Posted on 06/07/2010 5:29:41 PM PDT by decimon
The Earth and Moon were created as the result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now it was thought to have happened when the solar system was 30 million years old or approx. 4,537 million years ago. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that the Earth and Moon must have formed much later – perhaps up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system. The research results have been published in the scientific journal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
"We have determined the ages of the Earth and the Moon using tungsten isotopes, which can reveal whether the iron cores and their stone surfaces have been mixed together during the collision", explains Tais W. Dahl, who did the research as his thesis project in geophysics at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in collaboration with professor David J. Stevenson from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
Turbulent collisions
The planets in the solar system were created by collisions between small dwarf planets orbiting the newborn sun. In the collisions the small planets melted together and formed larger and larger planets. The Earth and Moon are the result of a gigantic collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. The two planets collided at a time when both had a core of metal (iron) and a surrounding mantle of silicates (rock). But when did it happen and how did it happen? The collision took place in less than 24 hours and the temperature of the Earth was so high (7000º C), that both rock and metal must have melted in the turbulent collision. But were the stone mass and iron mass also mixed together?
Until recently it was believed that the rock and iron mixed completely during the planet formation and so the conclusion was that the Moon was formed when the solar system was 30 million years old or approximately 4,537 million years ago. But new research shows something completely different.
Dating with radioactive elements
The age of the Earth and Moon can be dated by examining the presence of certain elements in the Earth's mantle. Hafnium-182 is a radioactive substance, which decays and is converted into the isotope tungsten-182. The two elements have markedly different chemical properties and while the tungsten isotopes prefer to bond with metal, hafnium prefers to bond to silicates, i.e. rock.
It takes 50-60 million years for all hafnium to decay and be converted into tungsten, and during the Moon forming collision nearly all the metal sank into the Earth's core. But did all the tungsten go into the core?
"We have studied to what degree metal and rock mix together during the planet forming collisions. Using dynamic model calculations of the turbulent mixing of the liquid rock and iron masses we have found that tungsten isotopes from the Earth's early formation remain in the rocky mantle", explains Tais W. Dahl, Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
The new studies imply that the moon forming collision occurred after all of the hafnium had decayed completely into tungsten.
"Our results show that metal core and rock are unable to emulsify in these collisions between planets that are greater than 10 kilometres in diameter and therefore that most of the Earth's iron core (80-99 %) did not remove tungsten from the rocky material in the mantle during formation", explains Tais W. Dahl.
The result of the research means that the Earth and the Moon must have been formed much later than previously thought – that is to say not 30 million years after the formation of the solar system 4,567 million years ago but perhaps up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system.
###
Contact: Tais W. Dahl, PhD. geochemistry, Cand. Scient. geophysics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. Currently at Harvard University: 00 1 617-817-5506, tdahl@fas.harvard.edu
When conjecture is presented as fact then science has been hijacked by those with an agenda.
Go read the journal article for the specifics. The model must correlate with observed geology or it wouldn’t have even made it past the reviewers. (Assuming good reviewers that is)
Again, you present a quite clever argument. Beginning with a superficaial agreement, you then apply an argument based on absolutes that again deny any connection between what can be observerd in the lab, and what exists outside the lab, claiming there is "nothing observable", despite all of the observed data from laboratory samples and experiments, and then end with "outlandish claim" perjorative.
The science of psyops is strong in you!
Silly ad hominem idiocy.
However I don’t have an issue with your statement:
“Perhaps you need to consider that a theory is based on observations, and that includes observations of consequences. We as yet have no idea whatsoever what the source of gravity is, but we certainly can observe its consequences. We can’t directly observe what’s happening in the atomic nucleus but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a sufficiently complete and testable model (theory) based on our observations to make accurate future predictions. That’s what makes controllable nuclear reactions possible.”
The fact is, that 100’s of years ago, we could observe people getting sick, but people blamed it on demons or bad spirits. Observing the consequences is entirely different than understanding a cause.
You are only agreeing with me, but in you silly aloof manner, think that I am ignorant because you are too busy pushing an agenda, claiming your own presumed intellectual superiority. The fact is that we now look back and think, “My, it was silly to think that disease was caused by spirits, and not germs,” or “My, it was silly to believe in the homunculus and not in sperm/DNA.” or “My, all evidence seems to point to the sun NOT revolving abou the Earth.”
