Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
Waaay too cool for my little mind.

Well the, FM, you should be able to appreciate what it does for minds like mine. Hell, if Ros is thrown, where does that leave me?

What does it tell us when these old rocks are found? Simple now, take it slow and easy.

That also leads to the question of how old could the oldest rocks ever be? I'm assuming that the planet was too hot at the beginning for solid material to be around.
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 12:04 pm
Whenever we find really old rock belts, we can add to our understanding of how old land masses were emplaced, or the mineralogical makeup of the early crust (Most scientists have stated that the early crusts should be equally divided among continental, oceanic, and deep mantle materials.
The "fabric" of the old landmasses and their migration directions adds to our knowledge of mineral and resource belts (Thats what Im mostly interested in).

Rocks in Churchill must be older than 4.2 By because the dates were set by U/Th/Nd dates , so there were probably even older sequences of melting rock. We could be looking at a chemical "fossil" of the cooling earth up there in Canada.
0 Replies

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/05/2022 at 01:06:27