Younger Earth: 4.4 Billion Years?

[JBeukema]

The bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didn’t form as a fully-fledged planet until 70 million years after its currently accepted birth date, making the planet younger than scientists believed. The evidence appears in Nature and looks at the Earth’s “accretion”–the swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earth’s accretion was a fairly steady process, happening in about 30 million years, but this study suggests that Earth took a lot longer to form.

“The whole issue hinges on working out how long it took for the core of the Earth to form, which is one of the big unknowns in this area of science,” said Dr. John Rudge, one of the authors at the University of Cambridge. “One of the problems has been that scientists usually presume Earth’s accretion happened at an exponentially decreasing rate. We believe that the process may not have been that simple and that it could well have been a much more staggered, stop-start affair.” [The Telegraph]
​

A Legit “Young Earth” Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover Magazine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didn’t form as a fully-fledged planet until 70 million years after its currently accepted birth date, making the planet younger than scientists believed. The evidence appears in Nature and looks at the Earth’s “accretion”–the swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earth’s accretion was a fairly steady process, happening in about 30 million years, but this study suggests that Earth took a lot longer to form.

“The whole issue hinges on working out how long it took for the core of the Earth to form, which is one of the big unknowns in this area of science,” said Dr. John Rudge, one of the authors at the University of Cambridge. “One of the problems has been that scientists usually presume Earth’s accretion happened at an exponentially decreasing rate. We believe that the process may not have been that simple and that it could well have been a much more staggered, stop-start affair.” [The Telegraph]
​

A Legit “Young Earth” Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Is this you admitting most 'young' Earth theories are illegitimate?


“If correct, [this model] would mean the Earth was about 100 million years in the making altogether,” Dr. Rudge said. “We estimate that makes it about 4.467 billion years old–a mere youngster compared with the 4.537 billion-year-old planet we had previously imagined.” [BBC]

 

[JBeukema]

Is this you admitting most 'young' Earth theories are illegitimate?

'Admitting'?


Huh?

 

[froggy]

The bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didn’t form as a fully-fledged planet until 70 million years after its currently accepted birth date, making the planet younger than scientists believed. The evidence appears in Nature and looks at the Earth’s “accretion”–the swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earth’s accretion was a fairly steady process, happening in about 30 million years, but this study suggests that Earth took a lot longer to form.

“The whole issue hinges on working out how long it took for the core of the Earth to form, which is one of the big unknowns in this area of science,” said Dr. John Rudge, one of the authors at the University of Cambridge. “One of the problems has been that scientists usually presume Earth’s accretion happened at an exponentially decreasing rate. We believe that the process may not have been that simple and that it could well have been a much more staggered, stop-start affair.” [The Telegraph]
​

A Legit “Young Earth” Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover Magazine

The age of the planet is nothing more than a guess, or theory What do they have that they know is over 4 mill. years old to compare it to?

 

[editec]

What's a merely 70 million years out of 4,000 million years?

These are scientific wild assed guesses, anyway.

 

[Douger]

Right/ Your future pResident, Shrieking Sarah, has already declared it to be 6 thousand years old.
I s'pose this Nazi would agree.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I read somewhere that time might have decelerated since the beginning of the Universe

 

[G.T.]

I read somewhere that time might have decelerated since the beginning of the Universe

Time itself decelerated? Time is relative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I read somewhere that time might have decelerated since the beginning of the Universe

Time itself decelerated? Time is relative.

Right.

But the unit of measure of a second here on Earth might not necessarily have been the same unit in the past.

 

[G.T.]

I read somewhere that time might have decelerated since the beginning of the Universe

Time itself decelerated? Time is relative.

Right.

But the unit of measure of a second here on Earth might not necessarily have been the same unit in the past.

The only way that's possible is if the Earth was at one point a different size and had a different Gravitational force.

 

[JBeukema]

Right/ Your future pResident, Shrieking Sarah, has already declared it to be 6 thousand years old.
I s'pose this Nazi would agree.

Well, that was an unexpected Godwin

 

[JBeukema]

I vaguely recall an article that stated that scientists noticed an apparent change in the rate of decay of a sample of radium 133(?) used to determine what a 'second' is.

