Posted on 12/20/2007 1:37:02 PM PST by blam
LOL, how does an event happening "4.567 billion years ago" fit into a young-earth perspective ?
Merry Christmas!
Thanks for the topic blam, and the ping DLR.
When the Days Were Shorter
Alaska Science Forum (Article #742) | November 11, 1985 | Larry Gedney
Posted on 10/04/2004 10:31:59 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1234919/posts
Did you get to see it last night?
Right next to the Moon!
Really neat!
New research suggests it is actually 30 million years younger... the Moon was thought to have coalesced from a disc of molten debris blasted off the Earth and the Mars-sized interloper... The researchers base their analysis on studies of an isotope of the metal tungsten in lunar rocks. That isotope, tungsten-182, is produced by the decay of two other elements: hafnium-182, which has a half-life of 9 million years, and tantalum-182. Tantalum-182, however, is not an intrinsic component of the Moon – it forms when energetic charged particles from space, called cosmic rays, slam into the lunar surface. Previous estimates of the Moon's age were based on tungsten measurements that did not subtract the effect of the decay of tantalum.Previous estimates (and those described in this article) are not based on the tungsten measurements, they are based on the bias that the Moon *must have* formed from an impact on the proto-Earth by a Mars-sized object.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
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.