Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Sanity check with quick googling:

> Geological evidence ... indicate that 620 million years ago the day was 21 hours, says Mardling.



sort by: page size:

"Sediments formed billions of years ago in a now alien atmosphere sit thousands of kilometres under our feet, subtly modulating the length of the day."

Banded iron formations are fascinating - while browsing around I noticed an example on the relevant Wikipedia page of a rock that has layers that are thought to correspond to a day-night-cycle. The rock is 3.5 billion years old!

The idea that we have things to correspond to individual days from 3.5 billion years ago is stunning.

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


Deep geological time is hard to get your head around. 34M years ago is basically an eyeblink in deep time.

> Are you folks aware that 1000 years is already a very long time?

Geologically? Not at all. It's 0.000022% of the age of the Earth.


> Earth turned faster at the end of the time of the dinosaurs than it does today, rotating 372 times a year, compared to the current 365, according to a new study of fossil mollusk shells from the late Cretaceous. This means a day lasted only 23 and a half hours, according to the new study in AGU’s journal Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology.

I'm curious, how do they decide that the earth spun faster on it's axis rather than the earth taking longer to orbit the sun?


Claims about the Earth being only several thousand years old have been proven false.

Yet some other evidence places it much later at around 130ky. Go figure.

Make sure you calibrate your time machine offsets properly, as a day during the Cambrian Explosion is about two hours shorter than today.

It blurs the line between science and bullshit. For example in

  Scientifics say the Doomsday clock is 2:30 minutes before Midnight

  Scientifics say this wall painting is 40.000 years old
Which one is reliable? Which one should a young Earth creationist believe? Are 40.000 years real years or some kind of metaphor? Is that number reliable?

I always wonder how scientists do know that something was 25, 540 million or 2.560 billion years ago.

Seems incredible hubris to think we can reverse-calculate to 14 billion years ago with sub-second accuracy when science can't even predict if it'll rain tomorrow.

"58.72 ± 0.07 million years ago" - have to love that Wikipedian level of detail!

That actually looks really cool. I wanted to visit Skye first but Eigg is looking pretty attractive.


Someone recently applied paint AND it was thought the fossil was 280m years old.

It does rather carry a pall over the idea we can accurately date anything, doesn't it?


I think 3.5M years aren’t even that long ago in geological time scales.

> and found diatom DNA dating back to 1.4 million years.

Okay, so you're 1/45th of the way there.


I'm not arguing against that.

I'm just saying unfalsifiability is a bitch, and it's hard to find hard evidence on geologic timescales.


>> It is not a big difference in geological time.

When it was published we were 29.6 percent past the 243 year average cycle time. Now we are more than 32 percent past. No, it's not a big difference but we are meaningfully further along than when it was written ;-)


To prove the earth is not 10k years old, you could simply prove that it is 4.5G years old, though. The inability to prove a negative is only valid for binary issues, this seems binary but is actually a statement about a value on a continuum - the age of the earth.

EDIT - obviously in the context of last-thursdayism being used in the article, this doesn't work...


> Dinosaurs only died out around 100 mya.

Isn't 66 mya the generally accepted value?


As a geologist this is exactly the sort of timescale we work on.
next

Legal | privacy