How old is the Earth's core? Maybe older than you thought

Nov 12, 2011 By Dennis Walikainen
How old is the Earth's core? Maybe older than you thought
Research by Assistant Professor Aleksey Smirnov and colleagues from University of Rochester indicates that the earth's inner core is much older than we thought.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Another discovery by a Michigan Technological University researcher could send shockwaves across the world of earth science.

Aleksey Smirnov, assistant professor of , with colleagues from the University of Rochester and Yale University, has discovered that the earth’s inner core could actually be at least 1.2 billion years older than previously thought.

“It’s a big deal to researchers in this basic science who thought the earth’s core was much younger, so to speak,” Smirnov says of his paper in the journal Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. “They won’t be happy with it.”

Previously, Smirnov helped solve the mystery of how Siberian “traps”—large-scale basaltic formations—were formed, also a controversial finding.

Smirnov uses paleomagnetic data to do his research, measuring the magnetic fields in the oldest rocks on earth. By doing so with samplings from around the globe, he was able to estimate the age of the inner core, which he claims is also related to the start of plate tectonics.

“In the process of plate subduction, one plate goes under the other, sinking towards the Earth’s core,” he says. “When this ‘cold’ subducted plate material first reached the liquid core boundary, that could initiate the formation and growth of solid inner core.”

This geodynamic process, also dramatically changing the magnetic field behavior, happened longer ago than was previously thought, Smirnov claims, because he can see those changes recorded in very old rocks.

He also takes into account the continental drift that has taken place over time, including in India, where he will be going next to gather more data, thanks to a National Science Foundation grant.

“We have studied formations that would have been dispersed around the globe, and we can measure the differences in magnetism from 5 to 195 million years ago versus 1 to 2.2 billion years ago versus 2.2 to 3 billion years ago,” he says.

For his current research, he used data from 28 locations around the world, and he’ll add to that information database, thanks to NSF. He’ll be taking a graduate student, Elisa Piispa, with him when he goes to India to continue his research. “This will be her dissertation work,” Smirnov says.

The geophysicist has previously researched rock formations in western Australia and Canada. “This work can be done anywhere Precambrian formations occur,” Smirnov says. He began his paleomagnetic research as a graduate student in Russia.

Now, he’ll pass on his knowledge on to Piispa, as they seek to solve the great mystery of the age of the ’s inner core.

Explore further: Quakes destroy or damage 83 houses in Philippines

Related Stories

A new way to go from nanoparticles to supraparticles

Sep 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Controlling the behavior of nanoparticles can be just as difficult trying to wrangle a group of teenagers. However, a new study involving the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National ...

Coming to a solar system near you… super-Earth!

Aug 08, 2011

It is our general understanding of solar system composition that planets fall into two categories: gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus… and rocky bodies that support some type of atmosphere ...

Discovering oil at micro level

Nov 03, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Getting trapped oil out of porous layers of sandstone and limestone is a tricky and costly operation for energy exploration companies the world over. But now, University of Alberta researchers ...

The impact of plate tectonics

Mar 09, 2011

Helping to settle a debate over plate tectonics that has divided geologists for decades, scientists at Harvard University have moved a step closer to understanding the complex physical deformation of one of ...

Recommended for you

Kiribati leader visits Arctic on climate mission

Sep 20, 2014

Fearing that his Pacific island nation could be swallowed by a rising ocean, the president of Kiribati says a visit to the melting Arctic has helped him appreciate the scale of the threat.

NASA catches a weaker Edouard, headed toward Azores

Sep 19, 2014

NASA's Aqua satellite passed over the Atlantic Ocean and captured a picture of Tropical Storm Edouard as it continues to weaken. The National Hurricane Center expects Edouard to affect the western Azores ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Callippo
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 12, 2011
The inner core is asymmetric, too http://www.techno...v/27321/
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 12, 2011
I didn't see anything surprising here. I thought the core was at least 3.5 billion years old as the Earth's surface is older.

