GeologyRocks

Very interesting, but I don't quite see how this fits in with

http://www.ourhollowearth.com

There's definitely lots of 'interesting' theories out there!

~Jenny~

Interesting stuff...Amazing what (obviously intelligent) people come up with and then spend hours putting together. I wonder why they do it...

One thing I did notice, rather than the usual creationist rubbish of the earth being only 6000 years old, the expanding earth guy suggests the earth is older than 4.6 Gyr. This is the first time I've seen someone think the earth is older than conventional theory dictates. Oh, he still berates radio-carbon dating though

Perhaps we could have some fun here and try to put together a flat earth theory?

Damn, someone beat us to it...
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Jon

I thought this might be more appropriate:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html

bit more tongue-in-cheek

Simon

An interesting link Jon, it seems these people don't understand gravity particularly well!

I can still remember my primary school teacher proving to the whole class that the Earth is round: When you look at a ship with a tall mast sailing over the horizon through a telescope, it doesn't dissapear in an instant as it falls off the edge of the world, but can be seen to sink slowly as it traverses the curvature of the Earth.

It's funny what sticks in your mind!

These sites are great! I'm going to have to spend some time and see what other delights I can find.

It's a pity the flat-earth people didn't know your primary school teacher, Benauld - they could do with some primary principles teaching

Jon

Well, it´s interesting, but may be a lot of exorbitant. Nowadays, the accretion rhythm is about 3.0000 and 15.0000 t/y (Mason&Moor) or perhaps 3x106 and 30x106 t/y (according to Henderson).

In any case, today, the Earth is growing her bulk.

Some interesting 19th Century hollow Earth believers:

J. C. Symmes

Cyrus Teed

The latter included the unusual twist that we live on the inside of the hollow Earth, the Sun being in the centre of the cavity!

That reminds me of a Dyson sphere, presumably proposed by a guy called Dyson, where we can construct a massive hollow sphere around a star and hence collect all its energy. We could then live on the inside surface of the sphere with no energy worries at all.

Sadly I have to admit hearing about it via a Star Trek episode :oops:

Jon

Jon,

You can't disguise the words STAR and TREK in any way shape or form!

BTW Same here :oops:

This absolutely proves that trilobites were terrestial creatures!. They're probably not extinct, and just hiding. They'll come round when they're hungry!

John :oops:

I thought I recognised it from somewhere :oops:

~Jenny~

good, very good!

They're probably hiding under the bed and they're going to wait until it's dark and I'm asleep, then they'll come and get me..... <paranoid icon>

Crackpot theories? I think they're great because they challenge conventional thinking. Many moons ago, when I did A Level geology my lecturer said that Plate Tectonics were a hairbrained idea which flew in the face of reason.

However, I think there are people out there who like to put weird theories into circulation in order to make some sort of name for themselves. What I call the "Expanding Head Theory",

Gus

I know quite a few people who suffer from this affliction...

Jon

Not many of them are geologists though. I can look (but not necessarily believe) at any number of earth science crank ideas, but when it comes to quasi-religious theories I switch off. heard them in the sixties....

Gus

I agree Gus, - I read recently that the Creation Theory is being taught in schools again, I believe particularly in America.
Hard to believe with modern science isn't it?

John

You're right. I don't think it's a coincidence that the present American administration has a tendency to turn a blind eye against scientific ideas, such as those associated with environmental threats. Better to seek comfort in religion when everything else goes down the pan, eh? Call me cynical but sand and ostriches comes to mind.

Gus

Comfort is surely what religion is all about. Calling on protection from a 'higher authority'.
I'm not really religious myself, but there are a great many intellegent and educated people who are great believers - and thats all faiths, not just Christianity. What makes them so convinced?
John

On the other hand, I read only yesterday that a coalition of Christian churches in the States is calling on Bush to get his head out of his arse and do something positive about environment change.

Me, I don't go in for religion, but if anyone else wants to get into it, fine. As long as they don't try to ram it down my throat.

Gus

in that expanding earth article it mentions that the earth may be alot older than we think - which got me thinking - when do we actually measure the `start point` of the earth to be?

lets face it, at some point in time there were most likely a couple of molecules or 2 particles of dust that clumped together, that clumped with more, then more, then etc. well creation of the planets and all that.

i bet that by changing the definition of how you define a planet to be a planet you can vary the age

martin

I'm sure everybody by now is in agreement that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. It took 6 days, including overtime, three tea breaks a day and a thwarted industrial dispute on the Wednesday by the UHCB (Union of Higher Celestial Beings).

Gus

You're wrong Gus. It was 7 days, cos God waiting for the undercoat to dry!

John

So that's what caused the Earth to expand! You know, it hadn't dawned on me until now.

Gus

Excellent thought! The start point of the Earth is not based on its formation - it's actually based on when the radiometric elements were "frozen" into place on meteorites - so it's not even based on the Earth. There are no 4.6Gyr old rocks on the Earth (some are close), but all meteorites have that rough date. I think lunar some lunar rocks also have a 4.6Gyr age. You can also date the formation of the solar system by doing some measurements on the Sun and then doing some maths. I've forgotten exactly what measurements and maths to do though :oops: I do remeber this calculation gives you around 5Gyr. So from that we can say the Sun formed 5Gyr and the planets (from which meteorites came) formed 4.6Gyr (at least they cooled sufficiently at that point to lock-in the radiometric elements). The oldest rock on the Earth is 3.something Gyr(???). So that gives you a range of 5-3.something Gyr for the formation of the Earth - depending on what definition you want to use.

Jon

Oldest terrestial rock is 3.8 Gy from Issuha, Greenland (not sure if thats how Issuha is spelt - but phonetically its good)

John :shock:

Ah, but am I right in thinking that the Greenland rocks are metamorphic? In which case the date we have for them is from when they were metamorphosed. I wonder how old the previously unmetamorphosed rock is?

Gus

You can date "past" the metamorphism using more complex dating techniques than bulk rock radiometrics. The age is probably that of the oldest mineral found (which is probably a zircon).

Jon

So is the date 3.8BY or older? And if so, how old?

Gus