Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Find Oldest Known Asteroids

Researchers from the University of Maryland have recently discovered three asteroids that appear to be roughly 4.55 billion years old, dating back to the formation of the Solar System. The scientists say that the asteroids have survived relatively unchanged since that time, and make good candidates for future space missions. "'The fall of the Allende meteorite in 1969 initiated a revolution in the study of the early Solar System,' said Tim McCoy, curator of the national meteorite collection at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. 'I find it amazing that it took us nearly 40 years to collect spectra of these [CAI-rich] objects and that those spectra would now initiate another revolution, pointing us to the asteroids that record this earliest stage in the history of our Solar System.'"

11 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years! by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was created around the time Adam was riding his dinosaur.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years! by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's funny that you would make this joke because many in the scientific community put the same kind of "faith" in researchers that haven't even so much as touched these objects. It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper. This finding is based largely on the assumption that these calcium deposits or strata are going to occur only in this manner from a given time-period. Assumptions...almost...religious-like.

      I know I know, I'm daring to distrust the gods of research. I get it. Flamebait me now for my insurrection.

    2. Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years! by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference with science is that, if you're honest about it, you mentally append to everything said "According to our current observations, ...". This is why science is in a state of CONSTANT revision, and always will unless we somehow become omniscient ourselves.

      This is not a negative connotation, this is the whole point. If someone refuses to revise their opinion regardless of new data (whether the data is for or against or not), that is faith imo. It is also the antithesis of the scientific method.

      The upshot is, to the open minded, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive until such a time that we can observe _everything_, in which case there would be no more mysteries anyways and life would be quite boring.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    3. Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years! by BountyX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your argument presents the Fallacy of Accident. Your saying that scientists are just as "guilty" as those who possess strong religious faith simply becuase they both use faith. This is like saying "Strong religious faith is wrong. Scientists use strong religious faith. Therefore, scientists are "equally" wrong." However, whether or not scientists strongly leverage faith is NOT the issue. The issue is the method in which that faith is applied and CHECKED against. Furthermore, how it is placed. Like I mentioned earlier, scientific "faith" is put under constant peer-review. You could say science IS evolutionary. What starts as abstract is evolved into something we hold true in the natural world overtime; even if the original idea was completly off base; thus, contrasting perspective and "faith" serves as a tool to accelarte investigation and uncover truth. No such checks-and-balance system exists in relgion. Science is like democracy, relies on checks-and-balances, while Religion is like a tyranny, God serves as the unquestionable truth and his "word" is authoratative despite if it's true or not. Your argument about evolution is weak. It's known as the Converse Fallacy of Accident. You take a specific example then you extrapolate that example into a generalization. I applied it above in my government example to "level" with you. Evolution is unique in the scientific community. Simply put, there is no challenging theory that can hold it's ground against the data we do have about evolution. Instead of sitting around and accepting it, like religious faith does, scientists are still investingating, researching, and uncovering new evidence to plug those holes. The whole process of science is evolution. Since science depends on checks-and-balances, it's only as effective as that system, but its still a heck of a lot better than saying accepting the questionable "divine" word of god as an absolute truth. Religious faith, on the contrary, does not have a process in which it is systematically challenged and verified. Religious faith is constant and unchanged. It yields only to god and cannot be "checked-and-balanced". It attempts to put the burden of proof on disproving god, when in reality, nothing can be disproved. Therefor, it is less ignorant to place faith in a method that can be disproved (science) rather than a method that cannot (most modern religions). The burden of proof is on religion, to prove all of its "divinity", "gods", "prophets", and "magic". Back to my argument, faith is not the factor. The factor is what system\method you place your faith in. Science is a superior system to entrust faith becuase it takes the responsibilty of the burden of proof with a checks-and-balance system. Religion is a poor system to entrust faith beause it does not take the responsibilty of proof. It has no checks-and-balances. Back to your fallacy, it really comes down to why people CHOOSE to put their faith in democracy versus faith in a dictatorship or tyranny.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  2. Re:Old News by deepershade · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously. Don't click that link.

  3. And then, by RedRumRobot · · Score: 3, Funny

    They blew them up with the oldest know Atari 2600.

  4. Unimpressive by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would be impressed if they would have found the oldest unknown adstroid.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. early asteroids and rings round the sun by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do the models say? Does an early star have rings, like Saturn? I'd expect processes like this

    - dust to lumps
    - dust to rings
    - lumps to sun
    - lumps to planets
    - rings to planets
    - rings to sun

    Depending on the speed of each of these factors you get different scenarios. Rings could never happen, they could disappear before the sun is created, they could be be created before , during or after planet creation. Planet creation could also start before the sun. You get the idea.

  6. Who is more credible? by microbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your point is well taken - the paper's findings are not bullet proof.

    But your point about the "gods of research" is disingenuous... that is unless you believe that one is better off putting their faith in intelligent designers and corporate-science-sophistry. It's true that science could be *more* conservative with declaring findings, but really it's a question of who is more credible with the facts, and more pliable when it comes to standing corrected.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  7. Re:Old News by AmigaMMC · · Score: 3, Informative

    That link will open an infinite number of windows with porn crap and torn apart children, also lots of email messages if your email program is setup to allow mailto: Somebody must be very fucked up in his mind to even conceive something like that. What pisses me off the most is that web-browsers and operating systems seem to be entirely useless against this kind of junk. When the hell will programmers put some code so that the browser will block dozens of pop-up windows that appear at a fraction of a second intervals? Does it take a genius to think something like that? I'm actually using FireFox 3 beta 4, so far not impressed, most of my extensions don't work.

  8. Itemized refutation by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rubbish.
    this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.

    Same with sophisticated organisms.

    Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.

    Bombadier beetle.
    Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.

    Giraffe.
    Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA

    Woodpeckers:
    this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.

    Rapid Canyon formation.
    I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmilar examples abound around the area. But the origin of the massive floods is well known too. The caldera would periodically block it's outflows and then fill with water. when these dams burst torential fllods would scour the soft volcanic ash and aleufial sands into canons that would harden to rock. Similar stories can be said about the hells canyon area.

    I've seen it happen in a small way in my own life time when forest fires glazed the mountain soils turning run-off trickles into 40 mile per hour flash floods digging 10 foot channels.

    You really need to not assume the first silliness someone pours in your brain is the truth.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.