- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Last edited:
Bad news: The asteroid that just missed Earth is coming back. And...
- Thread starter Anno Catuli
- Start date
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,646
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
- Location:
- Colorado
There are plenty of other methods of acquiring age determinations. I use many of them in my line of work, determining ages of rocks, ore minerals, etc. U-Pb, Re-Os, Sm-Nd, K-Ar, and so on. Each has its own best applicable age ranges and margins of error.
Oh and I certainly don't use carbon. Well not true. Only if I am looking at stable isotope data on carbonate rocks or carbonate alteration in mineralized systems, but that is not doing age determinations.
Oh and I certainly don't use carbon. Well not true. Only if I am looking at stable isotope data on carbonate rocks or carbonate alteration in mineralized systems, but that is not doing age determinations.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
QUIT USING FACTS!
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
Estimates of Earth's Age
1658 Bishop James Ussher publishes calculations, based on biblical accounts, that Earth's history began in 4004 B.C.E.
1897 Lord Kelvin argues that Earth is between 20-40 million years old, based on the rate at which he believes Earth cooled from a molten state to its present temperature.
1900 John Joly figures that if sodium washes into the oceans at a steady rate, the proportion of sodium in the oceans shows that Earth is 90-100 million years old.
1907 B. B. Boltwood applies knowledge of radioactive decay rates to estimate the age of Earth at 2.2 billion years.
1913 Arthur Holmes uses radioactive dating to show that Earth is 4 billion years old.
1953 Clair Patterson analyzes meteorites to determine that Earth is 4.65 billion years old.
(there's a very clear trend here age estimate-wise)
My guess is that this number should/will probably be doubled, and possibly tripled, within the next decade or so; maybe Jacob is just the kid to prove it, if some hot-shot 9 year old doesn't beat him to it.
1658 Bishop James Ussher publishes calculations, based on biblical accounts, that Earth's history began in 4004 B.C.E.
1897 Lord Kelvin argues that Earth is between 20-40 million years old, based on the rate at which he believes Earth cooled from a molten state to its present temperature.
1900 John Joly figures that if sodium washes into the oceans at a steady rate, the proportion of sodium in the oceans shows that Earth is 90-100 million years old.
1907 B. B. Boltwood applies knowledge of radioactive decay rates to estimate the age of Earth at 2.2 billion years.
1913 Arthur Holmes uses radioactive dating to show that Earth is 4 billion years old.
1953 Clair Patterson analyzes meteorites to determine that Earth is 4.65 billion years old.
(there's a very clear trend here age estimate-wise)
My guess is that this number should/will probably be doubled, and possibly tripled, within the next decade or so; maybe Jacob is just the kid to prove it, if some hot-shot 9 year old doesn't beat him to it.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Not sure why the first couple are mentioned. Those weren't universally accepted or even close to it the way the dates are accepted now within the scientific community.
The trend is that as science and dating has gotten better the date ranges have been tightened up. Even with the 4.65 age(the last I read was around 4.5) those are all falling in the margin of error of the studies (around 60-70 million years). You're not seeing those massive jumps now..and even when you fthey are falling within the margins of errors of the previous work most times.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,646
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
- Location:
- Colorado
Sorry. I meant to word that as an opinion. :wacko:
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Whatever Satan.
scottiepippen1994
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts:
- 9,934
- Liked Posts:
- 2,238
- Location:
- Chicago Illinois
[video=youtube;i3Pr8yC8_F4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Pr8yC8_F4[/video]
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,646
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
- Location:
- Colorado
I skimmed the article. (I admit it. Sorry), but wasnt he talking about the age of the universe and not the age of the Earth? Also, the 2.2 billion year age determination may have been correct...for the exact rock he analyzed. We can only analyze the oldest rocks on Earth and say we are at least "x" years old.
MRubio52
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,693
- Liked Posts:
- 385
- Location:
- Chicago
The premise from the start is wrong.
There should only be scientists, not young earth or old earth, not religious or atheist, simply scientists. Science is not art, it is not open for interpretation, there are the facts, and then there are the different ways people go about interpreting the facts.
So, to live up to the avatar and sig I have adopted here is an extraordinarily small, minuscule sampling of links that support the Big Bang theory.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/20/1101738/-Proof-of-Big-Bang-theory-wins-prestigious-award
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
But whatever, all of that can be neatly surmised in this:
[video=youtube_share;irtgawJF9Qc]http://youtu.be/irtgawJF9Qc[/video]
Now look, you can either believe in it or not, to be honest, neither I, nor science, nor the universe itself, cares if you believe it or not.
At the end of the day the intellectual stunting of a society draws back to trying to explain science with religion, rather than having both exist as separate entities. There is absolutely no finer example of this than the Middle East, who were at the forefront of science and mathematics before their culture completely collapsed in 1100 and never recovered. Ever.
So I mean, using religion to augment science is folly. You're only looking to prove what you believe.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
I included all the easily cited (semi-famous) estimates of Earth's age to show how the numbers increased exponetially, over a "relatively" short period of time, as new methods and discoveries became available.
