Scientists Calculate the Moon To Be 4.51 Billion Years Old (go.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Calculate the Moon To Be 4.51 Billion Years Old (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @07:00PM from the over-the-hill dept.

Scientists used rocks and soil collected by the Apollo 14 moonwalkers in 1971 to calculate the age of the moon. It turns out that it is much older than scientists suspected, coming in at 4.51 billion years old. ABC News reports: A research team reported Wednesday that the moon formed within 60 million years of the birth of the solar system. Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years after the solar system's creation, not quite 4.6 billion years ago. The scientists conducted uranium-lead dating on fragments of the mineral zircon extracted from Apollo 14 lunar samples. The pieces of zircon were minuscule -- no bigger than a grain of sand. The moon was created from debris knocked off from Earth, which itself is thought to be roughly 4.54 billion years old. Some of the eight zircon samples were used in a previous study, also conducted at UCLA, that utilized more limited techniques. Melanie Barboni, lead author of the study from the University of California, Los Angeles, said she is studying more zircons from Apollo 14 samples, but doesn't expect it to change her estimate of 4.51 billion years for the moon's age, possibly 4.52 billion years at the most. The study was published today in the journal Science.

140 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 19:05 · Score: 0, Funny

He created it 6000 years ago. Read a book!
1. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  Who is this God you speak of? Some WuTang member of late?
2. Re:God created the moon by war4peace · 2017-01-11 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Read THE book!
  FTFY.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
3. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  Why is God a he? How about she, shemale, trans, homo, necro, pedo, tim cock?
4. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  RTFM
5. Re:God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  God put those lead isotopes there to test our faith!
6. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  Because none of that stuff ..... existed.....um..... then.
7. Re: God created the moon by EzInKy · 2017-01-11 21:21 · Score: 2
  
  Clearly it is said that God created man in his own image. Women were simply an afterthought taken from a left over spare rib. Perhaps He ran out of BBQ sauce?
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
8. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  So, God likes to pose in front of a mirror, and still fuck up, because creatures it created are clearly not Gods.
9. Re: God created the moon by EzInKy · 2017-01-11 22:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well the God of the Bible is clearly an egomaniac, thankfully He is not the only one man has invented.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
10. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  You look at this planet and question his incompetence?
  But I can already see how it was, any engineer knows. God was building the Earth and he saw it was faulty and not ready for shipping and someone up in management said "We got a schedule to keep, just ship it and we'll patch the rest with some miracles".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Basically he comes across as a ADHD child in the terrible twos. I mean, look at him. When his toys didn't behave like he wanted them to, he tried to flush them. What's left was treated with unfairness and cruelty, arbitrary punishment and reward.
  It's like handing a child an ant farm and that little asshole poking at the poor creatures, putting them under a magnifying glass and dumping a glass of water onto them, just for the sake of watching them suffer.
  Asshole.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Do Islamic colleges taste like hummus?
  I'm asking for a friend.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re: God created the moon by stealth_finger · 2017-01-12 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly it is said that God created man in his own image. Women were simply an afterthought taken from a left over spare rib. Perhaps He ran out of BBQ sauce?
  He was thinking, I like this design but it needs more tits and the danglies get in the way so we'll just put them inside and jobs a goodun.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
14. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Basically he comes across as a ADHD child in the terrible twos. I mean, look at him. When his toys didn't behave like he wanted them to, he tried to flush them. What's left was treated with unfairness and cruelty, arbitrary punishment and reward.
  It's like handing a child an ant farm and that little asshole poking at the poor creatures, putting them under a magnifying glass and dumping a glass of water onto them, just for the sake of watching them suffer.
  Asshole.
  You are describing humans... - as we say in Greece: what a big head you have, said the donkey to the rooster...
15. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  Can a selfie take a selfie?
16. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  As for sexual orientation God loves all of humanity, so yes, homo, necro and pedo are fairly certain.
17. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
  Coincidence? You decide!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
18. Re:God created the moon by swimboy · 2017-01-12 01:54 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  No, he created the *earth* 6000 years ago. Before that, the moon was mysteriously orbiting around a non-existent planet!
  
