Time dilatation on Earth surfacec

[spinner]

Assuming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old rotating all that time at roughly constant speed of about 30KM per second, is there a lag between the age of the Earth's core and the age of the crust?<br />I understand that at this rate of speed the effect is quite insignificant, but given a length of the process it could be meaningful.

 

[bobw]

Just a rough guess using 30 KM/sec and c=300000000 M/sec and plugging it into what I think is the equation, I get that the center will be 4.49999997749999994374999971875 billion years old if the equator is 4.5 billion. It looks like about 22.5 years different. EDIT: I got that backwards, didn"t I...the edge is younger. duh <br /><br />While I was looking around trying to find out how much different it was I started a google search for "center of record older than edge" hoping to find the equation and I stumbled across this: http://zapatopi.net/labs/geriatric_migration.html It's pretty funny! I ended up downloading a .pdf from here http://www.nyu.edu/classes/gspscience/hou/lectures/lecture_09.pdf . It has the equation, I just don't know if I did it right so don't use that answer for homework <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

Seems right to me, I haven't run the number, but notice that your time difference is something like .000003% which is "negligible" especially considering the error possible in radioactive dating (I think it gets up to several million years or so when you take uranium back 4.5 billion years).<br /><br />Also, gravitational time contraction is going to mess with that number too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[iron_sun_254]

This would only apply to the Equator. As you moved towards the poles the effect would be less. <br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Iron_Sun_254- Are you Iron sun from a former conversation?<br /><br />Anyway- Hi!<br /><br />That means the equator is older than the poles!<br /><br />However, how would continental drift skew that - ignoring a catastrophic model but going with the uniformitarian model of continental drift [for ease of calculation- I actually favor a catastrophic model].

 

[alkalin]

I remember some of the siesmographics done a few years ago to explore the earth’s interior, and a very startling result was that the core has a slightly different period of rotation than the crust. But I do not remember where this was published. Could have been about 10 years ago.

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - Yes, I had heard that also. <br /><br />In a different study - perhaps somewhat theoretical.<br /><br />From memory: It basically indicated that differential rotation internally is one of the causes of tectonic activity closer to the surface.<br /><br />As well as friction causing heat causing volcanism.<br /><br />That's from memory - I am currently researching too many subjects at once.<br /><br />I know internal radioactivity is also postulated as a cause for internal heat; etc.<br />OK, is the core rotating faster, slower, or simply in a different direction?<br /><br />How does this relate to earth's magnetic field fluctuations and the switching of the north and south magnetic pole- aka pole reversal?<br />

 

[alkalin]

To answer your questions as best I can: The results were data, not theory. Secondly, there is merit for tectonic movement, but based only on some differential heat, Imo. Thirdly, if the crust is resting on a flowable interface, then not much heat should be generated. Fourth, I suspect there are possible sources of heat such as radio-activity, or a slow process of cooling after first formation, and certain chemical processes still going on, or a combination of all of the above. And there may be more that can be added. We do not know for sure yet.<br /><br />I think the article said the rotation period of the interior was slightly slower than the crust, but my memory is sometimes likewise.<br /><br />Imo, your last question is more tenuous in terms of answer. We do not know very much yet in these areas. The sun may play a major role in this, but on the other hand there are influences going on here on earth that require a lot more understanding. Hopefully science can answer some of these questions with time and intent in the future to investigate.<br /><br />Let me ask you, how does magnetic pole switching affect our environment? And does it play a role in the age of the surface as opposed to the interior?<br />

 

[siarad]

Been away a month & trying to catch up<br />Interesting thought I've had myself but there's no time variation with atomic clocks around the Earth, maybe simply 'cos there's no <i>relative</i> motion. A different <i>age</i> would seem to imply an <i>absolute</i> time not a relative one.