Inclusions in meteorite older than Solar System (≈7.5 billion years old)

[sjastro]

On Earth: Stardust from 7.5 Billion Years Ago

 

[SelfSim]

The mighty Murchison strikes again!!

What a super rare dump from the heavens .. bestowethed upon ze land down under, eh?

 

[LiquidCat]

How can there be stardust from 7,5b year ago on earth if the earth is only 6000 years old or so

 

[Occams Barber]

The mighty Murchison strikes again!!

What a super rare dump from the heavens .. bestowethed upon ze land down under, eh?

We get all the good stuff
OB

 

[sjastro]

The mighty Murchison strikes again!!

What a super rare dump from the heavens .. bestowethed upon ze land down under, eh?

I'm approximately 120 km from the site.

The news is a reminder of my own frustrations in identifying a sample which could be a carbonaceous chondrite.
Washington Uni become interested and nominated a lab in Western Australia that would perform a blind test free of charge.
The results would have then been sent to Washington Uni for analysis.
Unfortunately the lab was shutdown due to the downturn in the mining industry at the time.
Attempts to get the sample blind tested without analysis has been cost prohibitive and even attempts to have it tested at a reasonable cost at my old Uni was not possible.
It shows that Universities are prepared to put profits before alumni loyalties.

Incidentally the sample fragment I have contains a mysterious inclusion.

 

[Speedwell]

How can there be stardust from 7,5b year ago on earth if the earth is only 6000 years old or so

Exactly. One of those numbers has to be wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How can there be stardust from 7,5b year ago on earth if the earth is only 6000 years old or so

The same way there can be 7.5bn year old stardust on a 4.5bn year old earth. Age of the earth makes no difference.

 

[JackRT]

Exactly. One of those numbers has to be wrong.

I think I know which one.

 

[SelfSim]

I wonder whether the busfires might uncover more nuggets like this one?

 

[SelfSim]

The same way there can be 7.5bn year old stardust on a 4.5bn year old earth. Age of the earth makes no difference.

I'm not sure the two notions can be credibly regarded with equivalence however ..

 

[SkyWriting]

On Earth: Stardust from 7.5 Billion Years Ago

Older than dirt?

 

[Lost4words]

How can there be stardust from 7,5b year ago on earth if the earth is only 6000 years old or so

Its only 6000 years old in peoples minds. Its called badly interpreting scripture.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm not sure the two notions can be credibly regarded with equivalence however ..

Why not? Unless you qualify why you consider the earth to be only 6000 years old (which was not done), there is no fundamental difference.

 

[SelfSim]

Why not? Unless you qualify why you consider the earth to be only 6000 years old (which was not done), there is no fundamental difference.

Yeah .. the credibility of unsupported notions here is up against the solid, contextualised objective evidence (isotopic composition) presented in the OP link.
The equivalence concept should always be scruntinised skeptically.

 

[SelfSim]

Incidentally the sample fragment I have contains a mysterious inclusion.

Might the absence of blackness of the inclusion be due to it being protected from the heat? (Its centrality in the sample might suggest this?)

 

[sjastro]

Here is the paper.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjastr..._of_interstellar_dust_from_cosmic_ray_exp.pdf

 

[sjastro]

Might the absence of blackness of the inclusion be due to it being protected from the heat? (Its centrality in the sample might suggest this?)

I don't know.
What seemed to have piqued Washington Uni interest for investigation was not only the sample being fluorescent under UV but the image as well.

On the subject of testing a geologist on a forum came up with an interesting idea to get it tested at a pawn shop.
Many pawn shops now apparently use hand held X-ray fluorescent spectrometers to test the authenticity of items.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't know.
What seemed to have piqued Washington Uni interest for investigation was not only the sample being fluorescent under UV but the image as well.

On the subject of testing a geologist on a forum came up with an interesting idea to get it tested at a pawn shop.
Many pawn shops now apparently use hand held X-ray fluorescent spectrometers to test the authenticity of items.

Well like .. I suppose a pawn shop test would qualify as an *in the lab* test?

 

[sjastro]

Well like .. I suppose a pawn shop test would qualify as an *in the lab* test?

NP

 

[sjastro]

Well like .. I suppose a pawn shop test would qualify as an *in the lab* test?

I have a bit of experience with using X-ray fluorescent spectrometers where I used to work. Unfortunately they went out of business as well.
After the lab Washington Uni recommended went out of business I suggested to them if X-ray spectroscopy was feasible instead of the destructive mass spectrometry which they use for identification.
They had no problems with the idea.
Whether these hand held spectrometers are up to standard I don't know.

As a "human interest story" I had a baby tooth of mine analysed using X-ray fluorescent spectroscopy and apart from detecting the usual suspects such a calcium it also found radioactive thorium.
Apparently we can thank our British friends for exploding their hydrogen bombs in our backyard in the 1950s.