The Earth and Moon Formed Later Than Previously Thought

insciences.org...

Quote from source:
The Earth and Moon were created as the result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now it was thought to have happened when the solar system was 30 million years old or approx. 4,537 million years ago. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that the Earth and Moon must have formed much later - perhaps up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system. The research results have been published in the scientific journal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

"We have determined the ages of the Earth and the Moon using tungsten isotopes, which can reveal whether the iron cores and their stone surfaces have been mixed together during the collision", explains Tais W. Dahl, who did the research as his thesis project in geophysics at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in collaboration with professor David J. Stevenson from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

Turbulent collisions

The planets in the solar system were created by collisions between small dwarf planets orbiting the newborn sun. In the collisions the small planets melted together and formed larger and larger planets. The Earth and Moon are the result of a gigantic collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. The two planets collided at a time when both had a core of metal (iron) and a surrounding mantle of silicates (rock). But when did it happen and how did it happen? The collision took place in less than 24 hours and the temperature of the Earth was so high (7000º C), that both rock and metal must have melted in the turbulent collision. But were the stone mass and iron mass also mixed together?

I looked around for this on here but could not find anything on it so I thought I would share the News!

We're younger than we thought!!

Interesting to see that we were off on our initial calculations by about 150 million years. I had another thread about the solar system and this one just adds that we know very little about our own home.

Good to see we are learning though.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

I now wonder that as the internal metal core cools, this would be the reason that the Earth is expanding/growing. The cooler area around the outer core would thicken, applying pressure, and increased heat, causing volcanic disruptions and earthquakes.
I don't know, I'm just saying.

So they were off by a mere 150 million , eh ? Seriously though, that's not considered a lot in science is it?
Cool thread, cool source site. SnF

www.space.com...

Earth reached mature size 30 million years after the Sun's birth, the two independent results show. This is in line with the leading theoretical model and most other indicators.

However, this is about 70 million years quicker than what was expected by Moon formation theorists.

"Earth is older than previously thought," Kleine told SPACE.com. "Our data indicate that these collisions caused almost complete melting of Earth resulting in a scenario called magma ocean, in which the Earth was covered by a layer of magma."

Both studies concluded that Earth formed in the first 30 million years of the solar system's existence.

So which is it? Both used Tungsten isotopes so is it 150 million younger or 70 million older? That's a 220 million year spread.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
So they were off by a mere 150 million , eh ?

Seriously though, that's not considered a lot in science is it?

Relative to 4537 it's not big, only about 3%. I think you have to be optimistic to theink an age estimate that old is even 95 % accurate and even if this change is true it still says the original age was 97% accurate.

From my perspective I wouldn't be shocked if revisions came out that said either 4 billion years or 5 billion years, instead of 4.537 billion.

But I do agree with the trend in science to recognize that the early universe was a lot more violent than first thought, with lots of collisions, of perhaps as many as 20 or more planets to end up with the 8 we have now.

Originally posted by Violater1
I now wonder that as the internal metal core cools, this would be the reason that the Earth is expanding/growing. The cooler area around the outer core would thicken, applying pressure, and increased heat, causing volcanic disruptions and earthquakes.
I don't know, I'm just saying.

I suspect that as liquid molten material cools, it shrinks as most liquids do when they turn to solids. So actually the Earth is probably shrinking, not expanding.

They said,

"The Earth and Moon were created as the result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now .......it was thought.......(That is a religious statement) to have happened when the solar system was 30 million years old or approx. 4,537 million years ago. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that the Earth and Moon ......must have formed much later...... – .......perhaps .......(those are faith based statements also)up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system. The research results have been published in the scientific journal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters."

It is not science when a statement, "it was thought to have happened" and "must have formed".
These are not factual statements, but are used and believed by sheepish people as such. There is no way to test their ideals and for sure not repeatable.

Faith based religion is what you have there.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ACTS 2:38]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ACTS 2:38]

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


I would not necessarily say faith based. I would though say fact based. We figure out more and more as time goes by so we rethink our original thoughts, that is called learning. It is a part of life and should be enjoyed by all.

