Solar System older than thought

AFP on Yahoo ^ | 8/22/10 | AFP

[NormsRevenge]

PARIS (AFP) – The Solar System could be nearly two million years older than thought, according to a study published on Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience.

The evidence comes from a 1.49-kilo (3.2-pound) meteorite, found in the Moroccan desert in 2004, that contains a "relict" mineral, which is one of the oldest solid materials formed after the birth of the Sun.

...

As a result, the Solar System is likely to be between 300,000 and 1.9 million years older than previous estimates, ..

[Copernicus]

"older than thought"

Yes, but didn't I read somewhere: "In the beginning was the word"?

Best regards,

[Moonman62]

It has to be at least as old as Helen Thomas.

[Jack Hydrazine]

I had to look up the word “relict.”

In geology, the term “relict” refers to structures or minerals from a parent rock that did not undergo metamorphosis when the surrounding rock did, or to rock that survived a destructive geologic process.

[Bryanw92]

>>The Solar System could be nearly two million years older than thought

Oh that’s just great. Now the warranty has run out and we never had time to get that spot on Jupiter fixed.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

As technology advances more discoveries like this will be made.

Just like the electron microscope proved that the atom, once thought to be the smallest particle, is infact not even close tot he smallest...

Such advances will take us farther and farther into a once unknown realm.

And will some day open up a whole new book of answers, ones I think the creationists and the 6,000 year old earthers will not like.

[HighWheeler]

“Oh that’s just great. Now the warranty has run out and we never had time to get that spot on Jupiter fixed.”

— — —

That Asteroid Belt is a filthy mess too.

[DBCJR]

And if they made a 2 million year mistake, why should we believe them now? Is this more Global Warming type science?

[stormer]

4,568,200,000 is the new 4,566,300,000.

[cripplecreek]

Well I’m pretty much positive that its been here for at least 46 years.

[trumandogz]

“And if they made a 2 million year mistake, why should we believe them now? Is this more Global Warming type science?”

Before you know it, they will be trying to push that heliocentric solar system conspiracy.

[stormer]

You realize this 2 million year error represents something like 4 hundredths of one percent?

[DBCJR]

Hey, just asking a reasonable question. Two million years seems like a substantial mistake. It would seem to put their science in question.

[Melas]

Everything is relative. 2 million years is nothing substantial given the magnitude of the numbers we’re looking at. A tiny fraction of a percent. Which is why I’m surprised this “discovery” is making such news. In all actuality it changes absolutely nothing.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

And if they made a 2 million year mistake, why should we believe them now?

Don't. Take a look at the relevant data and verify it for yourself. That's the nice thing about real science. It doesn't rely on belief, and findings and conclusions are subject to change as we learn more.

Is this more Global Warming type science?

No, that's an example of gross over-reach on a subject far more complex and with many more variables than the age of the solar system. There a cadre of "climatologists" insist that their findings and conclusions on the infant science of the climate are infallible and unquestionable, and go on to make a number of unscientific demands for our economy and our way of life.

[quantim]

How are the global warmists going to include that in their models?

Wait, they don’t include the Sun anyway.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

It has to be at least as old as Helen Thomas.

Now let's not get silly... She probably remembers witnessing it's creation!

[OldDeckHand]

"Hey, just asking a reasonable question. Two million years seems like a substantial mistake. It would seem to put their science in question."

Not really. Given the enormity of the time-frame they're examining, two million years one way or the other, is completely insignificant mathematically speaking. We're talking 1.9 million years out of 4.5 billion. It's like arguing if the bomb at Nagasaki detonated at 11:01:43 or 11:01:44 on August 9, 1945.

[OldDeckHand]

"No, that's an example of gross over-reach on a subject far more complex and with many more variables than the age of the solar system."

Yep. It's one thing to accurately estimate when something happened in the past versus what, when and if something will happen in the future.

They have a pretty good handle on when the last several ice ages occurred, but there still isn't a universally accepted theory on why the ice ages began or ended.

Science does an admirable job tackling what how and why things happened in the past, but they can't tell what the temperature will be in Miami two weeks from next Thursday or if it will rain. When they get that down, maybe I'll listen more attentively to their climate prognostications fifty year out.

[mmercier]

we have no clue about deep time and never will.

we cant even figger out how old the sphinx is. forget speculating about the origin of anything past in the billions or trillions of years.

tis a waste of time.