  --
  Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
19. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Quick helpful note on rational thought, applying to everything:
  All inferences from something you assert does not exist, have no meaning.
20. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Difference in rational moral objection between God culling bipeds for the improvement in the species, and evolution culling bipeds for the improvement of the species: None
  And, incidentally, you have no basis from your worldview to treat "human" bipeds as in any way morally distinct from any other organism, which, of course, being the hypocrite you are, accept as utterly natural and necessary in every other case.
21. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  Your words do not take a material form. Yet, I am pretty sure you were trying to convey some meaning with them. If we said, "God does not take a material form", instead of, "God does not exist", would you then allow us to continue reasoning about him?
22. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
  Coincidence? You decide!
  No coincidence... "Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them"... so, HUMANS decide - as we say in Greece: "you have the knife, you have the rmelon also"!
23. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  The post I replied to said God was "invented" by man, i.e., does not exist.
  Something that does not exist, has no possible actual attributes, including "egomania".
  This is a Reification Fallacy, and has no validity as an argument.
24. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  I think that any translation from the original is problematic, plus the Greek language is more accurate.
  There isn't an "original". The written Greek versions were translated from the Oral Hebrew "original" versions. So you not only have to deal with the usual problems of oral traditions shifting across generations, but there was at least one major linguistic translation in the mix to fuck things up as well.
  For all we know, the "original" story was that God was created by a female Snake, who tore out one of her rib bones to create a penis for the male version.
25. Re: God created the moon by rgbatduke · 2017-01-12 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  OK, have to step in here. The map is not the territory, and the idea of a thing is not a thing. If you are saying "God is not a thing, it is an idea" I'd agree with you. But ideas are not in any necessary one-to-one correspondence with the Universe of "things that actually exist", and ideas to the very best of our experience a) are highly complex phenomena contingent on all sorts of material stuff and do not just float around like quantum particles that permeate and surround the Universe (h/t to Terry Pratchett); b) cannot and do not "create" anything, ever. In fact there is no evidence that anything, ever, has been created. The laws of physics are all pretty much constrained by conservation principles (consistent with observation) that state that nothing is ever created, it is all just existing stuff changing form and moving around.
  The second thing I'd object to is the idea that anyone at all can "reason" about God in a meaningful or useful way. The first step in such a reasoning process is to choose one's premises, or axioms, or postulates -- the basis for one's eventual "consistent" conclusions. This is precisely the same whether one is reasoning about mathematics, the Universe of stuff that actually exists, or the enormous metaphysical space of pure speculation -- reasoning about pink unicorns, trying to decide if Santa likes hot chocolate with or without a splash of peppermint Schnapps on Christmas eve, how many angels can dance on the head of a standard shirt-packing pin. The premises themselves cannot be proven -- they are PREMISES -- so all reasoning contingent upon the premises is Bullshit in the precise sense that there is (as noted) no necessary one-to-one correspondence with the pattern of consistent results on derives with the very best of intentions and the real world.
  The second step in USEFUL reasoning is to seek out objective correspondences between those contingent results AND the real world. To the extent that they are discovered to exist, we strengthen our degree of belief in the conclusions, and by Bayesian reasoning, the premises that led to the conclusions in good correspondence. To the extent that they are contradicted, we at least weaken our degree of belief in the conclusions, and again by inheritance in the premises that led to the contradiction. This is a slight oversimplification as multiple premises contribute to most nontrivial conclusions and it is not necessarily clear which one(s) fail, but there is no doubt that REASON requires reduction of belief in the conclusion itself rather than amplification when there is either no evidence supporting it (but there is evidence supporting competing ideas and arguments) or if the evidence contradicts it.
  And here's the rub. The very first step about any reasoning process about God has to begin with the pure assertion that God exists. This is because we have no direct and usable sensory data, no direct "experience" of God the way we have experience of toast, or things falling down when dropped. We have built powerful apparatus that extends the range and sensitivity of our senses and none of it reveals God. We have conducted careful statistical analyses of human experience contingent on things like belief and prayer and behavior and -- outside of obvious stuff that behaving "well" is more likely to make one happy than being a butt in human society -- no phenomena or statistical anomalies are observed that require supernatural explanation. One cannot predict one single thing about the world and how it behaves or outcomes based on religious belief or the asserted premise "God exists for some useful meaning of the word `exists'". To paraphrase, the rain falls on Saint and Sinner alike.
  What we CAN do is examine the consequences of BELIEF ITSELF. Believing in something has an enormous impact on human existence. In a sense, our society (or societies!) are defined by their beliefs, their memetic structure, their history, their evolution -- including religious beliefs. Religious beliefs make an enormous set of
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
26. Re:God created the moon by OakDragon · 2017-01-12 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  This was funny the first 6000 times I read it. Wearing thin now.
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
27. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Write a story and you will become the same god as 'God'
28. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Evolution might be influenced by cataclysmic events but it relies on gradual genetic drift as a species population adapts to its environment. God is usually accredited with massive indiscriminate disasters that wipe entire cities or peoples out -- people can understand their neighbor bob not passing on his genes but major disasters feel more random and senseless, so they ascribe it to an angry or vengeful or whatever god. God isn't equivalent to evolution, he's equivalent to plate techtonics and the weather.
29. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  He's playing devils advocate and arguing within the 'god exists' logical path. How stupid can you get trying to be a logic 101 genius?
30. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  The map is not the territory, and the idea of a thing is not a thing. If you are saying "God is not a thing, it is an idea" I'd agree with you.
  
  There seems to be a rather persistent effort to either ignore what I said, or agree but draw erroneous follow-on conclusions from that, based on what I actually replied to.
  Yes, agreed, the map is not the territory. And if the argument I was replying to was of the form of "the map is inaccurate", or "the map cannot be accurate due to it containing a logical inconsistency", my response would naturally be quite different. That was not the claim. The claim was -the map is entirely fictitious-, of a described "location" that -does not exist-, and then proceeds present a subjective evaluation of a particular location within it, -as if it did exist-, e.g. "there are a lot of egomaniacs in this town that doesn't exist", hoping for a general negative appraisal of part of the the "territory" while claiming none of it is actually there.
  
