« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Earth's Rotation ...  

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 20 May 25 4:04 AM | 24 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 08568 of 08571
(This msg. is a reply to 08527 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

mt:

Re: “It is quite incorrect to state that mountains are a 'recent geologic phenomena' - they have existed pretty much since the 'floating' continental plates have existed.”
Absolutely, though today's mountains are mostly different from the ones that existed long ago. Pangaea broke apart around 175 million years ago and most of today's mountains did not exist yet. The Himalayas, for instance, are only 50 million years old, formed by the collision of Africa and Asia, a collision which continues to this day and accounts for it having the world's largest and most rugged peaks.

Three of today's oldest mountain ranges DID exist back then. The Appalachians, the Scottish Highlands and the Little Atlas mountains of Morocco are even older than Pangaea, though they're greatly eroded from what they once were. When Pangaea existed, they ran up its middle, part of the huge Central Pangaean Range that may have had peaks significantly bigger than those in today's Himalayas.

You're also correct that the rate of continental drift is not constant. That's mostly because the continents have not drifted in straight lines. What's now North America initially drifted Northwest, but then turned west, then to the Southwest. Africa - which used to press against North America's eastern side, moved east but not by much, mostly rocking back and forth then heading due North at about one inch per year. Consequently, North America's western drift for 175 million years at about 1 inch per year accounts for nearly all of the separation that exists today between New Hampshire and Morocco - which once touched. Doing the math, Pangaea broke apart 175 million years ago and New Hampshire and Morocco are 219 million inches apart. ABOUT an inch per year!!!

There are some rocks near my house with an unusual composition that may not exist anywhere else on the planet - EXCEPT for a small piece of Morocco which matches it exactly. It's amazing. Scientists have not only figured out why the continents fit together but also how long they've been drifting. With the shape of the supercontinent known, they can now theorize on the ocean currents that must have existed at the time, warm and cold, and, with that determined, the location of jungles, deserts and highland plains of that time.

Pangaea existed for 160 million years so its shape changed greatly. The map shows the supercontinent as it existed from roughly 190 to 230 million years ago. You've gotta love science.








» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Earth's Rotation ...
By: monkeytrots
in GRITZ
Mon, 19 May 25 5:26 AM
Msg. 08527 of 08571

Posted with the note that I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it does summarize correctly the non-creationist scientists' beliefs

Was the earth's core rotating when it cooled from it's gaseous state

The Earth's core didn't form directly from a gaseous state; it formed as part of the planet's accretion from solid and molten material about 4.5 billion years ago. During the early solar system's formation, the Earth coalesced from a hot, rotating disk of gas and dust. As this material collapsed under gravity, it conserved angular momentum, causing the proto-Earth to spin.
The core, primarily iron and nickel, began forming as denser materials sank toward the center during a process called differentiation, while the Earth was still partially molten. This happened within the first few tens of millions of years after accretion. The core itself was never gaseous; it was liquid or semi-liquid due to extreme heat and pressure, and the inner core later solidified as the planet cooled.
Given the Earth's overall rotation, the molten core likely inherited some rotational motion. Fluid dynamics and the Coriolis effect from the planet's spin would have influenced the core’s movement, potentially setting up complex flows. Evidence from paleomagnetism and models of the early geodynamo (which requires a rotating, convecting fluid core to generate a magnetic field) suggests the core was rotating and convecting relatively early, possibly within 100-500 million years after formation.
So, while the core wasn't "rotating" as a distinct entity when the Earth was a gaseous nebula, by the time the core formed and the planet began cooling, it was part of a rotating system and likely had rotational dynamics driven by the Earth's spin. Precise details of its early rotation rate or state are still uncertain and rely on geophysical models.

My subnotes: The magnetic poles reverse, on average, every 200,000 to 300,000 years. The field is due to magma flows in the earth's interior, pretty complex, that fluctuate and change continually. The reversals are due to changes in those flows.

CONTINENTAL DRIFT/Plate Tectonics is NOT DUE TO THE EARTH's rotation. It is due seafloor spreading at the junctures of different plates at different rates. Mountains are due to uplifting magma back from the edges of continental plates caused by rising molten maga from one plate being subducted under another plate. It is quite incorrect to state that mountains are a 'recent geologic phenomena' - they have existed pretty much since the 'floating' continental plates have existed.

One of my favourite diagrams showing seafloor spreading/Plate Tectonics

Uploaded Image

I can not locate the FIRST image of this sort (late 70's) which I believe was a downward continuation of satellite gravity data. Continental drift/Plate Tectonic theory was in early adopter stages when I first started college - but the publication of these images pretty much ended all discussion of whether it was actually true.

The most common error made in geology is the incorrect assumption about rates and using the 'Theory of Uniformity' to support those assumptions.

The Theory Basically, all geologic processes seen today occurred in the past.

What the theory does NOT say is anything about rates - NOR does it state that all processes that occured in the past still occur today. Both of those statements are completely false.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next