I thought I'd bookmarked it, but I can't find it,

 

[FA_Q2]

Time itself decelerated? Time is relative.

Right.

But the unit of measure of a second here on Earth might not necessarily have been the same unit in the past.

The only way that's possible is if the Earth was at one point a different size and had a different Gravitational force.

The theory was originally devised with a meaningless reduction in the speed of light as time passed. It was used to explain why we can see things that are MUCH further than 6000 light years away. The mechanics were never explained and the theory was essentially created to 'force' the observed into the young earth model of 6000 years. It simply does not make sense. No matter if time is faster or slower it does not matter to the actual age of the earth at all as 60 seconds passing faster is still 60 seconds and to the earth it would not matter. A second will still be the same amount of time to what is experiencing it.

 

[blu]

Right.

But the unit of measure of a second here on Earth might not necessarily have been the same unit in the past.

The only way that's possible is if the Earth was at one point a different size and had a different Gravitational force.

The theory was originally devised with a meaningless reduction in the speed of light as time passed. It was used to explain why we can see things that are MUCH further than 6000 light years away. The mechanics were never explained and the theory was essentially created to 'force' the observed into the young earth model of 6000 years. It simply does not make sense. No matter if time is faster or slower it does not matter to the actual age of the earth at all as 60 seconds passing faster is still 60 seconds and to the earth it would not matter. A second will still be the same amount of time to what is experiencing it.

yep. I spent a long time studying young earth 'science' just so I could see how ridiculous it is and this was one of the craziest theories. here is a young earth site that tries to talk about it:
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

its not the one I studied from, the one I studied from had actual math & physics calculations, but that link explains it in english.

 

[FA_Q2]

The only way that's possible is if the Earth was at one point a different size and had a different Gravitational force.

The theory was originally devised with a meaningless reduction in the speed of light as time passed. It was used to explain why we can see things that are MUCH further than 6000 light years away. The mechanics were never explained and the theory was essentially created to 'force' the observed into the young earth model of 6000 years. It simply does not make sense. No matter if time is faster or slower it does not matter to the actual age of the earth at all as 60 seconds passing faster is still 60 seconds and to the earth it would not matter. A second will still be the same amount of time to what is experiencing it.

yep. I spent a long time studying young earth 'science' just so I could see how ridiculous it is and this was one of the craziest theories. here is a young earth site that tries to talk about it:
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

its not the one I studied from, the one I studied from had actual math & physics calculations, but that link explains it in english.

Thanks for the link, it was a hilarious read and I thought that there were a few telling points..

Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

So... We are back to the solar system is in the CENTER of the universe now!!! Besides the fact that gravity would NOT create the effect they are looking for in that situation I thought that we had kicked this back in Galileo's day, why are we back?

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.

Basically, it is right because the bible says so and natural laws do not apply so I must be right.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time.

Where 'cosmic local time' remains undefined!!

Sorry for detracting and brining this to a topic that belongs in the religion section but I could not resist, it gave me a good chuckle. I digress....

To the OP, this is rather a small change considering we are going from 4.5 to 4.4. That is almost an insignificant change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Significant only to geophysicists and astrophysicists.

By proxy evidence, life started about 4 billion years ago. So whether the age for a fully formed planet is 4.5 or 4.4, it seems that life started just as soon as the conditions allowed a semi-stable environment that had water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And keeping time constant has lead to a Universe that is compose of 94% of stuff that is beyond human comprehension.

Maybe gravity does not propagate at a steady pace past a critical distance?

Or maybe our 4 dimensional "understanding" of the Universe is appropriately disoriented for the limited human mind?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is this you admitting most 'young' Earth theories are illegitimate?

'Admitting'?


Huh?

a joke gone bad.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's a merely 70 million years out of 4,000 million years?

These are scientific wild assed guesses, anyway.

exactly

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Significant only to geophysicists and astrophysicists.

By proxy evidence, life started about 4 billion years ago. So whether the age for a fully formed planet is 4.5 or 4.4, it seems that life started just as soon as the conditions allowed a semi-stable environment that had water.

bingo!