  That is a Reification Fallacy, and is irrational, or as William James termed it, the "psychologist's fallacy". To state something doesn't exist, exists only as a mental construct, but then ascribe a pejorative argumentum ad conseqentiam attribute to what doesn't exist if your premise were true, does not move us toward a conclusion your is true supported only by an inference from what you explicitly stipulate says it isn't true.
  
  A reasonable argument starts with the stipulation that a position is true or false for the purposes of argument, then seeks evidence for or against it, or internal contradictions following from that stipulation. His argument stipulates both simultaneously--that God exists for the purpose of his supposed "egomania", and that he doesn't for the purposes of fact. A much different argument results from that presentation that "if we presume God exists, then I propose he would be an egomaniac, and I propose having that attribute contracts the notion of a God, therefore there is no God". That is not the argument that is presented. It is, rather, some kind of attempt to contract a serious argument into some quasi-argument, quasi-troll that suggests "God is an egomanic" and therefore, implicitly, one should accept his existence and reject him anyway, as it is an argument against God's existence per se. It's as much an argument for some -other- god's existence and supposed preferability as it is an anti-theistic stance. Sure, it reveals the poster's bias with merely one trivial step of analysis, but that's typical, and doesn't alter what a rationally consistent argument is.
  
  The very first step about any reasoning process about God has to begin with the pure assertion that God exists. This is because we have no direct and usable sensory data, no direct "experience" of God the way we have experience of toast, or things falling down when dropped.
  
  No, to state it accurately, -you- do not have any direct and usable sensory data. I do. That you do not, as with any experience whatsoever, does not mean I do not. Psychic powers or psychic transference or whatever you are claiming here notwithstanding. If you mean replicable-on-demand evidence, then you have an argument, and should make that assertion instead. You haven't experienced something, others have, and you, personally, and it is only you personally, haven't because you've never made any serious effort to test it, and simply therefore don't deserve to have such an experience. Your unwillingness to investigate is neither automatically other people's experiential state nor has any broader philosophical importance.
  
  What we CAN do is examine the consequences of BELIEF ITSELF.
  
  Yes, you can. But that is not the scope being presented, and would almost certainly lead to an argumentum ad consequentiam with the discussion at hand. And regardless, there is no benefit to proceeding from one's feelings about the outcome of belief in a fact, to purportedly apply to whether a proposed fact is or is not
31. Re:God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  From Adam's left ball-sack!
  It's in the bible!!!
  (you have to interpret it, though, just like the bats being birds thing, 's totally legit).
32. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  Bringing logic to a religious debate usually ends poorly.
33. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just trying to help both of you with your stupidity, as this argument is formally, provably, fallacious and stupid.
34. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  "God is usually accredited with massive indiscriminate disasters that wipe entire cities or peoples out"
  No, they are explicitly -not- indiscriminate, and the reasons are explicitly given in detail. That you characterize them as so, simply doesn't matter to anyone possessing any intellectual honesty by contrast.
  On the other hand, evolution certainly would be "indiscriminate" in this sense, yet you accept that as a necessary process resulting net benefit to the species. I'd ask "why", but I'll find out eventually anyway what trivial little personal behavior you're embarrassed about, which is creating -all- your motivation to attack any proposed form of personal responsibility here, anyway.
35. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Those words were invented by man.
  Therefore they don't exist???
  Bugs Bunny is an acknowledged fictional character, therefore Bugs isn't funny???
  You have a religious idiot's idea of what "exists" means.
36. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  I know you are trying to be funny but at least they don't change the number by millions every couple of years.
37. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know what to say other than you're regrettably as unqualified to attempt to think in terms of science or philosophy as you are in religion.
  The "words" either reference something that exists, or does not exist. If it doesn't exist, it has no attributes that actually exist. If there are no factual attributes, there is nothing to object to that has any real-world applicability, or in any way changes whether or not it exists.
  Should Bugs Bunny possibly be given psychological counseling due to him being considered funny, and getting and "egomaniac" complex because of it, perhaps a treatable "delusions of grandeur" psychological imbalance? Should we intervene before Bugs Bunny mistreats some of his fellow drawings?
  No, because he is a -cartoon-, and ascribing any personal characteristics to "him" is a failure to have capacity to differentiate reality in the most basic way. Either something exists -in reality-, or it doesn't. Saying "Bugs Bunny has an ego problem" in no way changes whether he exists than saying so about God, leaving aside the brain-damage you are choosing for yourself because the topic is religion.
38. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's more likely that man created God in our own image.
39. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Any engineer knows it works, and knows the subjective complaints of an incompetent and lazy engineer who doesn't want to do anything for further support, is appropriately dismissed.
40. Re: God created the moon by Camel+Pilot · 2017-01-12 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Difference in rational moral objection between God culling bipeds for the improvement in the species, and evolution culling bipeds for the improvement of the species: None
  >
  
  Huge difference... one involves alleged intention AND a (logically inconsistent) concept of Being that possess Omni attributes. The other just is without intention nor forethought nor Omnipotence. Not even in the same league.
  
