Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The great breadths of time.
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 62 (313321)
05-18-2006 7:40 PM


To be posted in Geology/Flood forum if accepted.
I won't profess to be a christian, though I do lean in that direction and I don't want to get into an argument about who's right or wrong, but I was reading the Grand Canyon thread and would like to know why the layers of the earth require such great breadths of time.
Is it really so unrealistic that hot rock could cool within years/centuries? Maybe I'm missing something (and with only a Highschool education I'm sure I'm missing a lot)but if laboratories can simulate the formation of layers in a human lifetime, then what evidence is there that millions of years are a requirement for the formation of the Earth's layers?
Is there any direct evidence available?
My greater concern is that, once you get past the details in Cosmology, Geology, and Evolution, one is left with what appears to be an assumption of great breadths of time required to see what we see. We can scarecly deduce what has occured even 5,000yrs ago, let alone millions or billions.
I suppose the greater question here would be, are the great breadths of time considered Fact in science, or is it simply the Model that best defines our universe, such that scientists are actually open to other ideas, so long as the evidence makes sense and the "anti scientists" are simply making assertions under a misunderstanding?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 05-19-2006 5:11 AM gigahound has replied
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 05-20-2006 8:41 AM gigahound has replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2006 10:08 AM gigahound has replied
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2006 10:57 AM gigahound has replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 12:48 PM gigahound has not replied
 Message 10 by Matt P, posted 05-20-2006 4:27 PM gigahound has replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 62 (313618)
05-19-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
05-19-2006 5:11 AM


Re: Join the Thread
As this has more to do with Earth and Time in general, I didn't want to derail the other thread with a tangent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 05-19-2006 5:11 AM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 05-20-2006 1:01 AM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 62 (313981)
05-20-2006 7:14 PM


Good start?!
I've already begun researching several items pertaining to the current respones. I'll try to post a reply to each person below.
Also if my upcoming replies seem to be stoking a debate, I apologize in advance; it's not my intent to debate, but to clarify my own misconceptions and purhaps make a definitive decision on where I want to stand.
I've followed, in a limited manner, many scientific studies over most of the disciplines. However, I think much of my information has been second-hand and out-of-date, or merely insufficient.
Please be patient as I work through the information that I am being presented with here and through my research.

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 62 (313999)
05-20-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JonF
05-20-2006 8:41 AM


These are the posts that I saw mention geological testing in labs. Now that I've re-read them, it seems I was mistaken, the labs seem to be studying the folding of the Earth, rather than the layering, however, there are folds within the layers, correct? So how far off base am I here?
http://EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. -->EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
So you are saying that under pressure rocks will fold and deform. I assume this has been tested in the lab and that under pressure you can actually bend rock that normally would break.
And the cooling of rock seems to have explained mathematicly in this thread already, but here is the post that says it was done in a lab.
http://EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. -->EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
Oh, I'm sure they'll come up with some ad hoc explanation that ignores every other line of evidence. REcently we discussed on another board, the rapid formation of granitic (coarse grained) textures in laboratory setting and very controlled conditions, and YEC took this to mean that giant batholiths, like the Sierra Nevada, could have cooled in just a few weeks. Kind'a flys in the faces of logic and intuition, but there you go...
Also in the same thread message #s 130 and 131 http://EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. -->EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
So you are saying that under pressure rocks will fold and deform. I assume this has been tested in the lab and that under pressure you can actually bend rock that normally would break.
Yes, rock deformation labs all over the world have performed these sorts of experiments.
Edited by gigahound, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 05-20-2006 8:41 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2006 8:56 PM gigahound has not replied
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 05-21-2006 9:54 AM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 62 (314002)
05-20-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
05-20-2006 10:08 AM


The actual distances have been measured, in some cases, by methods that depend only on geometry and on the Doppler Effect - the same one the traffic cop uses to give speeding tickets.
Are you sure? Doesn't a remote measuring device require the signal to "bounce" back? Shouldn't it take just as long for a measuring signal to return from a target as it took to reach it? If so, then how can we measure objects at millions of light years away with this method?
I understand that many measurements are ascertained through mathematics based on brightness...but how does the above work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2006 10:08 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 05-20-2006 8:53 PM gigahound has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 05-21-2006 11:08 AM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 62 (314006)
05-20-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminNosy
05-20-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Supernova measurement
Wow, not so easy to stay on topic as I thought, I guess... I'll be more careful from here on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 05-20-2006 8:53 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 05-20-2006 9:16 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 62 (314128)
05-21-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Matt P
05-20-2006 4:27 PM


Re: A bit of math
What does ^ mean?
Is it denoting a power such that:
3(2^3)=24?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Matt P, posted 05-20-2006 4:27 PM Matt P has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2006 11:28 AM gigahound has not replied
 Message 22 by Matt P, posted 05-21-2006 2:12 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 62 (314202)
05-21-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Matt P
05-20-2006 4:27 PM


