posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:51 AM
So, the Moon might be only 97.3% of the age we thought it was.
Wow, my life is changed - not.
Your idea of scientific accuracy needs work. To say they "miscalculated" (which the article does not
) suggests that a mistake was made.
This is not the case. The best
data & models suggested the formation of the Moon happened ~30 million years after the birth of the Solar
System. Unspoken, but implicit in all science is that this approximation has a range of accuracy.
In this case, someone thought of a new test for dating the event, and gathered data. According to this better
data (which has its own
margin-of-error), the event happened "up to" 120 million years later.
This cycle of research-measure-revise is the very essence of science. Just because the old number got superceded by newer measurments does not mean
we didn't know jack then. Knowing that the new number will probably be superceded by other experiments does not mean that we don't know jack now.
Each revision improves the accuracy. It does not imply that the old measurements are invalid.
[edit on 13-7-2010 by Saint Exupery]