  And, incidentally, you have no basis from your worldview to treat "human" bipeds as in any way morally distinct from any other organism, which, of course, being the hypocrite you are, accept as utterly natural and necessary in every other case.
  Nice insult slinging and calling someone else out for hypocrisy when it appears that you possess this quality in excess.
41. Re: God created the moon by Camel+Pilot · 2017-01-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, so we're moving on to the blatantly, directly false. Stalin and Mao, in a couple of decades of the last century, killed more people, as an implementation of an -explicitly- atheistic position of government, that religion has -over all of time-, even allowing -conjectural- notions that the motivation was religion rather than other factors of territorial or economic conquest for the benefit of -political- motivations, -and also in contradiction to the directives of the religion itself-. That is, well, do I do with "absurd characterization" or "direct knowing lie"? I'll leave that up to you.
  Wow one long run on sentence... but never the less I would categorize despotic communism as a religion and Stalin and Mao as their replacement gods. Same phenomena. Uncritical irrational worship.
42. Re: God created the moon by syntotic · 2017-01-14 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ha ha ha! Very TRUE indeed! You take the genome and supress some body substance (the rib), then you get a corporal difference and it is NEARLY the same genetic code! Simple and efficient, same code base, only need the substance(s) supression code to be added, the rest is polymorphism (sic!) and short-circuited logic to extend here, implode there, grow that there, etc.
43. Re: God created the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-14 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Either something exists -in reality-, or it doesn't."
  Things come to exist. I can create Bugs Bunny or God and now they exist. I can reify them with words or computer programs. Within a virtual reality they exist and therefore have a reification in terms of a bit representation in this reality.
44. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-15 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution doesn't "cull", and most certainly not based on the whim of a childish prude.
  Evolution only happens. It has no agenda.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
45. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-15 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's a bit hard, just 'cause he didn't want to work through the weekend.
  But I guess you're right, it's not like he sat down the next Monday and fixed his crap.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
46. Re: God created the moon by Opportunist · 2017-01-15 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it loses a bit in translation...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, much earlier by Virtucon · 2017-01-11 19:11 · Score: 2

Giant impact theory gets bonus points.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:So, much earlier by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, we've moved from glancing impact to head on kaboom.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:So, much earlier by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. As the terminal event in a hierarchical series of events, the GI could happen at pretty much any time in the development of the Solar system (or any other stellar planetary system). Indeed, there is at least one line of argument that the last "giant impact" in the history of the Earth has not yet happened. There's on the order of a 0.2% chance of Mercury impacting the Earth in the next 4 billion years (J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, "Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth", Nature, 459, p817, 2009), and appreciably higher chances of other inter-planetary collisions.
  That said, the likelihood of violent interactions is higher in the early Solar (other stars are available) system, because after the initial period of aggregation of planets, the number of large particles decreases.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Another One? by _xanthus_47 · 2017-01-11 19:27 · Score: 2

This will probably get me downvoted as a troll but I've begun to drown out the following: 1. New Moon Formation/Age Theory 2. New Dinosaur Extinction Theory 3. New Asteroid On Possible Future Collision with Earth Estimations 4. New Solid State Physics Miracle that Promises Amazing Possibilities 100 Years in the Future. They just seem to disappear and are never heard from again or become part of the background noise of science.
1. Re:Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 19:42 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Just wait till you get older. This is essentially all there is to life. Enjoy it while you can.
  captcha: freshens
2. Re:Another One? by Fragnet · 2017-01-11 19:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't mark you down but I disagree. Keep an open mind and remember that paradigms break and conventional wisdom is often wrong.
3. Re:Another One? by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's how science works. You observe, you try new theories, and most of them don't stand the test of time. Some, though, do. They get incorporated into our set of knowledge. That's what science is about. Creating a model that will explain what we found, until we create a better model that describes it better.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Another One? by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-12 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  They just seem to disappear and are never heard from again or become part of the background noise of science.
  You crave surety.. And that is very hard to come by in matters scientific. Mainly because new evidence happens all the time.
  When humans need lack of change, that's what religion is for. Even though it too changes over time, it is a slow process, usually measured over lifetimes, so you can pick a religion, and stick with it come hell or high water.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
5. Re: Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  There is a exception to the rule, it does not always get better. After all, take the idea of democracy, from the Greek ages till now. Where was the "better" in between?
6. Re: Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting, ballistic argument. Damn Google, f.... God creates man? Man creates god to slow advancement of social well-being? Uncheck that argument, reread your history. In that time period, Muslims invade Spain, almost taking Paris, they were not a religion then? But territorial invaders? Looking for uneducated slaves? Or how about, the Roman/ druid fight, looking for what again, in the name of? God,religion, or I'm a god theory, no, but I am the biggest, kiss arms, yadda yadda, baddest zss mo around. Sorry, you lost vision of the truth of "man" .
7. Re:Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  yup - i normally just go hang out in the mountains.
8. Re:Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  This will probably get me downvoted as a troll but I've begun to drown out the following: 1. New Moon Formation/Age Theory 2. New Dinosaur Extinction Theory 3. New Asteroid On Possible Future Collision with Earth Estimations 4. New Solid State Physics Miracle that Promises Amazing Possibilities 100 Years in the Future. They just seem to disappear and are never heard from again or become part of the background noise of science.
  That's because science is boring.
  The actual paper's abstract is: "We present uranium-lead dating of Apollo 14 zircon fragments that yield highly precise, concordant ages, demonstrating that they are robust against postcrystallization isotopic disturbances. Hafnium isotopic analyses of the same fragments show extremely low initial 176Hf/177Hf ratios corrected for cosmic ray exposure that are near the solar system initial value. Our data indicate differentiation of the lunar crust by 4.51 billion years, indicating the formation of the Moon within the first ~60 million years after the birth of the solar system."
  Quite dull.
  Now someone else will likely either find supporting or contradictory evidence to be all sorted out later. If there's enough studies that support the conclusion, then it'll likely be accepted as mainstream science. If there's some rather robust studies that contradict the claim and cannot be explained away, then this study will fall by the wayside.
  But that's boring. So we get "Scientists: Moon Over the Hill at 4.51 Billion Years Old" as a news report in the mainstream press. ;)
9. Re:Another One? by Falos · 2017-01-12 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Breakthroughs aren't "real", they're anomalies in a reality of incremental scientific advancement.
  
