New data on the moon might change what scientists know about Earth.

In a meeting about the origins of the moon, scientists discussed the leading theory of its creation, citing new evidence that suggests it might have formed 100 million years later than was originally thought.

Most scientists believe a giant collision on Earth from an object about the size Mars blew out a mass of debris, which then came together to form the moon. It was previously thought the moon was 4.56 billion years old, but new analysis of moon rocks dates it at 4.4 billion to 4.45 billion years old, according to Space.com.

SOURCE

I find reports and articles like this to be amazingly funny. We, scientists, can't even agree on Climate change over the past 100 years, yet, they are going to squabble over something that happened over 4 BILLION years ago?

Does anyone else find this to be absurd? And yet to even have the difference to be around just 10% in discrepancy as if it is some huge scientific finding that is relevant at all?

Come on...lets focus on what is relevant, instead of making news articles just to be heard.

reply to post by phantomjack

Maybe there will be a lunar paleontologist smack down? I want tickets..

reply to post by phantomjack


The men squabbling over the moon's age and means of birth paid dearly to study that sort of thing. Are you suggesting that we pull them from something they've dedicated their lives to and put them to work on something completely unrelated to their area of expertise?

Next, you'll be suggesting that high-ranking military officers aren't intelligent enough and should be replaced with mathematicians whose experience includes little to no firearms training and an intense case of hemophobia.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by phantomjack

 

The men squabbling over the moon's age and means of birth paid dearly to study that sort of thing. Are you suggesting that we pull them from something they've dedicated their lives to and put them to work on something completely unrelated to their area of expertise?

Next, you'll be suggesting that high-ranking military officers aren't intelligent enough and should be replaced with mathematicians whose experience includes little to no firearms training and an intense case of hemophobia.

Well that depends. I am simply questioning the relevancy of the research, and then one must conclude whether the work is worth the effort, yes.

reply to post by phantomjack




Are ANY of our tax dollars funding this research?

sonnny1
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Are ANY of our tax dollars funding this research?

That is a good question. I will look into it. My guess is yes.

sonnny1
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Are ANY of our tax dollars funding this research?

Just as I thought, YES:

The Carnegie Institution is an endowed, independent, nonprofit institution. Significant additional support comes from federal grants and private donations. Its fiscal year is between July 1 and June 30.

SOURCE

I could dig more into their financials, but don't have the time this morning.

I am NOT condemning scientific research by any stretch of the imagination. What my thread is questioning is the needless waste of time discerning a difference of 5 million year differences over the span of 4.5 billion years, as compared to our inability to discern the cause of global climate change over a mere 100 years.