Younger Earth: 4.4 Billion Years?

[Old Rocks]

No, not guesses. Based on the isotope ratios in meteorites, and rocks from the moon.

 

[blu]

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?

its not beyond comprehension.... its actively being studied and understood. give it 10 years to be fully fleshed out

 

[American Horse]

"If correct, that 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."

According to that comparison a person 44 years 8 months old is "a mere youngster" compared to someone who is 45 years, 4-1/2 month old. Still, that doesn't diminish this expansion of knowledge about our planet, and it is fascinating how much we learn by teasing it out as these scientists did.

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[konradv]

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?

Radioactive decay.

 

[konradv]

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.

Why? That's totally irrelevant. We're concerned with what's happened the last 200 years, NOT millions or billions of years ago. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans spewing out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year.

 

[JBeukema]

This isn't an AGW thread

 

[Zona]

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

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.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Correct....and it was a different size initially, until the prototype planet hit us and then formed the moon with the splatter....plus the moon was closer when it was first formed and it's gravitational pull was different, which gave us shorter days, initially....from what I have seen on The Universe....

 

[Care4all]

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

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.

fyi
No where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is only 6000 years old....that is the doing of MAN.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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

Only 4.4 Billion years old? Wow, this changes everything!

 

[xotoxi]

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

It's sort of like Miguel Tejada, only the opposite direction.