  Can't get clicks and eyeballs with that, so the headlines pretend EXCITING SHIT GOING DOWN YO.
  
  Your subconscious probably figured it all out already and said don't bother, it's a wise cynic that knows how money works.
10. Re: Another One? by JoeRobe · 2017-01-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  How do trends in democracy fit into scientific progress? Democracy isn't a scientific theory.
  There's no guarantee that society gets better, or that politics gets better. Democracy is an ideology or movement that sometimes is popular and sometimes isn't. Science is always trying to do a better job at describing the truth (even if theories and models are just the closest representation of truth possible).
  Theories generally do improve because data gets better/more precise/more accurate. New theories need to be able to accommodate old data, as well as the new stuff that is in conflict with the old theory. The history of science if rife with examples of this.
  That said, there are times when theories are accepted or rejected for political or social reasons, regardless of their ability to reflect the truth (e.g. creationism, climate change denial, initial rejection of special relativity, heliocentrism). These are short term fluctuations, and as increasingly more data comes to light, the fluctuations generally stabilize to the theory that's closer to the truth (except creationism, there's no reasoning with that theory until we invent a time machine).
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
11. Re: Another One? by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-12 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, ballistic argument. Damn Google, f.... God creates man? Man creates god to slow advancement of social well-being? Uncheck that argument, reread your history. In that time period, Muslims invade Spain, almost taking Paris, they were not a religion then? But territorial invaders? Looking for uneducated slaves? Or how about, the Roman/ druid fight, looking for what again, in the name of? God,religion, or I'm a god theory, no, but I am the biggest, kiss arms, yadda yadda, baddest zss mo around. Sorry, you lost vision of the truth of "man" .
  What the hell you smoking?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
12. Re: Another One? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-14 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  "short term fluctuations"
  1800 years between Aristarchus of Samos and the acceptance of heliocentrism. Decades between chromosome discovery and an accurate count of human chromosomes. A century between "no free lunch" and EM drives.
13. Re: Another One? by Opportunist · 2017-01-15 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Neither is democracy a scientific idea, nor does the democratic principle apply to science.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re: Another One? by JoeRobe · 2017-01-20 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  You're examples are referring to progress, not fluctuations. Yes, it took 1800 years for heliocentrism, but there was progress during that time that lead the to technology and mathematics that could prove the geocentric model wrong. The fluctuation was the political mess starting in the 1500's where the church fought back against the clearer logic of heliocentrism. That held back the transition until Galileo and others had much clearer evidence that that was irrefutable (but that didn't stop the church from refuting it for a time).
  Yes it took a long time to go from double helix to sequencing, but that's progress. No free lunch to EM drive is still very much questionable.
  An example of fluctuation is the folks that hung on to classical physics in the face of clear evidence for quantum theory being more accurate. Some of them were prominent physicists that, if they had embraced QM earlier could have pushed the field forward rather than holding it back. Another example is creationism, a backward force that is sometimes gaining and sometimes losing traction (vs 100 years ago), but will someday (hopefully) be seen as a fluctuation.
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Poor Ken by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 19:29 · Score: 1

This is going to confuse the hell out of poor old Ken Ham
1. Re: Poor Ken by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Hopefully, the "good book" you speak of is a dictionary, so you call look up the meaning of "belief."
Stupid question by demon+driver · 2017-01-11 19:45 · Score: 2

Couldn't the 4.6 billion years old stuff just have come from a 4.6 billion years old original source (say, Earth), while the moon still came into existence only, say, several hundred million years ago, having been formed out of something which perchance included that stuff?
1. Re:Stupid question by SuricouRaven · 2017-01-11 20:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Uranium-lead dating of zircon counts from the time the mineral (specifically, the zircon crystals) was formed - that is, the time the rock solidified. Any natural event which could get rocks from earth to orbit is going to involve such high energy that the material would certainly be melted. If the moon formed from slow accumulation, these are surface rocks and would still have been melted on impact. Either way, the radiometric clock starts ticking as soon as the material cools to the point of solidification.
2. Re:Stupid question by Biogoly · 2017-01-11 20:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The radiometric dating is done on zircon mineral crystals. These crystals would form naturally after the molten rock of the early moon cooled...just like on earth. So the date of 4.51 billion years is the time the molten moon cooled and the zircon (which was ejected from earth in what must have been a massive collision) formed. The oldest rock on earth has zircon that is dated to 4.54 billion years ago.To quote wikipedia: "Zircon incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."
3. Re:Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:54 · Score: 0
  
