Photo from article.
Photo from article.
So does that mean Mick Jagger is even older than we thought?
:: More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks ::
Fluck you Amellicans, too!
This will take some research on my part.
BTW, Go Boilers!
That means ALL RESULTS....absolutely ALL RESULTS....are worthless.
Now let's talk about global warming...
Doesn’t matter if dating is a few percent off. The world is not 6,000 or so years old.
No support there for a young (~6000 year) earth:
"Now, in a systematic, high-precision study, Joe Hiess and colleagues of the British Geological Survey have found not only the highest 238U/235U anomalies yet seen (more than 5 parts per thousand) but also a mean 238U/235U ratio almost 0.5 ppt less than the established value. As a result, lead–lead dates could be wrong by a million years or more. A lesser-used isotopic chronometer, based on samarium-146’s decay into neodymium-142, could be in for an even bigger revision: Michael Paul (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) and collaborators have measured the 146Sm half-life to be 68 million years, 34% less than the currently used value of 103 million years. The discrepancy is not fully understood, but if the new value stands, it would mean that Earth’s mantle underwent differentiation much faster than previously thought. (J. Hiess et al., Science 335, 1610, 2012; N. Kinoshita et al., Science 335, 1614, 2012.) —Johanna Miller" (emphasis added) http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/time_to_reset_isotopic_clocks
These two side-by-side statements, alone, suffice to seriously degrade this article's credibility in my eyes. In fact, I'd say that the article is deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts and thus awaken doubts.
From the very beginning, Willard F. Libby (who was later awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts) understood that the C-14 had to be (more or less) constantly formed (in the upper atmosphere, by cosmic ray bombardment of Nitrogen).
Regards,
0.499 Life.
Here we go.
Maybe I am really not as old as I feel. I hope not.
Once again scientists take steps to achieve better accuracy, and the creationists attack them for it.
Nevertheless, climate science is settled.
More gibberish from the science haters.
What was really reported was that the ratio of U238 to U235 differed by half a percentage point more than was commonly believed.
That means instead of a rock formation being a billion years old, it’s 995 million years old.
Imagine a car being driven all the way across the United States.
You’re in Nebraska and you’ve got a radar gun. You clock the car for the quarter mile or so you can see it. It registers a steady 55 miles per hour.
You don’t know when the car left New York, and you have no idea when or even if it will ever get to Los Angeles.
A) Based on the actual data you possess can you rightfully claim that the car has been traveling at a steady 55 miles per hour since it left New York?
B) Can you with any accuracy project how fast the car will be traveling on the trip from Nebraska to California?
Or, are you just guessing, based on certain assumptions?
These questions have occurred to me before concerning the speed of light. But I think it applies equally to decay rates.
Fact is, there is no way to go back in time, or forward in time, to know for sure.
