Mars Rock Older Than Thought

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday November 21, 2013 @09:03PM from the you-don't-look-a-day-over-3-billion dept.

Rambo Tribble writes "The BBC reports on a finding, reported in Nature, (abstract), that the so-called 'Black Beauty' rock, discovered in the Sahara, is over twice as old as previously thought. The meteorite is now thought to be 4.4 billion years old, dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."

37 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Silly to assume by For+a+Free+Internet · 2013-11-21 21:06 · Score: -1, Flamebait

What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
1. Re: Silly to assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-21 22:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Does Mars exist in this universe? Yes. Is it traveling at relativistic speeds? No.
  Therefore Mars and Earth time are similar if not the same.
  Also, we can communicate with Curiosity fine, except for a delay due to distance.
2. Re:Silly to assume by wonkey_monkey · 2013-11-21 22:36 · Score: 2
  
  What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?
  What makes you think they might not be?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Silly to assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes you need a -1 Moron mod
4. Re:Silly to assume by Charliemopps · 2013-11-22 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Timecube... duh
5. Re:Silly to assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?
  Are you actually that stupid?
6. Re: Silly to assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth
7. Re: Silly to assume by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth
  RELATIVITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
  back you you Dian.
8. Re: Silly to assume by voidphoenix · 2013-11-22 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it does.
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
9. Re: Silly to assume by DarwinSurvivor · 2013-11-22 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you are talking about time dilation, they are not going NEARLY fast enough (even on the ISS) for even a very expensive watch to be noticeably out of sync. The time difference is so minute you'd need 2 atomic clocks to even be able to measure it (1 on earth, the other in space).
10. Re: Silly to assume by voidphoenix · 2013-11-23 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth
  RELATIVITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
  The emphasized bit is correct, and another AC claimed "relativity does not work that way", which is incorrect, because relativity does work that way. Astronauts on the ISS experience a net dilation of 21 or so microseconds per day -- dilation of about 25 microseconds due to velocity relative to ground and compression of about 4 microseconds due to being higher up the gravity well. Over a 6-month stay, that would be about 4 milliseconds.
  While that's probably well within the margin of error of any mechanical watch, GPS devices are a different story. They have rather accurate internal clocks, and relativistic errors are large enough that GPS satellites have to compensate for the discrepancy.
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
11. Re: Silly to assume by DarwinSurvivor · 2013-11-24 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for doing the math. The 2 atomic clocks would definitely work then.
This rock is so old... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-21 21:22 · Score: 4, Funny

...it's older than thought itself!
1. Re:This rock is so old... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-11-22 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...it's older than thought itself!
  More importantly, is it older than dirt?
2. Re:This rock is so old... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  ...it's older than thought itself!
  More importantly, is it older than dirt?
  Actually it would be, since dirt comes from broken down rocks.
3. Re:This rock is so old... by DarwinSurvivor · 2013-11-22 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget organic material.
Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-21 21:39 · Score: 0

I think Kim Kardashian has found her next engagement ring.
Woah, dude by wonkey_monkey · 2013-11-21 21:41 · Score: 0

Mars Rock Older Than Thought
That's nothing. I've got underpants that are older than time.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Woah, dude by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, my neighbor down the street is older than God.
  His lawn is immaculate.
2. Re: Woah, dude by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Just keep of the grass. Ok?
That's what I felt by smittyoneeach · 2013-11-21 22:19 · Score: 1

But I didn't cotton to browsing /. in time to drop that gag, Anonymous Corduroy. I blame Satinic influence.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
yeah by MoreThanThen · 2013-11-21 23:23 · Score: 2

but 1st I gotta complete the Dr Who doodle over @ google.fr
scientists are eager to know more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 01:00 · Score: -1

4.4 billion years ago was a very important turning point in the history of Mars. Some believe it may have looked something like this
1. Re:scientists are eager to know more by rickb928 · 2013-11-22 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  "dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."
  And there is a time in Mars' history that scientists are NOT eager to know more about?
  Vapid. Utter waste of bits. 'turning point' no less so. Troll video included.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
2. Re:scientists are eager to know more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  "dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."
  And there is a time in Mars' history that scientists are NOT eager to know more about?
  I think we can all agree that there is no reason to look back at the '70s.
3. Re: scientists are eager to know more by rickb928 · 2013-11-22 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  No more reason than to look back at the 80's, or the 60's, or the late 1700's.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... by Laxator2 · 2013-11-22 01:02 · Score: 5, Funny

"...Older than thought".
Humans became a sentient species only recently, on the geological time scale.
So a rock being older that thought itself, is not so surprising.
Now, what was I just thinking about?
My head feels heavy, like a rock ...
1. Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  sentient: able to perceive or feel things.
  "Sentient" is not a synonym for "self-aware."
  Even a fish is sentient, but it is probably not self-aware.
  
  Humans became a species only recently, on the geological time scale.
  FTFY
2. Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... by erice · 2013-11-22 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  "...Older than thought".
  Humans became a sentient species only recently, on the geological time scale.
  So a rock being older that thought itself, is not so surprising.
  To be older than human thought it easy. However, to be older than thought would require that the rock be older than thought anywhere in the universe. We lack evidence to decide that one.
3. Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  Good reasoning, but you stopped too soon:
  After stating that we lack evidence, you would need to state what evidence we lack - presumably, evidence for thought or lack thereof elsewhere in the universe.
  From there, it is reasonable to conclude that the statement would be from an entirely human-centric perspective, thus rendering your post as nothing more than pedantic nitpicking.
Adapted from Futurama by barlevg · 2013-11-22 01:46 · Score: 2

Q: Why does a Mars rock taste better than an Earth rock?
A: Because it's a little meteor.
So they finally counted the rings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 02:50 · Score: 1

It took them how long to decide to cut it open and count the rings?
Did scientists throw the rock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 02:52 · Score: 0

until it smashed into pieces and they discovered its true age, like they found out the clam was 100 years older after they opened the shell and killed it?
In related news ... by PPH · 2013-11-22 05:39 · Score: 2

... Earth rock still holds the record thanks to Mick Jagger.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
so-called by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 06:46 · Score: 0

That is not how this word is used.
Gotcha by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-22 08:58 · Score: 0

Is Mars rock older than the Beatles?
Cool, but to put things in perspective... by terrywirth5 · 2013-11-23 11:30 · Score: 1

To the many Murcans (including elected officials) that think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago, this revelation means nothing. I abhor the indifference. On another note, the Bible IS fiction.