  what if the uranium around when the zircon formed was already really old?
4. Re:Stupid question by wvmarle · 2017-01-11 23:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This also puts the age of both the earth and the moon at "when the first rocks formed", not "when the celestial body formed" which imho is when a significant amount of space debris, possibly molten, clumps together to form something resembling a planet. There's probably no way to really figure that one out.
  As the moon is supposedly formed from material from the earth, it could be argued to be the same age (it being from the same clump of material, plus some of the asteroid that caused the split - which in turn may have contained material that solidified much earlier, of course).
  In that line of thought, how can we be sure that these moon rocks and earth's oldest rocks are really formed on these bodies and are not fragments of much older objects that were caught in the respective gravity fields?
5. Re:Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  On the slim chance this is a serious question: uranium has no age and is not "old". The uranium is decaying to lead. In an open system the lead is lost and nothing more can be done or said about the age of the material. In a closed system, and assuming no initial lead* then you can simply measure the amount of lead and from the decay constant of uranium work out the age.
  *There are other ways to deal with this, the correct term is "common lead".
6. Re: Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of half life? Everything in a chemistry book has a half life. Just a lot longer then. Remember, big bang? Every thing starts as ooze. Even that ooze has or had a half-life, or that asmov statement, star stuff, remixing of the chemicals of the universe? New half-lives? New chemicals made by the same processes,
7. Re: Stupid question by chihowa · 2017-01-12 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Half-life is a property of the ensemble of atoms, not of individual atoms. Radioactive decay is a stochastic process and is just as likely to happen to "new" atoms as "old" atoms, so they "age" of the individual atoms is irrelevant.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
8. Re:Stupid question by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  This also puts the age of both the earth and the moon at "when the first rocks formed", not "when the celestial body formed" which imho is when a significant amount of space debris, possibly molten, clumps together to form something resembling a planet. There's probably no way to really figure that one out.
  We bracket the ages. This sort of study gives us a minimum age for the formation of the object in question (the Moon must have formed before the rocks of its surface. However, in a proportion of meteorites - the chondritic ones - contain small spherical inclusions of refractory calcium- and aluminium- rich silicate minerals ("CAIs") which have textures and chemistries indicating a fusion even in the dust disc surrounding the proto-Sun (it is still a matter of debate whether the CAI-forming event was the initiation of fusion in the Sun, or a magnetic heating event). When dated, CAIs give whole-inclusion ages that cluster fairly tightly on 4568 million years, and are the oldest reliably identified objects in the Solar system, thought to mark an event before the formation of the planets got well under way.
  Personally, I found that date a little annoying, because for a few years the "age of the Earth" from several estimates sat at a memorable 4567 million years. But since all reasonably credible models of the formation process has it taking several million years, more precision is not helpful. It's still a useful number to remember, because it's memorable and not-wrong.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
9. Re:Stupid question by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Some slight quibbles.
  (1) your comment sort-of implies that dating only uses zircons, and only uses the uranium-lead system, and only works for crystals with negligible initial lead. All of these are slightly misleading ; there are plenty of clocks other than uranium-lead ; crystals other than zircon can be used (and indeed, aggregates of multiple crystals can be dated as whole rocks) ; rocks with initial contents of the daughter element(s) in your clock(s) can be used with appropriate additional measurements. Radiometric dating is a complex subject - which is well worthy of study if you have anything to do with metamorphism, as different clock systems can be affected differently by different metamorphic events of differing intensities - making for a subtle but highly informative suite of tools.
  Also, the growth of zircon crystals can and does happen before the bulk of the magma solidifies. Even a relatively zirconium-rich magma only averages a few hundred ppm. So if you're examining a typical 30x30mm thin section, you'd get around 0.4x0.4 mm of zircon, probably as a dozen or so grains. They're easier to find optically than the raw data would suggest - high relief, quite high birefringence - but you'd need to be point-counting a hundred thousand points on the slide to get a moderately robust estimate of the content (which is why it's only classified as an "accessory" mineral, not a "rock-forming" mineral).
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You do know by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:34 · Score: 0, Interesting

