Posted on 08/22/2010 6:45:51 PM PDT by 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, ..
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Now I don’t know how many candles to light at solstice. darn it.
This what I wonder about:
The age of the universe is purported to be 14 billion years old. The Sun being supposedly “middle-aged” at the now 4.6 billion years means that elements our solar system coalesced from were either directly created from the big bang or 1 generation away.
Was there enough time between the big bang and the birth of the Sun for a fast living Star to have formed, gone supernova and the remnants re-aggregated into our solar disc.
I tend to think not. I find many fields of science, astronomy and evolution in particular, lacking of enough time for the events to have occurred like they say.
And the real problem is that if the Big Bang only produced Hydrogen & Helium (as scientists have proposed); And a normal star can only produce elements up to Iron, while it takes a super-nova to create any elements heavier than Iron. If there wasn’t enough time between the Big Bang and the ignition of our Sun to fit in the complete life-cycle of an earlier Star then we have big problems with the science because the Earth includes tons of elements heavier than iron.
>>> 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.
The Sphinx offers multiple issues that aren’t easily reconciled, so your comparison isn’t valid. The large outcropping ROCK from which the Sphinx was carved is as ancient as any rock on the Egyptian plateau. It can be dated like any rock, including the one in Op’s posted story. But what would be the point?
When MEN decided to take their chisels to this rock is a totally separate issue that doesn’t lend itself to precise measurement. It’s an engineering and cultural event, not a scientific process.
Then the issue is further confused by the probability that the stone was reworked more then once. The current thinking is the “face” in its earliest form was of a lion and a later Pharaoh appropriated the monument for his own glorification. Add to this thousands of years of repair and maintenance, and more times of neglect, it gets iffy to pin down the timeline with any reliable precision.
If they could pin down the events in the Sphinx’s history with the precision of 4 100ths of 1%, they’d be doing pretty good.
Wasn’t ir Robert Schoch who pointed out the erosion of the enclosure rock indicated it had to have been carved out prior to the end of the last Ice Age, because that was the last time we know of prodigious amounts of rain flowing on the Giza Plateau which could have caused the degree of erosion. Anthony West places the age at between 12,000 and 18,000 years ago for first carving, IIRC.
Hey, if you live another 50 years or so, most of what you now know as facts will be false or at least modified beyond recognition.
Geez, who would have thought that Pluto would no longer be a planet?
Ran out of Bondo don’tchaknow.
I think those early stars formed fairly quickly, and were smallish and very short-lived. I listened to a lecture a couple years ago from a man who was explaining CERN, and he went into this a little bit. I think the time-line he gave was about 200 million years after the Big Bang, the first stars had been formed, gone Supernova and distributed other elements into the Universe. That would still leave well-over a 13-billion years for other stars, like our own sun and solar system to develop.
When you think of our own planet, life has been around for about 3.8 billion of the 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence. That's an ENORMOUS period of time, when you think about it especially considering modern-man has only been here about 200K years.
I knew when I didn’t see “unexpectedly” in the title it wasn’t referring to the economic downturn Imam 0bama created.
a waste of human intellect better utilized on things relevant to civilization. not to mention the wasted money spent educating a kid to study the unknowable irrelevant mysteries of infinity.
how many geniuses are we willing to pay to determine if the solar system is 4.6 or 4.8 billion years; deep time is unknowable and offers no benefit to those not on a university payroll.
time is better spent on myriad practical applications.
It certainly does beg this question. It is either insignificant or significant, not both. If it is significant, it brings to question their science.
The 2 million year difference is either insignificant or significant, not both. If it is significant, it brings to question their science.
“... either insignificant or significant, not both. If it is significant, it brings to question their science.”
I should have prefaced this with “It is either significant or un-newsworthy.”
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks NormsRevenge.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.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg · · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · · History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · · |
|||
Nope. Thought is older than Solar System.
It's not substantial, as was pointed out it's like 0.04 percent of an error. Most measures of the distance between Chicago and New York are larger than that. The supposed distance between city centers is 788 miles, or 49,927,680 inches. However if you decide that "Chicago" and "New York" are defined by the city boundaries instead of the city centers, you get an error of in excess of 40 miles. Coincidentally 2,000,000 inches is about 31 miles.
So there's an error greater than two million. Does that bring into question the science behind surveying and cartography? Hardly. The fact is that inches are an exceedingly small unit to be using to calculate the distance between cities. Likewise years are an exceedingly small unit to calculate the age of the solar system.
If the mistake was not significant the report was not newsworthy. Can’t have it both ways.
I have often thought the same thing. Not enough time has passed for all that they say happened. Neither can the scientific community create on purpose what they explain happened by chance.
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.