How old do you believe the Earth is?

[ChickenGuy]

^^ Trust you to come and fowl up my thread!

Now, I won't hear as much as a squawk out of you!

I'm just feeling a little broody right now....

Hmmm, I think it's because I haven't been laid....

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ Trust you to come and fowl up my thread!

Now, I won't hear as much as a squawk out of you!

I'm just feeling a little broody right now....

Hmmm, I think it's because I haven't been laid....

Now that's what I call chicken jokes!


Here's a true one: the earth is older than the chicken or the egg.

 

[Lefty]

dman it chickie, don't be feathering you nest with my lines. if you don't stop and kulie don't start speaking english i will be forced to really GOOSE both of you...and i guess you'll both know who the yolks on then

 

[PetCuddlePuppy]

Sol is a third-generation star, I've read, because it and the Earth contain gold, for instance, which cannot be produced by first- and second-generation stars.

From that example and many other factors, the age of the solar system can be deduced.

that is very interesting! i had no idea!

 

[Kulindahr]

Sol is a third-generation star, I've read, because it and the Earth contain gold, for instance, which cannot be produced by first- and second-generation stars.

From that example and many other factors, the age of the solar system can be deduced.

that is very interesting! i had no idea!

Actually it's not entirely true.

The standard model of heavy-element production, which includes everything beyond iron, is that a star which goes supernova slams existing elements -- up to iron -- together enough to fuse them into heavier elements; the heavier the element, the more energy that requires, generally. That's called the r-model, for "rapid": boom, and you have new elements.

There were supernovas among first-generation stars, so they could have (probably did) made heavier elements. The second generation stars were far more likely to do so, however, having already started with some heavy elements, which in such an explosion would get fused to make even heavier elements -- so the supernovae they produced gave off material which, when formed into third-generation stars, came with sufficient heavy elements to actually form substantive planets.

BUT -- and this is fun -- stellar physicists have discovered another way that heavy elements get made; they call it the s-model, for "slow". It happens because the pressures are so intense inside a certain kind of star that pre-iron elements can actually stick together on occasion to make post-iron elements. This won't yield things like iron+oxygen --> selenium; the energies required to fuse two large nuclei are enormous. But iron+hydrogen --> cobalt, iron+helium --> nickel, and others involving one heavy nucleus and one light, are apparently possible -- the physics works, and there are stars with chemical compositions which admit no other explanation.

A secondary s-model process happens when heavy elements from other stars drift into the atmosphere of the right kind if star: they do a cute little dance that produces stars with -- of all things! -- a lot of lead (two-and-a-half times as heavy as iron) drifting around in their outer envelopes.

Just as a side note, the r-model process leaves stars with massive amounts of iron, because that's what everything lighter cooks into before the star goes boom. Gobs of iron get flung out and become the cores of planets.

OTOH, when a star goes supernova and leaves a black hole, guess what the middle is packed with, that gets flushed down the black hole?

 

[CumAlong]

I must revive this thread, because I love talking about this stuff

First off, I believe fully in the age of Earth being approx 4.5bill years and the age of the universe around 13-14billion years.

My personal idea (i could be very wrong, and if I am proved wrong I'll openly admit it) is that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe (this one ) is 13+ Billion Years old, there are possibly several universes, M-theory (apart from multi universes is a crock) and that God exists separate from time, (seeing as time is only a human creation) the "big bang" is NOT universes colliding (you have no idea how much I hate that theory...) but more or less a human reasoning to try to explain something we can't comprehend. And before anyone asks how I can believe in God and aspects of science, I argue that science (the nitty gritty of Philosophy) actually proves God exists. The mathematical circumstances to have to exsist in perfect harmony for our planet to form are just too unlikely without the assistance of "something" (I call this "something" God.) Long story short, earth= 4.5 billion, universe= 13Billion+, God exists separate from time so no need to ask why comes before God, there is only God

"seeing as time is only a human creation"

Not true. While seconds, minutes, hours, days, years etc are purely man made and the universe laughs at such terms, the universe very much so respects time in all aspects, as it respects spacial dimensions, hence our 11 or so space-time dimensions.

The huge debate between kulindahr and bankside was extremely entertaining.

I believe in the big bang, and despite what some misguided people have said, it IS scientifically accepted, and is being expanded on continually.

I may have to review Susskind (I read the book rather quickly), but I don't recall him referring to General Relativity anywhere as being flawed, and that's the sort of thing he definitely would have done. He did discuss it with reference to the nine dimensions necessary to make string theory work (or which are indicated to exist by string theory, depending on your perspective), and I got the impression that GR works just fine in nine dimensions as well.

