What is the age of the Earth?

[KerrMetric]

Seismic (spelling?) and ultrasounding have been performed. Don't know what good that'll really do.

Well it will tell you the physical properties of the material the different seismic waves travel through.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

stupid and ignorant are not the same thing.

ignorance is fixed with education. stupidity is not.
ignorance is lack of knowledge, stupidity is lack of ability.

afaik, no one here has called anyone stupid, only naive or ignorant.

and again, truth is an adequate and sufficient defense in cases of libel or slander.

 

[KerrMetric]

• Inner core: 1.7% of the Earth's mass; depth of 5,150-6,370 kilometers (3,219 - 3,981 miles)
  The inner core is solid and unattached to the mantle, suspended in the molten outer core. It is believed to have solidified as a result of pressure-freezing which occurs to most liquids when temperature decreases or pressure increases.
• Outer core: 30.8% of Earth's mass; depth of 2,890-5,150 kilometers (1,806 - 3,219 miles)
  The outer core is a hot, electrically conducting liquid within which convective motion occurs. This conductive layer combines with Earth's rotation to create a dynamo effect that maintains a system of electrical currents known as the Earth's magnetic field. It is also responsible for the subtle jerking of Earth's rotation. This layer is not as dense as pure molten iron, which indicates the presence of lighter elements. Scientists suspect that about 10% of the layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen because these elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.
• D": 3% of Earth's mass; depth of 2,700-2,890 kilometers (1,688 - 1,806 miles)
  This layer is 200 to 300 kilometers (125 to 188 miles) thick and represents about 4% of the mantle-crust mass. Although it is often identified as part of the lower mantle, seismic discontinuities suggest the D" layer might differ chemically from the lower mantle lying above it. Scientists theorize that the material either dissolved in the core, or was able to sink through the mantle but not into the core because of its density.
• Lower mantle: 49.2% of Earth's mass; depth of 650-2,890 kilometers (406 -1,806 miles)
  The lower mantle contains 72.9% of the mantle-crust mass and is probably composed mainly of silicon, magnesium, and oxygen. It probably also contains some iron, calcium, and aluminum. Scientists make these deductions by assuming the Earth has a similar abundance and proportion of cosmic elements as found in the Sun and primitive meteorites.
• Transition region: 7.5% of Earth's mass; depth of 400-650 kilometers (250-406 miles)
  The transition region or mesosphere (for middle mantle), sometimes called the fertile layer, contains 11.1% of the mantle-crust mass and is the source of basaltic magmas. It also contains calcium, aluminum, and garnet, which is a complex aluminum-bearing silicate mineral. This layer is dense when cold because of the garnet. It is buoyant when hot because these minerals melt easily to form basalt which can then rise through the upper layers as magma.
• Upper mantle: 10.3% of Earth's mass; depth of 10-400 kilometers (6 - 250 miles)
  The upper mantle contains 15.3% of the mantle-crust mass. Fragments have been excavated for our observation by eroded mountain belts and volcanic eruptions. Olivine (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 and pyroxene (Mg,Fe)SiO3 have been the primary minerals found in this way. These and other minerals are refractory and crystalline at high temperatures; therefore, most settle out of rising magma, either forming new crustal material or never leaving the mantle. Part of the upper mantle called the asthenosphere might be partially molten.
• Oceanic crust: 0.099% of Earth's mass; depth of 0-10 kilometers (0 - 6 miles)
  The oceanic crust contains 0.147% of the mantle-crust mass. The majority of the Earth's crust was made through volcanic activity. The oceanic ridge system, a 40,000-kilometer (25,000 mile) network of volcanoes, generates new oceanic crust at the rate of 17 km3 per year, covering the ocean floor with basalt. Hawaii and Iceland are two examples of the accumulation of basalt piles.
• Continental crust: 0.374% of Earth's mass; depth of 0-50 kilometers (0 - 31 miles).
  The continental crust contains 0.554% of the mantle-crust mass. This is the outer part of the Earth composed essentially of crystalline rocks. These are low-density buoyant minerals dominated mostly by quartz (SiO2) and feldspars (metal-poor silicates). The crust (both oceanic and continental) is the surface of the Earth; as such, it is the coldest part of our planet. Because cold rocks deform slowly, we refer to this rigid outer shell as the lithosphere (the rocky or strong layer).

Source:http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earthint.htm


Now since i am so scientifically stupid educate me to which of these you use for dating the earth

None of that information pertains to the age. That is just a list of the structure.

 

[simplyg123]

so if you do not use the structure of the earth to age it what is used?

 

[calidog]

sounds like they have a good knowledge of the upper 19 percent depth and the rest rely on theory.

 

[KerrMetric]

sounds like they have a good knowledge of the upper 19 percent depth and the rest rely on theory.

What is wrong with theory?


Just about everything is theory. That the electrons wandering around in the wires of your computer is just "theory".

That the PN junctions of the transistors etched on the CPU chip function is just "theory".


When a seismic wave propagates a certain way in a sold body you can get information from this.

 

[simplyg123]

What is wrong with theory?


