Old Rocks
Diamond Member
No, not guesses. Based on the isotope ratios in meteorites, and rocks from the moon.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
A Legit Young Earth Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover MagazineThe bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didnt 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 Earths accretionthe swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earths 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 Earths 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]
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?
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.
I would like for you to remember how things are insignifanct in terms of the history of the earth the next you start spewing about global warming.
A Legit Young Earth Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover MagazineThe bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didnt 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 Earths accretionthe swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earths 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 Earths 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]
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.
fyiA Legit Young Earth Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover MagazineThe bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didnt 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 Earths accretionthe swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earths 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 Earths 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]
I read the other day...a renowned scientist, historian and genius ...Sarah Palin....she said the earth was only 6,000 years old. The dinosaur bones were just tests of our faith.
Only 4.4 Billion years old? Wow, this changes everything!
A Legit Young Earth Theory: Our Planet May Be Only 4.4 Billion Years Old | 80beats | Discover MagazineThe bits that make up Earth apparently took their time pulling themselves together. New research hints that our home didnt 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 Earths accretionthe swirling together of gas and dust that formed our planet. Researchers previously believed that the Earths 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 Earths 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]