GeologyRocks

The tidal effect of the Moon causes the rotation of the Earth to SLOW so days are now longer than they used to be.

This is evidenced by coral growth rings showing a 396 day year back in the Devonian (345Ma) giving ~22 hour days back then.

[note 1000m years ago is only last year !!!]

Hello,

From what I can gather you are basing this on a rhythmite which seems to show tides occuring once daily instead of twice. Am I understanding you correctly?

Not all tides are semi-diurnal. In some places they are diurnal (once daily) or following a much more complex pattern. For example the gulf of mexico:

 http://nearshore.utmsi.utexas.edu/tides/oct_2008.pdf
http://www.freetidetables.com/state/Alabama/sid/51804ad9

It is also known that the orbit of the moon in relation to earth is changing and that its mean radius is slowly increasing. I think it can actually be measured. Don't forget to take this into account.

How secure is the evidence from coral? I am looking at rhythmites apparently showing days twice as long 300my. This is so far for expected data may have been overlooked

Thread with pictures. Please visit (pages 4 and 5)

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/80157-ancient-earth-rotation-period.html

Belief is the Enemy of Truth

It's not watertight evidence, if that's what you mean - however it matches with astronomical "wisdom" and there's more evidence than just corals. Try googling - I got plenty of papers etc coming up (most are pay-per-view however, so you may not be able to read more than the abstract).

Just a small word of warning - your arguments are not very sound or coherent at the moment. As other people said in the other forum the data you present needs more context - which formation, age, why tidal deposits?, how many?

Presenting a picture of 8 or show laminations does not really show anything...

Are you the same Jon from the other forum? If so you have been very helpful. That thread grew out of a question - what evidence for ancient Earth rotation. Hence the evidence (photographs, all sourced even if not presented in the manner of a scientific paper) is presented piecemeal throughout the thread together with my analysis.

I came here in the hope it might lead to access to people closer to real evidence with whom I could discuss this controversial subject - not so much in confrontation than in a spirit of open-minded investigation.

 It seems to me that the evidence for much longer days stares us in the face. The bands of similar size and nature between the neap tides do count as 8 or so. Of course, larger and more samples, better photo resolution and closer study would reduce possibility for misinterpretation. 

Nevertheless I have now measured 3-4 discrete samples/sources and all yield similar results. In addition, two of the sample photographs displayed a multiplicity of fortnightly bands, and similar results are found in successive layers. Therefore the day count is already supported by

1) repeatability of evidence

2) similar depth of deposit of daily sediment over significant periods (logical in stable weather conditions)

Meeting the above criteria, especially 1) surely means this evidence - no matter how ATM - should perhaps be taken seriously enough to warrant further study. Repeatability is after all the cornerstone of scientific measurement.

 Now I seek to test alternative evidence that contradicts this interpretation. I hope people with experience can help here.

 Perhaps I should also briefly state my theory of Earth evolution which also applies to all heavenly bodies with the final outcome being determined  primarily by scale.

 The young planet was smaller and denser and all continents formed a sphere with just over half today radius. About 0.7 billion years ago a transformation took place that blew the Earth up in size, My conjecture is that this was H (and possibly He) atoms forming from a condensed plasma core. H being the bulk of the universe matter and also the product of neutron decay. This phase change caused oceans to emerge between continents. Earth expanded to a larger diameter than today. Expansion peaked about 300 MYA allowing giantism to flourish on a lower gravity, quieter planet. Later as H2 was lost into space and  yet more H involved in terrestrial chemical reaction forming H20 NH3 CH4 etc the Earth volume receded to present day. Earth expansionists miss this contraction period out, but subduction where mid-oceanic ridges disappear under continents is evidence for it.

This theory of evolution also is strongly suggestive oil is indeed abiogenic. (Oil lakes have been photographed by NASA on another body in the solar system.)

You could make a case that geology, largely funded by mineral and oil exploration, may as a science be dissuaded from pursuing a line of enquiry that would be inimicable to the domination of big oil interests over the planet's economy and even destiny.

rodin

I am going to not touch your theory but your line of argument is paradox, meaning your own argument supplies the arguments against it. A denser, smaller earth would have increased rotation and so shorter days. Increase the radius of the earth will lead the earth to rotate slower. No geology required to prove this, simply physics. Imagine a skater on ice with the arms close to the body and then stretching out the arms rotation will slow. Since your cannot add new mass to the earth. Even your theory does not add mass, only volume, as any condensed plasma core would already have been present. So mass stays constant, radius increased, ergo rotation would slow, not accelerate. There is a major flaw in your fundamental idea that will make proving your increased earth day theory most likely impossoble because you will never be encounter a solid base of evidence without a paradox in them.

