Ancient time data from The Moodies Group, Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa

Dear h.poropudas:

wrote in message
oups.com...
....
(at Moodies Group time 3220 Ma ago)).

Tides would then have been 13.40 - 10.74 times present tides ?

You may be assuming something about the amount of free surface water to
form tides, and the size of the bodies. The minimum amount of water
required to form rhythmites would change. A closer Moon would simply mean
that differentiable rhythmites could be detected from a smaller water body.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear h.poropudas:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
(at Moodies Group time 3220 Ma ago)).

Tides would then have been 13.40 - 10.74 times present tides ?

You may be assuming something about the amount of free surface water
to
form tides, and the size of the bodies. The minimum amount of water
required to form rhythmites would change. A closer Moon would simply
mean
that differentiable rhythmites could be detected from a smaller water
body.

David A. Smith

No, in my estimation was only that I assumed tides be inversely
proportional to cube of Earth - Moon distance ( tidal amplitude
is proportional to 1 / r^3). Maybe oceans were few kilometers
shallower than present and whatkinds of seeds of continents
might exist and what their possible distribution was at Moodies
Group times, I have no good knowledge at present about these matters.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION FROM FIG 3A (ref.1):

One thing still about my interpretations from the fig 3A (ref. 1):

I see also peaks: at points of foreset numbers about 1 and about 14
and also about (25 - 29). What these might be ???

And also foreset numbers as high as 43 and 44 could also mean something
(even that 44 lunar days per synodic month or 45 solar days per synodic
month at Moodies Group time (about 3220 Ma ago) could be possible ???
Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear h.poropudas:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
(at Moodies Group time 3220 Ma ago)).

Tides would then have been 13.40 - 10.74 times present tides ?

You may be assuming something about the amount of free surface
water
to
form tides, and the size of the bodies. The minimum amount of
water
required to form rhythmites would change. A closer Moon would
simply
mean
that differentiable rhythmites could be detected from a smaller
water
body.

David A. Smith

No, in my estimation was only that I assumed tides be inversely
proportional to cube of Earth - Moon distance ( tidal amplitude
is proportional to 1 / r^3). Maybe oceans were few kilometers
shallower than present and whatkinds of seeds of continents
might exist and what their possible distribution was at Moodies
Group times, I have no good knowledge at present about these matters.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION FROM FIG 3A (ref.1):

One thing still about my interpretations from the fig 3A (ref. 1):

I see also peaks: at points of foreset numbers about 1 and about 14
and also about (25 - 29). What these might be ???


Sorry last figures should be (25 - 30) from fig 3A.

I have thought little bit more all these "first month" foreset
numbers from fig 3A (ref. 1) and it seems that one possibility
could be that even all half fortnights could be visible in these
figures per synodic month and even one half of half fortnight
(= "half week") so:

(9-10) could be first "week" (If I take four "weeks"
per synodic month) sign (1. week) ?
14 could be half next "week" sign (1.5 week) ?
(18 - 21) could be fortnight sign (2. week) ?
(25 - 30) could be next "week" sign (3. week) ?
(35 - 42 (or even 44)) could be synodic month sign (4. week) ?
(please check above numbers from my previous posts, due they
are not visible to me now).

What kind of (Earth - Moon - Sun) tidal system could made these
signs (fig 3A), so that in "first synodic" month every "week"
sign and even one "half week" sign is visible, if my
interpretation is correct ???



And also foreset numbers as high as 43 and 44 could also mean
something
(even that 44 lunar days per synodic month or 45 solar days per
synodic
month at Moodies Group time (about 3220 Ma ago) could be possible ???
Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

wrote:
wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear h.poropudas:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
(at Moodies Group time 3220 Ma ago)).

Tides would then have been 13.40 - 10.74 times present tides ?

You may be assuming something about the amount of free surface
water
to
form tides, and the size of the bodies. The minimum amount of
water
required to form rhythmites would change. A closer Moon would
simply
mean
that differentiable rhythmites could be detected from a smaller
water
body.

David A. Smith

No, in my estimation was only that I assumed tides be inversely
proportional to cube of Earth - Moon distance ( tidal amplitude
is proportional to 1 / r^3). Maybe oceans were few kilometers
shallower than present and whatkinds of seeds of continents
might exist and what their possible distribution was at Moodies
Group times, I have no good knowledge at present about these
matters.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION FROM FIG 3A (ref.1):

One thing still about my interpretations from the fig 3A (ref. 1):

I see also peaks: at points of foreset numbers about 1 and about 14
and also about (25 - 29). What these might be ???


Sorry last figures should be (25 - 30) from fig 3A.

I have thought little bit more all these "first month" foreset
numbers from fig 3A (ref. 1) and it seems that one possibility
could be that even all half fortnights could be visible in these
figures per synodic month and even one half of half fortnight
(= "half week") so:

(9-10) could be first "week" (If I take four "weeks"
per synodic month) sign (1. week) ?
14 could be half next "week" sign (1.5 week) ?
(18 - 21) could be fortnight sign (2. week) ?
(25 - 30) could be next "week" sign (3. week) ?
(35 - 42 (or even 44)) could be synodic month sign (4. week) ?
(please check above numbers from my previous posts, due they
are not visible to me now).

Now I have my papers. Some repairings still (I write above
figures again, lunar days per synodic month):

1 (should one be subtracted from next figures I don't know
does this belong to first synodic month's signs ??? )

(9-10) could be first "week" (If I take four "weeks"
per synodic month) sign (1. week) ?

14 could be half next "week" sign (1.5 week) ?

(20 - 21) could be fortnight sign (2. week) ?

25 or (25 - 27) could be half "week" sign (2.5 week) ?

