How Old is the Earth?

[BeyondET]

Would be if I copied your poor example.

Unlike you, I don't claim knowledge I don't have.

That's why you don't, and I presented examples like how water on earth is older than the sun. It can be observed by looking at young stars forming.

 

[BeyondET]

Apparently you have problems with how we write scientific articles. What is uncertain, dependent, etc. is stated as so. We don't pretend that things are more certain or conclusive than they are.

I don't believe you have contributed to a scientific article nor written one yourself. Possibly to yourself. Definitely not we as in you and someone else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike you, I don't claim knowledge I don't have.

Maybe not, but the knowledge you do have is subject to change at a moment's notice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't believe you have contributed to a scientific article nor written one yourself.

Dozens.

Possibly to yourself. Definitely not we as in you and someone else.

We as in "all of us scientists".

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's estimated to be around 13.5 billion and the interesting thing is at the center of the galaxy is a black hole in which a massive star lived out its life and supernovae before the milky way formed around it.

There are stars older than the milky way that resides in it.

Please demonstrate this claim by reference and explanation.

mostly certainly the universe is older than 14 billions years probably more like 20 to 30 billion.

Please demonstrate this claim by reference and explanation.

 

[Astrid]

I don't believe you have contributed to a scientific article nor written one yourself. Possibly to yourself. Definitely not we as in you and someone else.

Claiming knowledge you don't have.
That didn't take long.

 

[BeyondET]

Dozens.

We as in "all of us scientists".

Show me one, Point me to a a scientific article you wrote, anybody can say they are.

 

[BeyondET]

Claiming knowledge you don't have.
That didn't take long.

Why are you butting in on someone else's conversation. Are you and Hans attached to the hip? I'm not the one who claims to be a scientist, your sharp as marble.

 

[BeyondET]

Please demonstrate this claim by reference and explanation.

Please demonstrate this claim by reference and explanation.

I already did, young man

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you butting in on someone else's conversation. Are you and Hans attached to the hip? I'm not the one who claims to be a scientist, your sharp as marble.

Some people enrich conversations with valid comments.

Others just sit and take potshots.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Show me one, Point me to a a scientific article you wrote, anybody can say they are.

Sorry, not going to happen. I'm not going to reveal my name to you in public (or private). I don't even talk about which sub-field I work in.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I already did,

where?

 

[Astrid]

Sorry, not going to happen. I'm not going to reveal my name to you in public (or private). I don't even talk about which sub-field I work in.

What kind of triple distilled idiot would?

 

[sjastro]

The deal was for you to present the theory.
Instead you allow others to present your theory.

Going over the paper we have the source being a meteorite. (So we impact and atmospheric contamination that I didn't see adressed in the article)
We have assumed age and cosmic conditions that are not verifiable.
There are enough "presumptions" and "considers" and "probablies" to make anyone wonder what good the final report was.

One paragraph was almost entirely made up of wishy-washy wording.

So yep... this paper does not look very solid. But solid enough to get peer reviewed and cited.

What a load of absolute rubbish, no deals were made.
In addition to @Hans Blaster's post, your comprehension skills of the paper are either non-existent or you didn’t read the paper.

Here is a non-technical description of the paper for you to understand.
The pre solar grains are found in interstellar dust formed in the ejecta of supernovae or stars shedding their surface layers.
One particular solar grain of interest is SiC (silicon carbide) where cosmic rays largely composed of protons collide with the Si nucleus in a process known as spallation to form products such as ²¹Ne (neon) and ³He (helium), ⁷Li (lithium) and ⁶Li inside the grain.
These are stable isotopes that can hang around for billions of years without undergoing radioactive decay.
The solar grains eventually formed part of the molecular cloud from which the solar system formed and ultimately meteorites.

As stated in the report the age is based on ²¹Ne and ³He not on the ⁷Li /Li⁶ ratio which could involve terrestrial contamination.
The amount of terrestrial ²¹Ne and ³He on the other hand is only 0.27% and 0.0001% of the total isotope composition found on earth for each atom respectively.