Mathias

The ice skater analogy I use myself. 3000MYA Earth must have been spinning x times as fast as today as a small dense planet. 300MYA Earth must have been spinning maybe half as fast as today at close to maximum diameter So far I have only checked 300MYA and (apparently)  600MYA. A day twice as long means expected slower rotation.

And what would be the motor or mechanism behind earth expanding and contracting like a yoyo?

How do you implement that there is evidence for subduction much before you first contraction period? Just think of Rodinia or the Greenstone belts.

Rodinia and Pangea are just ways to try to explain a smaller spherical Earth. The continents were once all joined together. There is no evidence of subduction before 700mya I know of and there are no sea bed mappable older that 700mya. There is subduction taking place now but I think a relatively recent process driven by contraction of Earth. You can see the top of the mid Pacific ridge disappearing under North America.

I explained the motor for this one-off expansion and subsequent contraction on this thread already. In brief a phase change from condensed or collapsed matter into atomic hydrogen massively expanding volume. Possibly all planetary bodies form around 'mini black holes' or some other supercondensed state and undergo a similar hydrogen evolution phase. large gas planets keep their hydrogen, stars ignite theirs, small moons lose  their hydrogen entirely, Earth is on the cusp. Still losing H2 to space now but much faster 300mya with lower gravity.

 'In theory, a black hole can have any size or mass above the Planck mass.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Another possibility is a high energy condensate of protons and electons and/or neutrons in iron. The exact mechanism is  subject for a separate study, I can only make suggestions based on some knowledge of what is theoretically possible and what has actually been observed.

In essence the hot core was plasma not pure atomic iron

Nope, not me.

And this is the main issue here - a short photograph is of little value. What makes you sure than *all* rhymites are preserved? What if there's been erosion or some not deposited? What if the photograph next to it had "the right number"?What if all but that photo showed the right number?

What you present is a very tenuous hypothesis, with little evidence, which is presented in an incoherent way (and is hence hard to follow). In addition (and please take this in a constructive manner), stating things like "Earth expansion" is almost automatically seen as "crackpot". *If* you really think you have evidence, you need to try tie those photos to the sedimentology and location, then check in another area (preferably using a different method) of the same time. Then check with different methods.

Your "theory" of Earth history (it's really more of a fanciful idea) is not good at all and is contradicted by numerous data, which I'm not going to go into here, but do read some basic textbooks and I'm sure you'll see why.

This definitely descends into crackpot territory and I find slightly insulting. My PhD was partly sponsored (~2%) by an oil company and this has nothing to do with the conclusions I draw. Most research (in the UK at least) is sponsored by the Research Councils, not oil companies...

I've not heard that conspiracy theory regarding oil companies and geologists before. I wish it were true, BP might have kept me on after my summer placement!!

Anyhow, I feel I shall debate this on an economic rather than scientific level...

Oil companies exist for primarily to make money for their shareholders. This is the same of all companies in a Capitalist society (which I believe we still are despite the fact that the nation now owns variable proportion of some large banks).

The biggest expense for oil companies is the exploration and production costs. I would be willing to bet that most research in the field of hydrocarbon geology (source rocks, reservoir rocks, traps, pathways etc.) has been funded by the oil companies. This is with the aim of understanding where to find oil and the quantities available with more certainty thus reducing the risk of unproductive exploration to oil companies

I am also willing to bet that the board members of the large oil companies are dominantly composed of people with a background in accountacy and law, the same as most companies. These people will only care about their cashflow, turnover and profit and couldn't care less about where the oil comes from.....as long as they can continue to find it.

Therefore, if oil was formed from some inorganic source rather than the organic sources as is currently believed the oil companies would be very interested in this theory, especially if it made discoveries more predicatable. Hence, oil companies are not in a conspiracy with geologists because it would be of no benefit to them.

Now, oil companies being in a conspiracy with certain governments/regimes is another matter.......

Belief is the Enemy of Truth

 Ah so you don't discount the notion of 'conspiracy' just its extent...

 I would say that oil companies and governments in the end work for the same elite group whoever they are. That is not to say oil company employees are all 'in on it' - that would be ridiculous. But at some level strategic control is maintained. Why for example is abiotic or abiogenic oil rejected in the West yet pursued in Russia? Is only Western science credible?

