[SeekAndFind]

Some questions come to mind as I read this article:

How many published papers are affected by this change?

Papers often quote radiometric dates to 4 or more significant figures. Theorists rely on these values.

If values are not discovered but “adopted,” is it possible there was motivation by theorists to “adopt” a different value to create consistency with other chronometers?

Does the new value make the “assessed chronology of events in the early system” more or less plausible?

What will be the ripple effect from here on for a chronometer that ticks 33% faster than previously thought?

Who will go back and correct theories based on the previous value?

[YHAOS]

Oh, Boy!

Here we go.

[tacticalogic]

If I'm reading the article correctly it will affect theories that involve timelines of events in the first few million years of the formation of the solar system, when this is the only clock they have to measure from.

After that, other clocks that are easier to read become available.

[SaraJohnson]

Evolutionists are not going to be happy...

[reed13k]

to determine time based on half life - one must know the amount that existed at the start....they don’t know how much there really was at the start so they “estimate” what they think it was. (it’s a freakin wild assed guess)