From what I understand, General Relativity IS flawed at explaining the big bang. GR can describe large massive objects, and quantum mechanics can describe tiny microscopic behaviors of our universe, however neither can explain the beginning phases of the big bang (up to, I believe a plank second after initiation). This is because the universe is both extremely massive and smaller than a single atom at the same time, so when the equations are used to describe the universe, it spurts out probabilities of infinity, which can only mean that the math somewhere went wrong.

This is why string theory is so promising. It unites gravity within quantum mechanics, therefore preventing many mathmatical breakdowns that were previously run into.

 

[Kulindahr]

I must revive this thread, because I love talking about this stuff

From what I understand, General Relativity IS flawed at explaining the big bang. GR can describe large massive objects, and quantum mechanics can describe tiny microscopic behaviors of our universe, however neither can explain the beginning phases of the big bang (up to, I believe a plank second after initiation). This is because the universe is both extremely massive and smaller than a single atom at the same time, so when the equations are used to describe the universe, it spurts out probabilities of infinity, which can only mean that the math somewhere went wrong.

Susskind and other cosmologists wouldn't say relativity is "flawed", only "limited" -- just like Newton wasn't called flawed. Both are correct within their limits.

BTW, you forget the "c" in Planck, which when speaking of physics is like losing your (e/m)^-2.

This is why string theory is so promising. It unites gravity within quantum mechanics, therefore preventing many mathmatical breakdowns that were previously run into.

Sadly, as a not-so-far-gone episode of NOVA pointed out, there isn't one string theory, there are dozens... at least.

 

[Kulindahr]

Eddy Witten united five of them and his own dimension under M-Theory. Looks like it's going to hold up. I'm still waiting on the LHC... *tik tok tik tok*

So there's dozens minus five now?

 

[CumAlong]

Susskind and other cosmologists wouldn't say relativity is "flawed", only "limited" -- just like Newton wasn't called flawed. Both are correct within their limits.

Very true, I should have used better wording.

BTW, you forget the "c" in Planck, which when speaking of physics is like losing your (e/m)^-2.

oops, silly me, please forgive my sin


Sadly, as a not-so-far-gone episode of NOVA pointed out, there isn't one string theory, there are dozens... at least.

Very true, but I have not as of yet gotten that deep into it. I am still in the process of fine tuning what i already learned lol. I loved Brian Greene's books "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Outstanding books on string theory.

Comments posted in red.

 

[Kulindahr]

Comments posted in red.

You really ought to cut and paste....

 

[CumAlong]

Ok so sue me, I was lazy. 99% of the forums was lost for words a long time ago in this topic lol.

 

[AsianDream]

Comments posted in red.

The generally accepted format is to fisk any and all separate arguments and to separate them in quote boxes. It may be more difficult for you but it is easier for the readership you are trying to attract.

Ok so sue me, I was lazy. 99% of the forums was lost for words a long time ago in this topic lol.

CumAlong - IGNORE THE PEDANTS! - I think posting comments in another colour is fine - nested quotes/fisking are no easier to read.

As to the age of the Earth - 4.5 billion years seems to have a lot of evidence from different sources to qualify it as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The 13.7 billion year age of the Universe is probably right - but I think less certain than the age of the Earth. The Big Bang Theory (while the best Theory in town) still has some uncertain assumptions (like faster than light "Inflation", dark matter & dark Energy) that still leave the door open for other explanations.

In defense of string theory - almost all the different variants of this are consolidated into M theory - and do seem to be consistant.

One reservation I have on string theory is that just because a mathamatical solution models reality - that doesn't mean that's what really happening.

A classic is the caloric fluid theory - which mathematically closely matched reality (except for heat from friction) - but which just wasn't how things are. However - calculations based on caloric fluid theory will still give accurate predictions for most thermodynamic problems (eg: in most cases heat does behave like an "invisible fluid" - but that's not what it really is).

Anyway - I hope they don't sue you

 

[Kulindahr]

CumAlong - IGNORE THE PEDANTS! - I think posting comments in another colour is fine - nested quotes/fisking are no easier to read.

"Easier to read" isn't the point -- try quoting someone that way and see what happens to the attributions.

You're encouraging rudeness that stifles discussion.

One reservation I have on string theory is that just because a mathamatical solution models reality - that doesn't mean that's what really happening.

A classic is the caloric fluid theory - which mathematically closely matched reality (except for heat from friction) - but which just wasn't how things are. However - calculations based on caloric fluid theory will still give accurate predictions for most thermodynamic problems (eg: in most cases heat does behave like an "invisible fluid" - but that's not what it really is).

Till string theory has something to pin itself to besides mathematical maunderings, I call it metaphysics.

