is just a cop out response to actually acknowledging the merit of what was offered as food for thought...Your reasoning is very narrow minded and ignores the variables..
You refuse to acknowledge that you really know practically nothing of the astronomical events of the ancient past.. no one does!
I'm not debating, simply offering food for thought which if read with an open mind that thinks about what is said and imagines all the possibilities rather than responding to defend assumptions, will reveal to anyone the fallacy in assuming such absolutes.
I'm not going to respond to any more of your augmentative posts because there is no argument there is no solid evidence to disprove what was notioned only data which assumes a linear progression of the most convenient interpretatiobns...
I am sorry...I don't understand...can you explain this.....Please.....
Originally posted by GAOTU789
The joke has gone far enough.