Proof of God.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Finger Eleven, Sep 30, 2007.

  1. IIRC, The Guinness figure was based on some sedimentary rocks...which I assume was isotope testing...I will double check when I get home.
     
  2. Dude, NB wins at life.
     
  3. Dude, NB wins at life.
     
  4. No. IRRC the universe will come back together and create a big crunch.
     
  5. you remembered wrong.
     
  6. wrong. scientists studied about the collapse of the universe. they thought it would shrink, but they were wrong. the universe is expanding at a even faster rate.
     
  7. Probably non-isochron dating on samples for which matrix effects such as pre-existing daughter isotopes cause a large error or simply oldschool, ghetto mass spectrometers.
    Also, there are no sedimentary rocks on earth over 4 GY, though there are a few components of sedimentary rocks that have tested over the 4 GY limit, such as the aforementioned Zircons.
     
  8. I see.
     
  9. Actually after reading up on it I realized that they discovered this in early 2000s. My science textbooks that I remember reading about the Big Crunch from are definitely dated back before then.
     
  10. ok my 1963 book says "...reports indicate rocks found in russia in 1962 are 6,500 Million years old"

    1965 edition says "..age of the earth itself has been revised down to 4,700 My in 1964...in June 1962 Dr Gerling reported that there were some sub-crustal inclusions in younger rock with ages of up to 6,500 My at Monchegorsk, south of Murmansk, in Russian Lapland. In view of the dating method used (potassium-argon) this figure is treated with some suspicion."

    1967 edition repeats the 1965 guff, and adds "...Samples taken in 1964 from St Pauls Rocks in he mid-atlantic ocean indicate that they may consist of primordial pieces of the Earth's mantle carried to the surface. These have been dated at 4,500 My y the rubidium-strontium method."

    Most of the editions through the 70's allude to further testing on the russian sample and confirming that the rock sample is indeed over 6,000My...

    Further revisions to the Earth's age occurred in the 1971,1984 & 1986 editions, ( Ihaven't checked 87-05, but the 06 & 07 editions no longer list it)

    make of that what you will...
     
  11. #311 adhweorniatweege3532323, Oct 4, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I'd make that it's not exactly a great source for science data:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html#Radiometric

    Also, given that it's the Guinness Book of World Records, it's probably pretty likely that they just selected the oldest tested age, regardless of how dubious the sample or technique was. Also, the Russian sample may be just an outright lie by Soviet Russia to claim that they have the original land or some weird shit like that. I mean, it was the USSR after all.
     
  12. #312 ReeK, Oct 4, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I've always thought it's a good indicator on where current thinking & developments are...

    Personally I think both sides of the cold were responsible for as much spin as each other...
     
  13. It's always going to be a bit fringe due to the nature of the publication, and I'd wager you that the authors have little actual science experience from which to judge the validity of claims. It's certainly cool, but I wouldn't trust it as an indicator of current thinking. They're pressured to find the biggest, baddest, most #%[email protected]', whatever of everything, so it comes as no surprise that sometimes they'd publish fringe values outside of what is actually accepted.

    Due to the restricted nature of the Russian press, I'd say they probably spun more shit, but that isn't to say we didn't do a #$%#ton, too.
     
  14. When you cure cancer, can I have your cancer free fetus?
     
  15. I was once a god.
     

Share This Page