Intersting link Zephir. Except

Those are rather silly posts about epicycles Zephir. Any experimental science is going to have changes as the equipment and reasoning improves. Trying to pretend that equates to the medieval epicycle based orbits is silly. It is exceedingly rare for any approximation to be completely right. Even Newton was only close.

Ethelred
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2011
Those are rather silly posts about epicycles Zephir
KFC's denomination is even more exact, than it appears. If scientists don't know, how to explain new phenomena, they introduce a new theory. This IS an epicycle approach.

Indeed, if they would be more clever, they would use some EXISTING theory for explanation. But scientists aren't very motivated in mutual reconciliation of their theories, because the more theories, the more theorists can keep their jobs, as R. Wilson, a former president of APS recognized before many years: http://www.aether...memo.gif

Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 12, 2011
Indeed, if they would be more clever, they would use some EXISTING theory for explanation.
If the existing theories no longer fit the known evidence or a newer theory is a better fit or a simpler and equal fit why would someone us a previous theory. That would be silly.

But scientists aren't very motivated in mutual reconciliation of their theories, because the more theories, the more theorists can keep their jobs, as R. Wilson, a former president of APS recognized before many years:
So how does that make it it a good idea to use a worse theory? And R. Wilson had an ax to grind I would say. That link was about physics not geology. And its YOUR ax that is being ground here. Instead of dealing with the evidence you are attacking the morals of paid scientists.

Which is what got Oliver banned in just 5 posts on Physicsforum.

Oh and links like that are how I figured out who you are.

Ethelred

Callippo
1.7 / 5 (20) Nov 12, 2011
If the existing theories no longer fit the known evidence or a newer theory is a better fit or a simpler and equal fit why would someone us a previous theory.
The Aether theory is existing here a long time. But for scientists it may be more advantageous to ignore it from many reasons - if nothing else, it will make the subject of their research less transparent and it would enable them to continue in development of their own theories.

In the parallel thread I explained, why cold fusion is ignored not only with fossil or carbon fuel lobby, but even with proponents of inertial laser fusion and tokamak fusion: all these people are realizing immediately, they would become redundant as well. The same approach the mainstream physicists adopted against the aether theory. This stance is not moral with respect to the rest of civilization, but it's still quite understandable with respect to their own community (which is driven with different rules, being payed from mandatory fees).
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 12, 2011
Instead of dealing with the evidence you are attacking the morals of paid scientists.
Here is nothing to attack, until these scientists are paid, i.e. sponsored with money of other people without public control. Such people are getting amoral gradually with very nature of their job, because they just lack the feedback of layman public. There is no objective criterion for decision, what is really important subject of research for human civilization and what is not. The (community of) people, who don't care about it by their very nature cannot be considered moral in any way.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (18) Nov 12, 2011
If there is nothing to attack why did you just do it again?

National is NOT buying anything from Rossi.

And considering just how many lies you have told here you are not a good source for information on morals.

The worst part of the your theory is that YOU are the one pushing it. With no morals of you own and frequent unwarranted attacks on the morals of others just like this latest.

Ethelred

Callippo
1.7 / 5 (20) Nov 12, 2011
If there is nothing to attack why did you just do it again?
You missed the thread. And I'm not attacking the morality of anyone here, but criticizing the principles and rules, on which scientific community is working. It has nothing to do with morality of individuals.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (16) Nov 12, 2011
The (community of) people, who don't care about it by their very nature cannot be considered moral in any way.


It has nothing to do with morality of individuals.
Well that is a contradiction so I guess the problem with your morals extends to knowing when you accused others of having none. Either that or just lied again. Hard to tell which.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (19) Nov 13, 2011
How old is the Earth's core?


Earth's iron core formed first, by accreting iron meteorites, and then served as the site on which stone meteorites accreted.

TUREKIAN, K. K. and CLARK, S. P., JR. (1969) "Inhomogeneous accumulation of the
earth from the primitive solar nebula", Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6, 346-348.

VINOGRADOV, A. P. (1975) "Formation of the metal cores of the planets", Trans. from
Geokhimiya No. 10, 1427-1431.