It’s simple stupidity that thinks that one can pin a date on the age of the Earth with so little pointing to the fact. It is no more reasonable than pointing to the Spirits, homunculus, or religion of the time. This still ISN’T science, which is why climate models DON’T work either. Have a good one.
“Gee, I must be a moron.
I always thought God created the Earth and the Moon.”
That doesn’t mean you’re a moron, just misinformed.
I'm sure that you believe radioactivity is "conjecture." I'm also sure Hiroshima will be pleased to learn that radioactive decay is on a sliding scale, subject to arbitrary magical adjustment. Does this mean we can move back to Bikini sometime next week?
You really ought to spend more time with AlGore. He's another one who likes to offer revealed truth.
I really should know better than to offer facts to dogma. It doesn't work with Leftists, or Creationists.
LOL!!! I suppose, if your superstitious...
Science is open to review, and change. But so is B.S. if it’s not passing the sniff test. I’ll leave this one alone, because I am going to eat dinner. We will just have to agree to disagree. I agree that the Earth is old, but recognize we are not yet able to date it’s age with accuracy any more than the Paleontologists I see naming the skin color of Dinosaurs.
Both are making up what people want to hear (or what they think people want to hear). If it was entirely based on nothing, no one would listen, it just has to sound authoritative and some people will buy it. Not this Freeper. See you later.
I didn’t say that God/Deity can be tested, but you can practicle a principle, and see if you get the Religion’s promised outcome, that is how it is testable. I know that to be true, even if you do not.
Gee, thanks for the teaser. Now I'ma gonna half to read the WHOLE thread.
People live in the areas of Japan we bombed...
And from what I understand, it’s a pretty nice place.
Brilliant post, and I’m not being sarcastic in the least.
“8-ball in the side pocket.”
Enjoy your dinner. Just be careful. Whatever it is, you haven’t eaten it before and it might be poison.
“It’s simple stupidity that thinks that one can pin a date on the age of the Earth with so little pointing to the fact. It is no more reasonable than pointing to the Spirits, homunculus, or religion of the time. This still ISN’T science, which is why climate models DON’T work either. Have a good one.”
What you seem to fail to grasp is that the age of the *estimated* age of the earth is based on testable, repeatable observations. You are refuting the observations (which is scientifically a good thing) based on nothing whatsoever, just your own disbelief (Not good science). If you can disprove the observations that underpin the current age estimates then go ahead, write the paper, there might even be a Nobel in it. Until you at least put up some sort of alternate set of testable observations all you have is your own personal disbelief, which you’re perfectly entitled to. However, what you don’t do is say that because the observations lead to conclusions that disagree with your personal beliefs then it is not science. That is typical of creationists, it is dishonest, and costs you your credibility.
As for the ‘silly adhominem idiocy’ you mentioned, I am re-doubling my efforts to only comment on your position with regards to the topic at hand. This is not about personal attacks, it’s unnecessary to attack anyone if the facts stand on their own... and by your posts I do conclude that you’re at least a reasonably intelligent person.
“But people should still strive to learn, and oneday we may have a lot that we can’t figure out revealed to us, it’s just that academics haven’t just figured out how to say the magic words, “I don’t know.””
See, it’s when you make statements like that one that I question your motives and/or training in the sciences. I’ve been hearing “I don’t know” in academic circles for years and it makes me wish I could live 10,000 years so I can research all those areas we don’t yet know.
Anyone that has spent more than a few years in any scientific endeavor will quickly realize that the statement “I don’t know” is the starting point for everything we do. It’s the reason we get up in the morning and do research. An academic that can’t say “I don’t know’ is simply not equipped with the most vital attribute necessary to even be called an academic.
How good was the DNA? How many broken chains? And it’s about 65 millions years old, not hundreds.
Also Carbon dating is a lot different than Hafnium decay.
A little science knowledge can be a dangerous thing. :)
How can you know that there are more unknowns about a system than knowns?? If I model all the knowns, then I have made a precise as model as possible. I then use that model to make predictions and determine if my predictions are consistent with observable data. Sure sounds like science to me, not that I’ve studied it just a wee bit myself.
Sounds like somebody likes to throw the model baby out with the science bathwater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.