Re: A bit of math
The math below makes sense, however, isn't this the same thought process that creationists use when describing the weakening of the magnetic field or the distancing of the moon? Your example shows that if a small rock cools at a specific rate, then a larger rock should follow the same rules with exponential results.
Let's try a few examples. NosyNed describes walking on a lava field in Hawaii. The size of the rocks is on the order of 10 cm to 1 m. This gives:
t = x2 / K
t = (10 cm)2 / 10-2 cm2/s
which becomes ~104 seconds or about an hour. Rock that is this small cools rapidly, and can be stepped on. For a rock 1 m in size, this stretches to several days to cool (106 seconds).
However, there are some huge bodies of rock that look very similar to rocks we see today, notably large plutons. Plutons are large bodies of magmatic rock that have cooled slowly underground. Consider the Idaho plutons (see here: Idaho Batholith ). These plutons are ~100 km in length, and we use a distance of about half of this as our distance. Using the same math as before,
t = x2 / K
t = (5000000 cm)2 / 10-2 cm2/s
t = several million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Matt P, posted 05-20-2006 4:27 PM Matt P has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by JonF, posted 05-21-2006 8:26 PM gigahound has not replied
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 05-21-2006 9:19 PM gigahound has not replied
 Message 30 by Matt P, posted 05-21-2006 9:38 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 62 (314204)
05-21-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Matt P
05-20-2006 4:27 PM


Re: A bit of math
Some large plutons are young and are still hot as they haven't had time to cool down yet. These plutons are usually associated with geothermal activity like geysers, and Yellowstone national park is on top of one.
As I understand Yellowstone, it is a fairly active region and the dome is actually rising and could quite possibly erupt into a super-volcano. Is the rock underneath the region hot because of past activity and is in the process of cooling, or is the region still active and thus currently recieving heat/energy from the depths?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Matt P, posted 05-20-2006 4:27 PM Matt P has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 62 (314470)
05-22-2006 8:31 PM


Sorta moving on...
Ok, the math works...got it.
Now, how about rock that is actually in the ground? Such as the plutons that were mentioned earlier. From what I've read, most are poking out of the ground, but also lie deep in the earth. It makes sense to me (though I couldn't seem to find anything to substantiate my thought process) rock will cool more quickly above ground simply because of the elements: wind, rain, night-fall, winter...and they should cool more slowly in the earth because they are insulated, somewhat like a thermos.
Does Fink's law apply over the entirety of this formation? Or is there other math involved?
If the law does apply, how do the various levels of elemental cooling/deep insulation affect it (also, are there actual terms used for what I'm describing here?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 05-22-2006 9:42 PM gigahound has replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 62 (314471)
05-22-2006 8:42 PM


Still on topic...mostly
Here is a link I found about some temperature readings taken from a cooling lava lake in a volcano; http://volcano.und.edu/...t/gen_hawaii_volcs/question13.html
In the diagram, is shows the lava solidifying above and below a hot melt...is this accurate? I would think that the lava chute beneath the volcano would still be melted as well...
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2003/03_01_09.html
Here, we see that the above lake has finally cyrstalized, which to me simply means that it has cooled considerably. It has taken approx. 43 years to reach this point and although no tests have been done since 1988 (at the time of the article) there is still consederable heat within the volcano. My question here is: is the heat a result of similiar insulating as normal rock would experience deep in the Earth, or might the volcano still be getting some energy from furthur below?

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by gigahound, posted 05-22-2006 8:44 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 62 (314472)
05-22-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by gigahound
05-22-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Still on topic...mostly
Also, can Fink's Law be applied here?
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2003/03_01_09.html
Here, we see that the above lake has finally cyrstalized, which to me simply means that it has cooled considerably. It has taken approx. 43 years to reach this point and although no tests have been done since 1988 (at the time of the article) there is still consederable heat within the volcano.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by gigahound, posted 05-22-2006 8:42 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 62 (314722)
05-23-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by JonF
05-22-2006 9:42 PM


Re: Sorta moving on...
Thanks for all the clarification about FICK'S law!!
Now, is it true that when an object is hot, it begins cooling rapidly, and then slows down as it cools further? Is there a term for this?
If true, can Fick's law be modified to show the trend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 05-22-2006 9:42 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by MangyTiger, posted 05-23-2006 8:35 PM gigahound has not replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 62 (314724)
05-23-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
05-20-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Chemistry
You talked about cooling. That only applies to igneous rock. That starts in a moten state (think lava in hawaii).
The "universal" idea about rocks and minerals is that it takes Time, Heat, and Pressure for them to form. Time being the order of events required to pile on the pressure which creates the heat.
How far off am I here? Much of what I "know" is left over from grade school and snippets from hobby books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2006 10:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 05-23-2006 8:02 PM gigahound has replied

  
gigahound
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 62 (314741)
05-23-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by JonF
05-23-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Chemistry
So then, what we have are actually two heating processes, correct?
Plutons, which in general are mountains (at least, that's what I got from the reading I did.), are formed directly from molten mass.
Mineral layers are actually formed from the heat produced by decaying atoms.
Fick's law is great for tracking the cooling of molten masses, but I assume it cant be used on layered minerals (except under controled conditions?) because they would be physically cool (radioactive decay wouldn't happen fast enough to actually heat the mass would it?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 05-23-2006 8:02 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 05-23-2006 8:58 PM gigahound has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024