 Jon - about  evidence - I have just got a paper by G E William 'Late Precambrian tidal rhythmites in South Australia and the History of the Earth's Rotation. JGS London Vol 146 1989 pp 97-111

In it are a multiplicity of much better defined tidal rhythmite sections which appear to show in the region of 10 earth days per Lunar fortnight. I hope to get an electronic copy of this paper soon so I can annotate photo enlargements. Perhaps one of the things we can establish is whether my layer counting is valid. The one thing that could throw it off would be if there were multiple days condensed into what I take to be the neap tides and indeed the researchers allude to this possibility. There is a very nice shot showing alternating thin and thick FORTNIGHTS as well as progressively thickening daily bands as we approach midway between Neap tides. The thicker fortnights presumably reflect the new Moon tides.

I found this quote from the paper  interesting

 '...the fewer laminae per cycle found in the Chamber's Bluff Tillite is attributable to conteporaneous scouring'

 ...and wondered how close in time sample sites were (and how well dated) because I would expect, if my theory or hypothesis is correct, a measurable variation in day length over periods as short as 50my.

The quote shows a possibility of making excuses (adjustments) for data not producing expected results. I would like to see re-examined rhythmite data with an open mind on what earth rotation may have been.

Expectation is not just the mother of disappointment, it is the father of subjectivity.

I am too busy prepairing my mapping project that starts next week. Please excuse that I thus not going into a deeper discussion of the issue of day-lenth and earth-expansion theories.

In the course of studying mining/petroleum engineering for 1.5 years and then geology for 5 years I have not once been told that abiogenic oil/gas does not exist nor that the abiogenic idea is per se invalid. I think your perception of abiogenic oil being rejected in the west is based on distorted perspective or view on the available science and popular science sources.

I do know for example of abiogenic gas production in China but even the Chinese are still saying that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt their conclusion (Wang Xianbin et al. 1997 - Chinese Science Bulletin).

I do not have a source but oil/gas production in Japan is known to be influenced by mantle sources and there is one gas field that has a very abiogenic fingerprint.

From my current knowledge I think that the focus on biogenic oil is simple because oil companies need to be economic. If abiogenic oil theory would indeed be so prospective and useful they'd be using it. It would only help them in discovering new oild fields. The Chinese authors quoted alsocontemplate that production from abiogenic fields is often sub-economical as the "forces" on the migrating oil and chances of it being destroyed before accumulation in a reservoir are higher than for biogenic oil. 

To my knowledge only abiogenic gas is in production or considered feasible. Knowing that gas forms at higher temperatures and that oil breaks apart very quickly this might underline that abiogenic oil is simply not economical. 

I hear what you say and there may be some truth to the 'uneconomic' theory. Abiogenic oil comes from deep down. Wells can only go so deep, and no doubt every 100m beyond a km cost increases exponentially.While it seems existing depleted fields can replenish this takes time.

However, if all resevoirs in the world were tapped, including Alaska, Antartica etc.perhaps we could extract a sustainable amount of oil on a basis of field rotation - analogous to crop rotation farming...

Knowing coal contains fossils is not proof positive of coal being a fossil fuel. Rocks contain fossils. What proof exists that coal is definitely organically derived?

Natural gas is methane. 4 hydrogens have to reduce 1 carbon to produce this. At least my theory explains where the hydrogen comes from. Can the standard model account for abiogenic methane production, presumably the precursor to higher alkanes? This would surely require the release of hydrogen at depth?

Don't just think of the cost of wells. Every substance has its stability field dictated by temperature, pressure and physico-chemical conditions (to just name the common ones). Lets assume oil is produced at depth...if on the way to a reservoir only one of the many stability conditions is no longer matched it is destroyed and breaks apart.

Now lets also assume they do replenish. It is known by theory and evidence that hydrocarbon migration takes a long time. Very long time. Think in centimeters per year or decade. Taking a superfast, likely fasted ever fluid migration is thehydrothermal fluids of the silesian MVT Pb-Zn deposit. It formed in likely less than 50.000 to 5.000 years. Since MVT fluids are very similiar, perhaps even same source, as oil formation waters and fluids we can use this as the fastest possible time that a fluid is flowing to form something.

I have to add 5000 is the exception! All others need 100.000 to 5.000.000 years. What does this show? Even with the superfast perspective fluid migration would take forever in human terms.

Also, do not forget, MOST oil fields are of biogenic origin! They would not replenish!

