Posted on 08/22/2010 6:45:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
PARIS (AFP) – The Solar System could be nearly two million years older than thought, according to a study published on Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience.
The evidence comes from a 1.49-kilo (3.2-pound) meteorite, found in the Moroccan desert in 2004, that contains a "relict" mineral, which is one of the oldest solid materials formed after the birth of the Sun.
...
As a result, the Solar System is likely to be between 300,000 and 1.9 million years older than previous estimates, ..
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And you will not be able to discuss the rest, because, even though nothing else will have changed, the terminology for it will have.
Case in point: in a 20 year period, the terminolgy, though not the causes or preventions, of bed sores pressure sores/ulcers decubitis ulcers ischemic ulcerations not sure what they call them now, changed.
Most of my inservice sessions were not learning new things, but learning new terminology for what we already knew, and did, every day at work.
I notice it a lot when I pick up a new book or article about some subject I was interested in in school, but didn't pursue. I start to read; wonder what they're talking about; then realize, "oh; they mean...".
When it comes to science, the media are the last folks to judge what’s newsworthy. My first reaction on seeing the headline was that it was a misprint, two million years being so insignificant as to be silly to report on. I expected the story to be about a possible two billion year adjustment.
This is more like adjusting the error box around the presumed value than saying anything Earth-shattering has been learned. It’s valuable, but it’s not really general news, IMO.
Headline: “Scientists discover Mount Whitney is two million nanometers taller than previously thought! Film at ten!”
Bookmark
I suspect that is the accurate perspective.
Hmmm..
It's significant to me, as this likely means something.
In my mind it is particularly significant due to he fact that the age of the solar system is now found to be older than previously thought. This would seem to indicate that further study will likely find our planetary/star system is possibly even older than what current models/study show.
Does this not seem logical?
Respondents with, perhaps, more scientific backgrounds point out that 1.9 million years out of 4.5 billion years is .4%, statistically insignificant.
That is understandable, however, it would also seem to indicate past studies dating the solar system were quite accurate, and further studies will likely reveal the age is yet older that previously thought, not younger.
It's significant to me, as this likely means something.
In my mind it is particularly significant due to he fact that the age of the solar system is now found to be older than previously thought. This would seem to indicate that further study will likely find our planetary/star system is possibly even older than what current models/study show. Does this not seem logical?
Respondents with, perhaps, more scientific backgrounds point out that 1.9 million years out of 4.5 billion years is .4%, statistically insignificant.
Respondents that read and comprehend instead of assuming they know the backgrounds of others, would understand that was not the point of my post.
Read back. My point was since the study indicates the systems is older than previously thought, it would likely mean further study will possibly reveal an even older system, not younger.
lol...
The significance likely means the accuracy of previous solar system dating was significant.
As I explained to the other poster, this would seem to indicate and substantiate past studies of solar system dating were quite accurate.
Based on that, it would seem likely further studies will likely reveal the age is yet even older that previously thought, not younger.
Actually it’s impossible to know what further study will find. It’s not valid to see this as the start of a trend, it’s just another data point.
The fact that the error box is considered to be so small that a two million year shift is seen as a big deal to anyone is interesting, though. I really wonder whether that’s the case or whether the pin in the chart that this study moves back by 300,000 to 1.9 million years is just a straw-man case for raising a hoopla when in fact it’s just adjustment within the box.
If we’ve really got a solid, and I mean solid, basis for dating the solar system’s “beginning” this accurately, it’s news to me. While this isn’t my current work, it’s close enough to it that I’ve got some basis for being surprised.
I’m also wondering at which of several different points within a very long and drawn out process they’re putting the “start” peg.
Two million years, which is just more than the box of adjustment they’re giving for this study’s finding, is a blink of an eye when it comes to the creation of a solar system.
At any rate, my strong suspicion is that we’re seeing the adjustment of a prior finding being treated as some sort of revolution when it’s really just another data point. Personally, I’d consider anything that comes in this close to be more in the way of a _confirmation_ of a prior finding than in opposition to it.
It’s like saying a gun’s inaccurate if two holes are within a minute of angle of each other, but don’t lay one on the other, though they’re kissing distance apart.
If I had time right now I’d go look at the source papers, but it’ll have to wait for now.
That's understandable, however, it would also seem to indicate past studies dating the solar system were quite accurate, and further studies will likely reveal the age is yet older that previously thought, not younger.
Actually it’s impossible to know what further study will find.
That is why I said, "It would seem to indicate" and used words such as, "likely".
My comments are based on previous finding, not just personal opinion.
Very true! Unfortunately, terminology plays a major part in our understanding. Seems that it must be a requirement in today’s further education system - change words so that the older generation can not refute (heh)... Well, it does seem to work with our current education system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.