Scientists Discover Meteorite ‘Older Than Earth Itself’ in Australian Outback

[GennGreymane]

internet forum scientists to the rescue.

beware of my google and wikipedia degree.

my favorite kind

[TheDestinatus]

Guys, don't question the established science doctrine, wouldn't want to upset science god! Sound exactly like the religious fanatics you pretend to know better then. They will probably burn these heretics for this possible discovery.

[Deleted]

This thread is exactly why I nearly exclusively only hang out with scientists.

[Gorehowl]

theres a difference between questioning something and saying you know for sure that you are right because you did a quick google search and maybe read some wikipedia and now know more than someone who has dedicated their life to the understanding of that field of science.

[Puupi]

theres a difference between questioning something and saying you know for sure that you are right because you did a quick google search and maybe read some wikipedia and now know more than someone who has dedicated their life to the understanding of that field of science.

Who has said anything like that?

[TheDestinatus]

I didn't link Wikipedia simpleton, I linked a study by Stanford University. Let me link some more sites that are listing the exact same conclusion that solar activity has an effect on radio decay.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-082310.html
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.html
http://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioac...-rotation.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/2...oactive-decay/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...27650510001234

4/5 are the same study. If anything, I would be concerned that if it is true and that it can be proven repeatedly that people are being taught to believe a lie in order to uphold other lies, that would make science yet another form of religion , zealots and all. This study is from 2010, so why is there nothing since it was released?

[Deleted]

Yup, the meteorite is actually not older than Earth, this article is useless and the people who wrote it just wanted to use incorrect science to make up a cool lie.

If science is a form of religion then you just did the equivalent of quoting bible passages out of context to make an irrelevant point.

[Gorehowl]

beware my internet linking abilities, im basically a stanford professor. you are all simpletons and any who disagree with me are as well.


fedora tipping intensifies.

[TheDestinatus]

Lack of backing up and fraudulent claims detected!

"My old science is stronger then you're new science, also what do you think of my wifes new head wrap? Its to keep the other old scientists away"

[Deleted]

Also, out of all those links, only one is a scientific article and that one states absolutely nothing except decay rates can change slightly over the year. Good.

[TheDestinatus]

That's why I linked them all!, nothing to hide here. Ready, set, go! - "We conclude that the annual periodicity in these data sets is a real effect, but that further study involving additional carefully controlled experiments will be needed to establish its origin"

[Garnier Fructis]

Cool thread turned into a shitshow.

[Deleted]

Yes, and this has been published, known science for 5 years. If Geologists, or anyone for that matter, thought this new science had a measurable effect on their ability to use carbon dating - or any other kind of radioactive dating - on celestial objects, do you not think they'd have adjusted their methods?

Or are you saying 'I noticed this, therefore dating methods are stupid, look at me!'?

[TheDestinatus]

Desperate attempt to claim something fraudulently, "guys, jesus was killed on a torture device and the romans did torture people... therefore jesus is god!"

The claim here was "meteorite older then earth", someone asked if it was possible for solar activity to have an effect on radio decay. People starting claiming they didn't whilst putting holy water on their bunsen burners getting ready to claim they were right by divinity. Linked a claim that was as you said, "known science", which suggests that it is in fact possible therefore showing them to be incorrect. I'm not going to run around debating dinosaurs and gods because you need to validate yourself. Simple fact is that radio carbon dating on said meteor could very much be incorrect because "known science" can prove that solar activity can have an effect on radio decay.

[Deleted]

I don't understand the point your trying to make.

[Puupi]

Yes, and this has been published, known science for 5 years. If Geologists, or anyone for that matter, thought this new science had a measurable effect on their ability to use carbon dating - or any other kind of radioactive dating - on celestial objects, do you not think they'd have adjusted their methods?

Or are you saying 'I noticed this, therefore dating methods are stupid, look at me!'?

When we are talking about this particular celestial object, the news didn't say anything about them using radioactive dating whatsoever. The 4,5 billion age was just a guess based on an assumption. It wasn't even clear what kind of rock it is.

[apepi]

Carbon dating is the one you hear a lot about in TV shows etc, but carbon dating is only really good for organic stuff.

For rocks and space stuff, you are better off with elements like uranium, thorium, potassium, etc. and the more elements you test the more accurate it gets.

Whats the oldest that we can test things as? I mean the half life of Uranium is like 4.5 billion.

[Gorehowl]

I don't understand the point your trying to make.

i dont think he does either.

i think hes basically just trying to divert any post that has a different opinion than his and say that anyone that disagrees with his wikipedia degree is stupid because he has some scientific knowledge that no one else in the world has.

[GennGreymane]

Cool thread turned into a shitshow.

gotta show whose fedora is better

[Deleted]

The claim here was "meteorite older then earth", someone asked if it was possible for solar activity to have an effect on radio decay. People starting claiming they didn't whilst putting holy water on their bunsen burners getting ready to claim they were right by divinity. Linked a claim that was as you said, "known science", which suggests that it is in fact possible therefore showing them to be incorrect. I'm not going to run around debating dinosaurs and gods because you need to validate yourself. Simple fact is that radio carbon dating on said meteor could very much be incorrect because "known science" can prove that solar activity can have an effect on radio decay.

By all means take issue with nobodies claiming A-level science is infallible, they're idiots.
What I take issue with is claiming carbon dating is incorrect because an object was in space, as if the whole scientific community overlooked the possibility that carbon dating celestial objects might be correct. They didn't. If this meteorite turns out to not be older than Earth, it won't be because carbon dating is incorrect and you're a genius.