this is all a guess, they actually have no idea.
1. Re:You do know by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  On one side we have someone looking at the sky and saying "Ghhhhaaaaaa. Must have been created magically by an invisible sky wizard"
  On the other side we have someone who measures the isotopic ratios in zircon crystal and then apply the current knowledge about crystal formation and radioactive decay to figure out an age that is consistent with the observed values.
  One of them is clearly making a guess. The other is not. I let you figure out which one is which.
2. Re:You do know by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  The one measuring stuff. The other one doesn't even guess, he merely believes someone who guessed a long time ago.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re: You do know by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  ... Because a god who created planted and such shit couldn't have put lead into the zircons? That argument is easy to dance around. The theistic creation myths all require the supernatural, and given a universe that looks old, all of the "new earth" ones necessarily require the universe to look consistently old, so any evidence of young news would be evidence that their god screwed up details when creating the universe.
4. Re: You do know by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  That reminds me of this old creationist adage: It walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck but its not a duck because of ... magic.
5. Re:You do know by sg_oneill · 2017-01-12 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  this is all a guess, they actually have no idea.
  On what grounds? This seems like a pretty reliable observation, unless you think the zircon in the moons soil came from somewhere else.
  Which is kind of a weird thing to believe.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
6. Re: You do know by sg_oneill · 2017-01-12 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Its not just bad science, its bad theology, because its essentially accusing god of being a liar.
  Like, why would god plant fake evidence everywhere. Why is he lying. It doesnt say in the bible that gods a liar, and if he is, why assume the evidence is a lie when he could have just made some nonsense up in the bible.
  Creationists are a discredit to their own faith.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Not a day over 4 billion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 20:35 · Score: 5, Funny

If it asks, I say it doesn't look a day over 4 billion. After all, the moon is a harsh mistress.
1. Re:Not a day over 4 billion by mrbester · 2017-01-11 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you pay her enough she'll piss on your bed.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
2. Re:Not a day over 4 billion by Mashiki · 2017-01-11 21:10 · Score: 2
  
  Only if you're buzzfeed, and get disavowed by every other media organization.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Not a day over 4 billion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  If you pay her enough she'll piss on your bed.
  Get Hillary! drunk (as if you'd need to actively do that...) and she'll piss on you for free.
4. Re:Not a day over 4 billion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  We only have trump's word that it is fake. And we have already seen what it takes trump to lie.
  10 minutes before winning: Jail her!
  10 minutes after winning: She's been great, I like to congratulate her on a good hard campaign!
5. Re:Not a day over 4 billion by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Is this a Trump-bashing session? I've not actually bothered to follow the orange-skinned small-handed buffoon's latest fuck up.
  But the important question is, did Buzzfeed get the eyeball-seconds and clicks they needed out of the story?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Uranium-lead dating by rossdee · 2017-01-11 21:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Trump wants to make gay marriage illegal, I expect he will make Uranium-lead dating illegal too.
1. Re: Uranium-lead dating by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  Trump also wants to suckle Netanyahoo's taint.
2. Re: Uranium-lead dating by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  Please let Rule 34 not apply this time, please let Rule 34 not apply this time...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re: Uranium-lead dating by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-01-12 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  Too late. Someone is already working on porn featuring Lead from the Metal Men and his life mate Uranium.
  
  --
  "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
4. Re:Uranium-lead dating by Coren22 · 2017-01-13 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you say that? Everything that Trump has said in the past about it has been in support of LGBT rights, not against.
  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
  But perhaps you were just trolling?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Giant impact theory is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 21:36 · Score: 0

For the Moon to have originated from the Earth there would have to have been an enormous collision to launch the Moon chunk away from the moon, and then that moon chunk would have to have had a very, very lucky second collision with something else perfect enough to place it into a circular orbit around the Earth.
Obviously (to me anyway) the Earth and the Moon formed from a swirl of stuff which formed into two planetary bodies.
1. Re:Giant impact theory is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  The giant impact theory does not involve "to launch the Moon chunk away from the moon " and a "very lucky second collision ... to place it into a circular orbit around the Earth."
  Reusing your own terminology, the result of that impact is more like a "swirl of stuff" orbiting the Earth and eventually collapsing to form the Moon.
4,51 bn yo instead of 4.60 by hcs_$reboot · 2017-01-11 22:29 · Score: 1

Wow! I'll sleep better at night!

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
That's pretty old by TheRaven64 · 2017-01-11 23:09 · Score: 1

I think we should probably think about getting a new one some time about now.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
1. Re:That's pretty old by wvmarle · 2017-01-11 23:26 · Score: 2
  
  I like the current one. It's tried and tested, all the bugs have been ironed out. Not likely to cause any upsets any time soon. It ain't broke, why fix it?
2. Re:That's pretty old by TheRaven64 · 2017-01-11 23:49 · Score: 2
  
  Inconsistent colour, apparent size varies year to year and even month to month. Seems pretty buggy to me.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:That's pretty old by wvmarle · 2017-01-11 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yet it's highly predictable. Bugs are by nature unpredictable and leading to unexpected behaviour. Haven't seen that with the moon.
4. Re:That's pretty old by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:17 · Score: 2
  
  You kidding? That's one hell of an uptime! Don't you dare thinking about replacing it!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re:That's pretty old by wooferhound · 2017-01-12 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  We should Blow Up the Moon . . .
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI
  
  --
  We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
6. Re:That's pretty old by Gavagai80 · 2017-01-12 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Consistently reproducible bugs are still bugs. They're the kind of bugs somebody should've fixed by now.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
7. Re:That's pretty old by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Well when does the warranty run out?
8. Re:That's pretty old by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  They're features, not bugs. What sort of a geologist or astronomer are you?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Opportunist · 2017-01-12 00:14 · Score: 2

You sure he gets paid for that?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Moon dust depth by labnet · 2017-01-12 00:44 · Score: 1

I thought moon dust built up at 1mm/1000 years , thus 4.5B years would 4500m thick??
What gives?