(29 - 30) could be next "week" sign (3. week) ?

(35 - 42 (or max. even 43 or 44)) could be
synodic month sign (4. week) ?

So there would have been (35 - 42) (or even max. 43 or 44)
lunar days per synodic month at Moodies Group time (about
3220 Ma ago). This means (36 - 43) (or even max. 44 or 45)
mean solar days per synodic month and also (34 - 41) (or
even max. 42 or 43) mean solar days per sideric month.

Other Foreset Numbers should be interpreted too, but I don't
do it now, I only list what significant I see in my opinion
from fig 3A (ref. 1)
(peaks roughly above height of the peak foreset number 10,
please check if I managed to write correctly below due fig 3A
division of axis is too small to see very clearly and
please check all high peaks also separately):

(47-49)
(51-53)
(62-64)
(67-69)
(71-73)
(77-80)
(82-86)
(88-92)
94
(98-102)
(104-106)
(108-118)



What kind of (Earth - Moon - Sun) tidal system could made these
signs (fig 3A), so that in "first synodic" month every "week"
sign and even one "half week" sign is visible, if my
interpretation is correct ???

Even two "half week" signs found ???

Could these be sign of some high eccentricity orbit of the Moon
or what or have I something wrong ???




And also foreset numbers as high as 43 and 44 could also mean
something
(even that 44 lunar days per synodic month or 45 solar days per
synodic
month at Moodies Group time (about 3220 Ma ago) could be possible
???
Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Hannu

P.S. This work is difficult and I hope geologists and astronomers
could help me due my amateur knowledge is perhaps not enough to find
all important data from fig 3A and also my writings may contain
my misunderstandings or errors of mine.

Couple repairings to foreset number observations of mine
in my previous posting.
I mark them ** in text lines of my previous posting copy
of which is below (now corrected).

By the way I have also thought question that should all
"half week" signs be visible also, so there could be
then eight signs per synodic month, I don't know yet this ???

Hannu


wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear h.poropudas:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
(at Moodies Group time 3220 Ma ago)).

Tides would then have been 13.40 - 10.74 times present tides
?

You may be assuming something about the amount of free surface
water
to
form tides, and the size of the bodies. The minimum amount of
water
required to form rhythmites would change. A closer Moon would
simply
mean
that differentiable rhythmites could be detected from a smaller
water
body.

David A. Smith

No, in my estimation was only that I assumed tides be inversely
proportional to cube of Earth - Moon distance ( tidal amplitude
is proportional to 1 / r^3). Maybe oceans were few kilometers
shallower than present and whatkinds of seeds of continents
might exist and what their possible distribution was at Moodies
Group times, I have no good knowledge at present about these
matters.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION FROM FIG 3A (ref.1):

One thing still about my interpretations from the fig 3A (ref.
1):

I see also peaks: at points of foreset numbers about 1 and about
14
and also about (25 - 29). What these might be ???


Sorry last figures should be (25 - 30) from fig 3A.

I have thought little bit more all these "first month" foreset
numbers from fig 3A (ref. 1) and it seems that one possibility
could be that even all half fortnights could be visible in these
figures per synodic month and even one half of half fortnight
(= "half week") so:

(9-10) could be first "week" (If I take four "weeks"
per synodic month) sign (1. week) ?
14 could be half next "week" sign (1.5 week) ?
(18 - 21) could be fortnight sign (2. week) ?
(25 - 30) could be next "week" sign (3. week) ?
(35 - 42 (or even 44)) could be synodic month sign (4. week) ?
(please check above numbers from my previous posts, due they
are not visible to me now).

Now I have my papers. Some repairings still (I write above
figures again, lunar days per synodic month):

1 (should one be subtracted from next figures I don't know
does this belong to first synodic month's signs ??? )

(9-10) could be first "week" (If I take four "weeks"
per synodic month) sign (1. week) ?

14 could be half next "week" sign (1.5 week) ?

(20 - 21) could be fortnight sign (2. week) ?

25 or (25 - 27) could be half "week" sign (2.5 week) ?

(29 - 30) could be next "week" sign (3. week) ?

(35 - 42 (or max. even 43 or 44)) could be
synodic month sign (4. week) ?

** So there would have been (35 - 42) (or even max. 43 or 44
** and even min. 34)
lunar days per synodic month at Moodies Group time (about
3220 Ma ago). This means (36 - 43) (or even max. 44 or 45)
mean solar days per synodic month and also (34 - 41) (or
even max. 42 or 43) mean solar days per sideric month.

Other Foreset Numbers should be interpreted too, but I don't
do it now, I only list what significant I see in my opinion
from fig 3A (ref. 1)
(peaks roughly above height of the peak foreset number 10,
please check if I managed to write correctly below due fig 3A
division of axis is too small to see very clearly and
please check all high peaks also separately):

(47-49)
(51-53)
(62-64)
(67-69)
(71-73)
(77-80)
(82-86)
** (88-93) (corrected)
** 95 (corrected)
(98-102)
(104-106)
(108-118)



What kind of (Earth - Moon - Sun) tidal system could made these
signs (fig 3A), so that in "first synodic" month every "week"
sign and even one "half week" sign is visible, if my
interpretation is correct ???

Even two "half week" signs found ???

Could these be sign of some high eccentricity orbit of the Moon
or what or have I something wrong ???




And also foreset numbers as high as 43 and 44 could also mean
something
(even that 44 lunar days per synodic month or 45 solar days per
synodic
month at Moodies Group time (about 3220 Ma ago) could be possible
???
Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas

Hannu

P.S. This work is difficult and I hope geologists and astronomers
could help me due my amateur knowledge is perhaps not enough to find
all important data from fig 3A and also my writings may contain
my misunderstandings or errors of mine.