The growth of a corral fossil over 1 day

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ulysees
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Growth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of growth rings in ancient coral fossils and their implications for understanding the Earth's rotation speed in the past. Participants explore the relationship between coral growth patterns and the historical rotation of the Earth, considering both annual and daily growth rings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how growth rings of one day can be discerned in 400-million-year-old coral fossils, expressing skepticism about the methodology used.
  • Another participant suggests that the growth rings counted are likely annual, influenced by the faster rotation of the Earth in its early history, and notes that the current slowing of Earth's rotation supports this extrapolation.
  • A different viewpoint raises a concern about the relevance of annual growth rings if the Earth's rotation around itself was much faster while its orbit around the sun remained unchanged.
  • One participant proposes that the visible daily growth rings in corals are a result of the differential uptake of carbonates during day and night cycles, and mentions that seasonal changes also contribute to the growth ring patterns, allowing for estimates of the number of days in a year millions of years ago.
  • It is noted that these interpretations may rely on the assumption that the radius of the Earth's orbit has remained constant, which could be affected by various forces in the solar system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of growth rings and their implications for understanding Earth's historical rotation. There is no consensus on the validity of the methods or assumptions involved in these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the constancy of the Earth's orbital radius and the effects of solar system forces remain unresolved, which may impact the conclusions drawn from the growth ring analysis.

Ulysees
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
This is from a website on the effect of the moon on life on earth:

"By counting the growth rings in 400-million-year-old coral fossils and in 3-billion-year-old stromatolites, geologists calculate that Earth was rotating four times faster when it formed than it is today".

They could see growth rings of one day, over a 400-million-year coral? How can they possibly see that?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
I imagine the growth rings they counted were annual ones that differed because of effects caused by the Earth rotating so much faster.

Of course, that's backed by the fact that we know the Earth's rotation is slowing at a very small rate, and extrapolating that back to near the Earth's birth gives a similar number.
 
LtStorm said:
I imagine the growth rings they counted were annual ones that differed because of effects caused by the Earth rotating so much faster.

If the Earth was rotating much faster around itself, but at the same rate around the sun, then why would annual growth rings say anything about the Earth's rotation around itself?
 
It appears that the difference in day night uptake of carbonates produces visible daily (diurnal/circadian) growth rings:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3360%28197405%2948%3A3%3C553%3AGLOTOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/coral_growth.html

Over the year the seasons complete a cycle which is also visible in the growth rings, thus it appears possible to estimate the number of days in a year here, many million years ago.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ww68nw27711245km/

But this may likely be under the assumption that the radius of the Earth orbit is constant, which may have been modified by the sum of all forces in the solar system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
20K