--
46137
1. Re:Moon dust depth by geantvert · 2017-01-12 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  The 1mm/1000 years figure is flawed. It is based on an incorrect value of 14 millions tons of dust per year computed in the early 60th. More recent figures are 100 to 1000 time smaller.
  Even creationists websites do not use anymore moon dust as an argument. For instance look at the last paragraph in the Conclusion section of https://answersingenesis.org/a...
  "Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists’ case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists."
2. Re:Moon dust depth by lgw · 2017-01-12 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Man, creationist argument refuted by creation science. That's got to sting.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Still need an answer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 02:02 · Score: 0

What about it being Hollow?
Everything I know about uranium-lead dating... by sh00z · 2017-01-12 02:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

...I learned from watching "Creature From the Black Lagoon." That movie has surprisingly accurate science for a Universal monster flick. Double-checking fossil age estimates against the surrounding rock. Whoa, I didn't catch that when I was eight! The leading-man "good guy" scientist is searching for additional information about the transition from water-breathers to air-breathers in the evolutionary record for tidbits that could prove useful in adapting the human body for deep-space exploration.
Twist plot... the sample are from earth? by JcMorin · 2017-01-12 02:37 · Score: 1

What if the sample were from earth... that would explain why they both have the same age...?
1. Re:Twist plot... the sample are from earth? by RockDoctor · 2017-01-14 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The water content and oxygen fugacity of terrestrial magmas are both far higher than the lunar samples, which are things that would show up in a "major element" chemical analysis. You'd spot it immediately (if it was your several-thousandth major element analysis you were looking at, otherwise you'd need to spend hours doing the detailed comparison). There are more subtle traits too, which you'd get from the minor elements analysis - which on the departmental XRF machine would have meant an hour or so of zapping, instead of a few tens of seconds.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
s/calculate/speculate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 03:40 · Score: 0

or extrapolate, or whatever. "Rock" and "soil" are not complete sciences, we can only speculate and extrapolate when attempting the feeble effort of estimating its age, because, again, everything we know about rock and soil formation is based on speculation.
Previous estimates by Verdatum · 2017-01-12 03:42 · Score: 1

"Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years after the solar system's creation, not quite 4.6 billion years ago." is misleading. It sounds like before this research we had no clue. Scientific consensus has been that it's roughly 4.5 billion years old for decades now. As a lazy check, the Wikipedia article on the moon has stated the 4.5 billion figure based on a source from NASA since September 2002, and likely wasn't in there previously because Wikipedia was pretty new at that point. This research dials in the precision and provides independent confirmation.
Not too sure if accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:36 · Score: 0

How could they determine that the rocks collected from the surface were actually from the moon and not from meteor bombardment? Did they dig into the ground more than the estimated 15 feet of regolith to get their samples?
1. Re: Not too sure if accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  I didnt read the article to see what they said. But they have six widely separated expeditions plus strong lunar meteorite candidates as a mineological baseline. Lunar rocks are bone dry, having never come in contact with water like on Earth and Mars
Adam by bagofbeans · 2017-01-12 05:48 · Score: 1

In the garden of Eden lay Adam,
Complacently stroking his madam
And loud was his mirth
For on all of the earth
There were only two balls and he had 'em
1. Re:Adam by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  In the garden of Eden lay Adam,
  Complacently stroking his madam
  And loud was his mirth
  For on all of the earth
  There were only two balls and he had 'em
  There once was a man from Nantucket
  with a dick so long he could suck it
  he said with a grin
  wiping cum from his chin,
  "THIS is just a drop in the bucket"
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:34 · Score: 0

Creationist much?
Lunar birthday cake by Richard+Kirk · 2017-01-12 06:40 · Score: 2

If you make a cake with 4.5 billion candles, and each candle was 1 lumen; it would give off 4.5 Gigalumens.
If the full moon lights the earth with 0.1 lux (I have found several values, but this one will do) then I calculate the moon reflects the equivalent of 50 Gigalumens. This is not quite your classical lumen, which gives off light in all directions, but that's only a factor of 2.
So the cake would be 9% as bright as the full moon.
1. Re:Lunar birthday cake by vandamme · 2017-01-13 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  So this accounts for the 10% difference in light from what they told us was a Supermoon, but in actuality was a birthday party?
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by JoeRobe · 2017-01-12 06:47 · Score: 1

Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble...

No no, please don't end that with an ellipsis. Finish your thought there. What is the next thing he should say? Maybe:
Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble. We should stop having a scientific debate about it. - said a scientist that should be fired
Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble. We should just give up trying to figure it out. - said a scientist that should be fired
Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble. We should stop taking data and go with our last answer. - said a scientist that should be fired
Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble. We should listen to what our religious leaders say. - said a scientist that should be fired
Well, guys, we really don't know this. Be a little more humble. We're incapable of knowing this at all. - said a scientist that should be fired

--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Re:So many theories... so many on the payroll list by Coren22 · 2017-01-13 02:18 · Score: 1

Do you work for free? Why would you advocate for others to work for free?
Scientist don't make tons of money, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?