The grains were separated from the meteorite and heated to release the ²¹Ne and ³He into a mass spectrometer which “counted” their numbers.
By knowing the number, the age of the grains can be calculated as their production rate is considered to be fairly constant.
Note this is a calculation, not an assumption as you naively suggested and there are uncertainties involved such as the rate at spallation and the probability ²¹Ne and ³He are formed if spallation does occur.
This is why there are error ranges in the calculations, but the killer is the error ranges do not include the possibility of a 6000 year old earth, nowhere near it in fact.

 

[Astrid]

Why are you butting in on someone else's conversation. Are you and Hans attached to the hip? I'm not the one who claims to be a scientist, your sharp as marble.

Funny. Attack me all you like, and
lay down a smokescreen like a ww2
destroyer.

It won't hide your post, though.

You know. The one where you
claim knowledge you don't have
(Aka making things up) immediately
after claiming you never do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, not going to happen. I'm not going to reveal my name to you in public (or private). I don't even talk about which sub-field I work in.

Hans, didn't you say archaeology isn't your bag?

Finally, I am not going to go looking in the Sinai. It is not my responsibility in the slightest. I am not an archeologist or work in any even slightly related field; I am a [sub-field redacted] physicist whose work has no applicability to the detection of ancient migrations through deserts.

If the archeologist find new evidence and change their conclusion, then I will follow their expertise.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As part of the formation of the solar system the Earth is around 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.
The ≈0.1 mm diameter chondrule in a meteorite sample I possess is of this age.

View attachment 335918
​

Chondrules are commonly dated using ²⁰⁷Pb-²⁰⁶Pb radiometric dating have been confirmed with ¹⁸²Hf-¹⁸²W dating giving consistent results for the age range.

View attachment 335920​

This actually doesn’t tell us anything without knowing how much radiation it accumulated when it was created 6000 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

What kind of [person] would?

grmorton

www.christianforums.com

 

[BNR32FAN]

The science doesn't go by your book.
If you notice there is a reference column in the table which points to the peer reviewed article the table is based on such as this.

Pb–Pb dating constraints on the accretion and cooling history of chondrites

We have analyzed the Pb isotopic compositions of whole-rocks and various components (CAIs, chondrules, and/or mineral separates) of two carbonaceous c…

www.sciencedirect.com

And all this data is irrelevant without having the data that it possessed 6000 years ago when it was created to compare it to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What a load of absolute rubbish, no deals were made.
In addition to @Hans Blaster's post, your comprehension skills of the paper are either non-existent or you didn’t read the paper.

Here is a non-technical description of the paper for you to understand.
The pre solar grains are found in interstellar dust formed in the ejecta of supernovae or stars shedding their surface layers.
One particular solar grain of interest is SiC (silicon carbide) where cosmic rays largely composed of protons collide with the Si nucleus in a process known as spallation to form products such as ²¹Ne (neon) and ³He (helium), ⁷Li (lithium) and ⁶Li inside the grain.
These are stable isotopes that can hang around for billions of years without undergoing radioactive decay.
The solar grains eventually formed part of the molecular cloud from which the solar system formed and ultimately meteorites.

As stated in the report the age is based on ²¹Ne and ³He not on the ⁷Li /Li⁶ ratio which could involve terrestrial contamination.
The amount of terrestrial ²¹Ne and ³He on the other hand is only 0.27% and 0.0001% of the total isotope composition found on earth for each atom respectively.

The grains were separated from the meteorite and heated to release the ²¹Ne and ³He into a mass spectrometer which “counted” their numbers.
By knowing the number, the age of the grains can be calculated as their production rate is considered to be fairly constant.
Note this is a calculation, not an assumption as you naively suggested and there are uncertainties involved such as the rate at spallation and the probability ²¹Ne and ³He are formed if spallation does occur.
This is why there are error ranges in the calculations, but the killer is the error ranges do not include the possibility of a 6000 year old earth, nowhere near it in fact.

Ok correct me if I’m wrong but aren't they assuming that it began with zero radioactivity when it was originally created?