Just about everything is theory. That the electrons wandering around in the wires of your computer is just "theory".

That the PN junctions of the transistors etched on the CPU chip function is just "theory".


When a seismic wave propagates a certain way in a sold body you can get information from this.

whats wrong with it is it is unknown, it is a guess, there is nothing wrong with a guess, but its not a fact, and shouldnt be implied as one

 

[KerrMetric]

so if you do not use the structure of the earth to age it what is used?

The dating of the Earth is primarily (though not exclusively) through radioactive dating of rocks.

Now this historically has provided a LOWER limit to the age. After all - if you date a rock at 4 billion years of age then obviously the Earth is at least that old.

So all the dating of the oldest earth rocks (or I should say zircon crystals) has shown that they oldest all seem to be about 4.4 billions years of age. Now you can also date meteorites and the oldest of them seem to be in the 4.5 billion years of age area. There is also helioseismological data that indicate the Sun is approx. 4.57 billion years of age.

Put all this together (and there are many peices of this data) and you get that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

 

[KerrMetric]

whats wrong with it is it is unknown, it is a guess, there is nothing wrong with a guess, but its not a fact, and shouldnt be implied as one

It is not an unknown. When waves pass through material of a given density their speed and path is determined. Do you deny this and call it a guess?

It is not a guess.

Why do you use such words?

Do you believe that gravity exists? After all - you cannot see it.

Do you believe that electrons are inside your computer transferring charge around? After all - no one has ever seen one?

 

[calidog]

What is wrong with theory?


Just about everything is theory. That the electrons wandering around in the wires of your computer is just "theory".

That the PN junctions of the transistors etched on the CPU chip function is just "theory".


When a seismic wave propagates a certain way in a sold body you can get information from this.

theory is good. electron theory provides us with a visual picture of something we can't see.
The PN junctions (forgive me- I'm getting outta my league, starting to use a little theory to complete this poin) of the transistors etched function as designed.
When a seismic wave moves a certain way across a solid body we get data and compare that with other data and assume a conclusion.
When we can see it or touch it, we no longer rely on theory. We now have factual proof.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

whats wrong with it is it is unknown, it is a guess, there is nothing wrong with a guess, but its not a fact, and shouldnt be implied as one

the word theory has a common sense meaning and a scientific one. you need to distinquish between the two. everyone else is using the term theory with regards to it's scientific meaning, not it's common sense one.

the scientific term for a guess is conjecture.
it is not the same thing as the term theory which is a well defined set of ideas about a topic for which there is good evidence for it being true.

theories do not become facts when they are proved.
theories are seldom if ever proven but rather evidence to a standard that resembles the legal beyond reasonable doubt.

you are mixing scientific vocabulary and common sense man-in-the-street vocabulary and just confusing the issues, mostly for yourself.

 

[simplyg123]

The dating of the Earth is primarily (though not exclusively) through radioactive dating of rocks.

Now this historically has provided a LOWER limit to the age. After all - if you date a rock at 4 billion years of age then obviously the Earth is at least that old.

So all the dating of the oldest earth rocks (or I should say zircon crystals) has shown that they oldest all seem to be about 4.4 billions years of age. Now you can also date meteorites and the oldest of them seem to be in the 4.5 billion years of age area. There is also helioseismological data that indicate the Sun is approx. 4.57 billion years of age.

Put all this together (and there are many peices of this data) and you get that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

this may all be true, if the theory in which calculates the age of these isotopes and rocks and crystals is correct.

But is it a fact that it is correct?

 

[KerrMetric]

When we can see it or touch it, we no longer rely on theory. We now have factual proof.

Not so. There is no real difference. After all - when we see or touch we are really modelling the observer interaction with the world. Electrons moving in our nerves etc etc.

And science technically never proves a thing. Never has and never will.

 

[pgp_protector]

Simplyg123.

Is there any scientific Fact that you would accept, and what is that Fact ?

 

[KerrMetric]

this may all be true, if the theory in which calculates the age of these isotopes and rocks and crystals is correct.

But is it a fact that it is correct?

It is a fact it provides a consistent model. It is as factual as te science in your cars engine or your computer. What more do you want?

And don't you think we check these models for consistency in other areas of physics?

 

[calidog]

Not so. There is no real difference. After all - when we see or touch we are really modelling the observer interaction with the world. Electrons moving in our nerves etc etc.





there IS a considerable difference




And science technically never proves a thing. Never has and never will.





Absolutely in agreement!!

 

[simplyg123]

i accept science for what it is

theoretical explanation of phenomena
phenomena being: An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. pl.

 

[pgp_protector]

i accept science for what it is

theoretical explanation of phenomena
phenomena being: An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. pl.

Simplyg123.

Is there any scientific Fact that you would accept, and what is an example of that Fact ?

 

[calidog]

the closer we can see it or touch it, the greater the accuracy of analysis.
that is, the greater we can interact with it.

 

[KerrMetric]

i accept science for what it is

theoretical explanation of phenomena
phenomena being: An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. pl.

But it is more than that. It produces results that can be checked. It makes predictions of the outcomes of experiments which again can be checked.

Something dogma never does I might add.