For coal: Consult the literature. There is overwhelming proof. If you examine coal under a microscope you see that even the tiniest parts are from old plants, then you have the H-, O- and C-Isotope compesition, sedimentary structures, fossils, and and and. The proof is overwhelming.

How to make oil/gas at depth: No H reservoir in the core or mantle is required. Simple subduct OH containing rocks/minerals (there are plenty) and also subduct Limestone (mainly CaCO3). I actually saw a paper about this some time ago. If I would have known I could use it I'd have written down title and author.

On the alkanes...I dont know but from my knowledge of chemistry and geology I would doubt any other hydrocarbon than methane would remain stable at the conditions that deep. So likely alkanes could not even form even if they wanted to.

Good information for me M. RThanks again.

Coal  case is cut n dried. And there are huge deposits. So the vast scale of oil fields do not preclude biogenic origin.

But why would some organic deposits yield carbon and others hydrocarbon?

The paper on methane formation by reaction of limestone with rocks I will try to track down. Presumably the reaction was duplicated in a lab.

I must admit I had never heard of abiogenic oil and/or gas before now and definately not to the extent that they were exploitable.

I'm still a little unsure of how abiogenic hydrocarbons actually form. I can see the basic reaction between the -OH ground and the CaCO₃ but this leads to further questions.

1. How much Limestone is actually subducted? It is a very light rock and typically forms on the continental crust which itself is rarely subducted. This would appear to lead to the conclusion that very little limestone is carried into the mantle.

2. If the answer to question 1 is 'a lot is subducted' then does this suggest that abiogenic gas/oil may be found at all the worlds active and ancient destructive plate boundaries (assuming a suitable trap structure exists)?

3. Given that the majority of Limestone is organic in origin does this mean that abiogenic oil/gas is actually biogenic but just formed from a different source and by a different process to 'traditional' oil/gas formation?

I believe it has to do with what types of organisms made the coal or oil and where.  Coal is mainly from woody type and land plants from swamps, where oxygen concentrations are low at the deposition points.  Oil from organisms/algae/etc in the sea, where dissolved hydrogen and oxygen exist.

1. How much Limestone is actually subducted? It is a very light rock and typically forms on the continental crust which itself is rarely subducted. This would appear to lead to the conclusion that very little limestone is carried into the mantle.

 We should take all rocks containing C into account, however, in detail I do not know. 

2. If the answer to question 1 is 'a lot is subducted' then does this suggest that abiogenic gas/oil may be found at all the worlds active and ancient destructive plate boundaries (assuming a suitable trap structure exists)?

 Good question. Same answer though. But consider the pressure/temperature conditions that might lead to destruction of hydrocarbons.

3. Given that the majority of Limestone is organic in origin does this mean that abiogenic oil/gas is actually biogenic but just formed from a different source and by a different process to 'traditional' oil/gas formation?

Maybe? Perhaps some fractioning of C-Isotopes occures that  blurrs the biogenic/abiogenic origin? Sorry that I have no answers.

 On Russian abiogenic oil: Here is a quote from a Russian Geoscience magazine. I will just quote their conlusion from O. K. Bazhenova and T. K. Bazhenova

Genesis of Oil: A Fundamental Problem of Geology
(The Current State of the Problem)

CONCLUSIONS
Oil is a biosphere transformation product, which
formed and accumulated in seas and sedimentary
sequences of former geological epochs and transformed
under the influence of the Earth’s heat. Genetic
relation of oil to living substance is undoubtedly evidenced
by its composition and properties: the presence
of biomarkers in both oil and HC extracts of rocks, as
well as opticity characteristic only of biogenic systems.Confinement of oil and/or gas to sedimentary basins,
relationship between oil and/or gas reserves, the volume
of OGS formations, and their oil potential also
indicates its relation to the life activity of former geological
epochs. Studies of the scale of OM accumulations
in sedimentary basins and numerous calculations
of the budget of oil-and-gas generation, which were
carried out for different OM types, allow us to affirm
that the scale of HC generation in the Earth’s sedimentary
cover can ensure reserves of oil, gas, and solid bitumen
for a long period. 

DOI:
10.1134/S0024490208050052

Another article in the issue comes to a smiliar conclusion. I might disagree with the "a long period" but then again they didnt define what they mean with "long". 

Are oil and coal ever found in proximity or in a mixed field? You might expect this were both biogenic since both are a form of reduced (de-oxidised) carbon.

Yes. Early onshore UK oil exploration started in coal areas because the miners were paddling in the stuff.