That's the difference between science and religion, science keeps trying to figure out what this universe is, while religion is satisfied with thinking it is god. Science books are rewritten yearly, to keep up with the ever changing world we live in, it evolves. Religious people are reading books that have not been updated in thousands of years and tell of stories that people call fiction now.

Science helps us to advance to a next step of evolution while religion keeps us to where we were in the dark times.

Sorry for the rant. I always get a little upset when people compare religion and science, it's like oil and water.

Pred...

[edit on 9-6-2010 by predator0187]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by predator0187]

Originally posted by predator0187
Sorry for the rant.

I always get a little upset when people compare religion and science, it's like oil and water.

Oil and vinegar don't mix but they make a delicious salad dressing! I don't think religion and science have to mix, they are two separate things. Science does much to address matters of the physical world but does little to address matters of the spiritual world, and conversely religion address matters of the spiritual world and is not really intended to address scientific matters, according to some noted theologians.

And I don't mind seeing opposing viewpoints to scientific research like this. However it would be much more credible and useful if the opposing viewpoint in this case was based on, for example, the flaws in the tungsten isotope method used.

Pointing to some book that was written before we even knew what a tungsten isotope was isn't really a credible rebuttal to the tungsten isotope method used.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
It is not science when a statement, "it was thought to have happened" and "must have formed".
These are not factual statements, but are used and believed by sheepish people as such. There is no way to test their ideals and for sure not repeatable.

I agree they aren't statements of fact (and they aren't presented as such), but I disagree that it's not science to communicate in this manner. The real science is in the tungsten isotope measurements made. So the scientists communicate the measurements they made, and what conclusions they draw from those measurements.

Also science is inherently distrustful and DOESN'T accept statements like this at face value. If one lab makes measurements and publishes the results, it's generally not considered as confirmed in the scientific community until at least one other lab replicates the experiment and measurements. And likewise with the conclusions drawn from those measurements. One scientist making a conclusion isn't enough to sway the entire scientific community. Other scientists may review the same measurements and come to a different conclusion and point to flaws in the original scientists' assessment of the observations.

So you really have to look into science more to appreciate the scrutiny scientific claims are subjected to. What gets published to the general public may give a different impression because frankly many of the reporters who write scientific stories are reporters or writers, and not scientists themselves.

the article seems to be presenting some facts as to the age of the earth and the moon based on a collision that happened but there is little in way of fact other than the tungsten isotope theory. So really, are they saying with impunity that this is fact? It seems to me that if they use terms such as "we believe" or "it was thought" , those terms are in fact faith based statements.

Originally posted by habfan1968
the article seems to be presenting some facts as to the age of the earth and the moon based on a collision that happened but there is little in way of fact other than the tungsten isotope theory. So really, are they saying with impunity that this is fact? It seems to me that if they use terms such as "we believe" or "it was thought" , those terms are in fact faith based statements.

That's the way scientists talk.

I see scientific truth as a continuum of confidence levels that a given theory is right. The more overwhelming the evidence for something, the more sure we are that we are right about it, but I'm not sure if we're ever 100.000% sure, maybe 99.999% sure is as close as it gets, and often the confidence of scientific assertions is far less than that. I think a commonly used standard for scientific statements is to test a hypothesis to the 95% confidence level.

But science is by definition falsifiable. So don't confuse statements of scientific uncertainty with religious belief, religious belief is exactly the opposite. It is NOT falsifiable by any conceivable evidence in the natural world.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


I hope you realize you read a short article summarizing the scientific paper, and not the paper itself. The paper is published in the recent issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, you will need to have university access / a friend @ school or library to read it. I suspect it will be devoid of any so called faith based reasoning.

I cannot read either article and see it as fact. I think they still don't know the real answer, they are making 'educated' guesses. In 10 more years the theory will change again, until it is exact science it is theory and a guess.

reply to post by space cadet


The objective of science is to falsify our current theories by testing them with new experimental evidence. This is how it will continue.