It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth and Moon Younger then first thought

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Earth and Moon Younger then first thought


www.space.com

Earth is not exactly getting its youth back, but a new study has determined that the collision from which the Earth and moon were formed may have occurred much later than previously thought, making our planet and moon younger than scientists had commonly believed.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I wonder how much more we have misjudged, miscalculated in our Solar system, galaxy, Universe and on the Earth? Very interesting.

Could they of miscalculated the size of Jupiter? what about our sun? Seems every now and then a small snippet of a story pops up about space giving us little snippets of the truth of what is really out there.

www.space.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I wonder if they have made errors about Mars... and will reveal that it has a few trees on its surface? or that its skies are blue like on Earth?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
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 Just because the old number got superceded by newer measurments does not mean we didn't know jack then. Knowing that the new number will probably be superceded by other experiments does not mean that we don't know jack now.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]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Sorry, I call BS on the whole lot...

We know nothing..
We just have a bunch of scientists that get grants to research and give us BS theories..
Because thats ALL they are, therories.

If they are not then show me the absolute proof!!!

BTW, your post just confirms my view and who the fk really cares what happened in the past anyway?

If we had all these scientists concentrating on the future instead of the past, we might actually get somewhere.....



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by virgom129
 


You want absolute proof? No problem
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Ready?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The computer on which you are reading this!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by justjoemusic
 


Dude - at least Science upgrades/corrects/acknowledges their errors wherein religion remains static and dogmatic.

And to be perfectly on topic: So? Big deal - they "miscalculated" a bit. Go back to my first paragraph.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


My computer is proof they know stuff from billions oy years ago???

I doubt that...

99.9% of technology has been invented in the last 2000 years.

Really more like 100 years but I'm open to misscalculations




top topics



 
1

log in

join