 

[AsianDream]

"Easier to read" isn't the point -- try quoting someone that way and see what happens to the attributions. You're encouraging rudeness that stifles discussion.

As for completeness of context - my original comments to which you are responding are not included in this subsequnet reply. That's an inherant weakness of the forum software used.

In any case not using specific (undeclared informal) protocols to format responses can neither be considered rude nor an attempt to stifle discussion.

Till string theory has something to pin itself to besides mathematical maunderings, I call it metaphysics.

There is some justification in this view - on the other hand - the only justification for quantum mechanics is that these (rather inelegant) equations accurately predict how reality behaves.

 

[Kulindahr]

As for completeness of context - my original comments to which you are responding are not included in this subsequnet reply. That's an inherant weakness of the forum software used.

In any case not using specific (undeclared informal) protocols to format responses can neither be considered rude nor an attempt to stifle discussion.

I wasn't addressing the 'inherited quote' issue, but that one is annoying.

I was addressing the rudeness inherent in making people do cumbersome extra editing in order to quote someone. Inserting comments in someone else's text means you can't use the quote function to cite them easily. The only way to do it, then, is to cut and paste multiple times.

And that does stifle discussion, because hardly anyone -- if anyone! -- is willing to do that. In essence, the result is that no one will respond meaningfully to the comments.

Intent is irrelevant; it's the result that counts.

There is some justification in this view - on the other hand - the only justification for quantum mechanics is that these (rather inelegant) equations accurately predict how reality behaves.

Yes, but quantum mechanics has made predictions that have been verified. String theory so far is like the Ptolemaic system: it explains, but....

 

[AsianDream]

Yes, but quantum mechanics has made predictions that have been verified. String theory so far is like the Ptolemaic system: it explains, but....

Coming back to the original question -

How old any of us "BELIEVE" the Earth to be makes no difference to how old it actually is.

Based on current knowledge this would seem to be about 4 billion years - but that's not a belief - just what seems to be a very probably answer at the moment

 

[Kulindahr]

Coming back to the original question -

How old any of us "BELIEVE" the Earth to be makes no difference to how old it actually is.

Based on current knowledge this would seem to be about 4 billion years - but that's not a belief - just what seems to be a very probably answer at the moment

That's a good point. The interesting thing to me is that while "evidence" underlies both the 4+ billion figure and the <10k years figure, in the first case the scientists understand what the evidence is, while those who claim the small figure don't even know how to understand what their "data" is saying.

 

[AsianDream]

That's a good point. The interesting thing to me is that while "evidence" underlies both the 4+ billion figure and the <10k years figure, in the first case the scientists understand what the evidence is, while those who claim the small figure don't even know how to understand what their "data" is saying.

I don't know of any credible evidence that supports the "under 10K year" figure for the age of the earth

However - if there was any evidence for the earth being this young - it would be up against almost all scientific discoveries of the last 200 years - so would seem to be very improbable.

 

[Nomenclature]

I've looked a lot into carbon dating, and I understand there's a lot of controversy about it. Unfortunately, all the people claiming that carbon dating may be inaccurate are people who heavily push a Christian "The world is 6,000 years old because the bible says so" agenda.

Personally, I accept that the methods we have to date the world are inaccurate to at least an extent, and that the number is off. We may never know by exactly how much in our lifetime, but I don't believe that the world is exactly 4.5 billion years old and I don't feel that the world is only 6 thousand years old, either. It could be a few hundred thousand, or a few (hundred) million for all we know.

 

[AsianDream]

I've looked a lot into carbon dating, and I understand there's a lot of controversy about it. Unfortunately, all the people claiming that carbon dating may be inaccurate are people who heavily push a Christian "The world is 6,000 years old because the bible says so" agenda.

Personally, I accept that the methods we have to date the world are inaccurate to at least an extent, and that the number is off. We may never know by exactly how much in our lifetime, but I don't believe that the world is exactly 4.5 billion years old and I don't feel that the world is only 6 thousand years old, either. It could be a few hundred thousand, or a few (hundred) million for all we know.

there's not much controvosy about Carbon dating - but this isn't very accurate - and depends on a fairly subtle effect that living organisms tend to favour using higher Carbon isotopes - and that the readioactive decay of these can determine when the organism was actually alive.

The other evidence that has been accumalated overwhelmingly points to around a 4 billion year age for the world, There is nothing to support any other age - not 6000 years nor just a few hundred thousand years nor a few hundred million years.

In fact in this case - any religiouslly inspired idea to "Teach the Controversy" is totally spurious - there isn't any scientific controvosy about the age of the Earth - it is what it is - not what anyone wants it to be - in the same way the world isn't flat - no mater how much some people might think this is (or want this to be) the case.