I think it's important to remember that the "universe" as we currently understand it, has only been "known of" conceptually since the 1920s. It's still a new field of exploration and discovery by any "stretch" of the imagination. To say for certain that the Earth is only 4-5 billion years old because that's when some space rocks flying around us were formed seems like a pretty big reach to me.
Btw, how old is our Moon? (depends who you ask)
Edit; and thanks for not calling me mean names.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Around 4.4-4.6 billions years. You're still taking in the margin of errors of the calculations.
In regards to this"To say for certain that the Earth is only 4-5 billion years old because that's when some space rocks flying around us were formed seems like a pretty big reach to me. "
It's not as simple as that.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
He (Jacob) was trying to account for the carbon (Earth) forming around our Sun in such a short period of time (he used the 7 billion number but didn't cite a source so who knows how he came up with that number) and then went on to say "it would have to be more like 21 billion...which screws everything up."
Remember, the current 4.65 billion year old Earth age estimate is based on the age of our local meteors, not on the age of Earth rocks themselves which are hard to pin down because of the planet's tendency to "recycle" stuff.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
You're right, its not that simple.
We don't know how old the moon is because we have no "core" samples. All moon rocks that we do have are the debris left over from what?... the impacts of meteors.
How old are moon rocks/meteors? 4.5 billion yearsish. (this makes me giggle a little 'cause it's silly)
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,646
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
- Location:
- Colorado
Ok. I thought Jacob was talking about the big bang. I will go back and read it again tonight.
I work in the Slave Craton in Nunavut from time to time. Some of the oldest rocks in the world there; up to 4Ga. My thesis rocks were ~2.6Ga.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
He was talking about the big bang but was deducing a carbon creation problem with it generally, and using our Earth's age as an "example" of that problem.
What were the most common elements (and sings of life/value if any) of your thesis rocks? (I love this stuff)
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,646
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
- Location:
- Colorado
They were just granitoid rocks (relatively boring) surrounding a Au-bearing greenstone belt. The greenstone belt is where I am really interested, but understanding the surrounding rocks was important to understanding the evolution of the terrane. I guess the most interesting finding would be that they were derived from continental crust that subducted enough to metamorphose to an apatite-bearing garnet amphibolite that was then partial melted. the melt then intruded into the continental crust again. There were originally only 4 units mapped but I was able to break out 12 units, mostly from rare earth element patterns. Meh. Thats probably not too interesting for most people.
As far as life, I didnt check. :tiptoe: But sorry. Back on topic. I am going to read the article again before I comment any more about it. I thought the 7billion number was something he was disproving as the age of the universe (and I had no idea where that number even came from to begin with). Let me catch back up with everyone else!
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
To hell with everybody else, I find your work fascinating. (and my favorite element is Pb, speaking of boring)
Remember the kid is only 12 when you read his "quotes" and stuff; his lanquage skills seem pretty average for his age.
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,725
- Liked Posts:
- 4,699
- Location:
- Texas
Again, it's "scientific research". Whether or not it is common knowledge isn't relevant. The fact is the knowledge of different shaped galaxies has been around in the scientific community for a long time and he made a big(and wrong) assumption in his thesis saying that all galaxies are spiral shaped.
Not to mention, we haven't even defined what "common knowledge" actually is.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,277
- Liked Posts:
- 500
Code_Blue makes a good point.
Common knowledge (today).
The Universe is 13.5 billion years old.
(we can assume from this that the Milky Way is about 10-12 billion years old but math gets very fuzzy here)
The Sun is 5 billion years old.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
(all numbers are rounded off to real numbers; however, it can be safely assumed from past/current failures, those numbers are low by a factor of 3.14159....etc, plus or minus a ratio of 1.618)
All jokes aside, if anybody wants to "chase the rabbit" further down the hole Earth age-wise, I would encourge them to read "How old is the Sun" at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html.
And if I was better at math I could demonstrate how Bishop U's estimate of 6,000 years (5,600 his time) and Darwin's first (published) estimate of 300 million years are a plus or minus ratio well within acceptable parameters given what we now "know" and what not.
(Hawking tried to solve the "age problem" by putting a black hole at the center of the sun, LOL)
Edit; and always, always always remember (can't stress this enough) ...our concept of "years in time" is entirely based on how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun. This "constant" is the most important factor in all the math involved in the current thinking.
Common knowledge (today).
The Universe is 13.5 billion years old.
(we can assume from this that the Milky Way is about 10-12 billion years old but math gets very fuzzy here)
The Sun is 5 billion years old.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
(all numbers are rounded off to real numbers; however, it can be safely assumed from past/current failures, those numbers are low by a factor of 3.14159....etc, plus or minus a ratio of 1.618)
All jokes aside, if anybody wants to "chase the rabbit" further down the hole Earth age-wise, I would encourge them to read "How old is the Sun" at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/sun_1.html.
And if I was better at math I could demonstrate how Bishop U's estimate of 6,000 years (5,600 his time) and Darwin's first (published) estimate of 300 million years are a plus or minus ratio well within acceptable parameters given what we now "know" and what not.
(Hawking tried to solve the "age problem" by putting a black hole at the center of the sun, LOL)
Edit; and always, always always remember (can't stress this enough) ...our concept of "years in time" is entirely based on how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun. This "constant" is the most important factor in all the math involved in the current thinking.