MANUEL, O. K. and SABU, D. D. (1981) "The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets", Geochemical Journal 15, 245-267.

www.omatumr.com/a...eGas.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2011
Time to stop evading

Iron meteorites were the first material that accreted to form iron cores of planets near the Sun
That isn't how the iron cores formed. ALL those iron meteorites got hot enough to melt and THEN the iron moved in to the center of those rather large asteroids.

Theses became accretion sites for stone meteorites that formed further away from the pulsar on which the Sun reformed
No. There was no pulsar. Your Neutron Repulsion theory proves they can't form. Of course there is no actual evidence of Neutron Repulsion except what is covered by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

"Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth". Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6, 346-348 (1969)
Which is entirely a wild assed guess wholly dependent on your Iron Sun theory and is not independent of it. There is no evidence to support it is just speculation on your part and it would likely be correct IF the Sun had a the rigid Iron Mantle you claim it does. Only there is no evidence for it.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2011
"Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)
That is the same exact WAG based on and dependent on the Neutron-Iron Sun theory which is contrary to physics and evidence.

The Solar Neutrino puzzle isn't. The neutrinos are all accounted for. Have been since the Sudbury experiment showed that the three flavors of neutrinos, that were all coming from the Sun, add up to the correct amount. Further experiments have continued to confirm that evidence for neutrino oscillation. Competent scientist take new evidence into account. Its about time you did that.

Is the Sun a pulsar? Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)
No. IF Neutron Repulsion was correct than there can be no pulsars. How did you miss that and why haven't you answered the question?>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2011
Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core, Astron. Astrophys. 149, 65-72 (1985)
No. That is evidence that a Super Nova was involved in the formation of the Solar System. Other evidence shows there may have been multiple SN and even a Wolf-Rayet involved. At present it appears there may have been a supernova of sort that is going to occur in the Carina Nebula when Eta Carinae goes boom.

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011 (1998)
More of that circular reasoning. Its utterly dependent on a rather large number of ideas of yours that don't actually fit the evidence or known physics.

We are also still waiting for actual evidence that the Sun has a RIGID iron mantle. You have never posted anything that supports the idea.

Ethelred
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 13, 2011
That isn't how the iron cores formed. ALL those iron meteorites got hot enough to melt and THEN the iron moved in to the center of those rather large asteroids.

Ethelred, you seem to be the expert on planet formation here. Please explain how the iron got to melt and conglomerate and then moved into the asteroid field. ALso, just how did those asteroids form in the first place? From what and how?
I've already read the obvious links to the accretion theory and find it just too magical and contra-physical-science to believe[the basic part about rocks sticking to each other is somewhat light on credibility]. So please enlighten us as to how planet earth got born and grew. Thanks.
RealScience
5 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2011
Kevinrtrs: Back when asteroids started forming, there was a rich cloud of dust and gas. This tended to keep small particles near each other in similar orbits, so that they didn't impact at high speed. Think of it almost like a fluid flow of dust swirling around the sun.
Wherever an area of this flow had higher density, it attracted more dust into a similar orbit. While high speed collisions blown things apart, low speed collisions don't, especially icy dust, so in these clouds larger and larger objects could build up.
When the object got large enough the heat from radioactivity caused them to melt (the bigger objects even melted iron, which settled to their cores.
You could find all this out in a few hours on Wikipedia or with a good astronomy textbook.

So no magic was needed - just lots of dust and lots of time.

In contrast, it is the 'instant creation' young-earth theory that is too magical and contra-physical-science to believe.

jsdarkdestruction
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2011
Its kind of sad kevin says magic when his worldveiw is based on something that absolutely demands magic...as for explaining it, waste of time. we all know the only way kevin is going to seriously consider a reality based answer instead of his magic diety is.....well, never.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2011
Ethelred, you seem to be the expert on planet formation here.
Only in comparison to several others, Oliver in particular.

Please explain how the iron got to melt
Gravity. That is stuff collects via standard chemical aggregation such as is seen in Lunar dust, gravity increases the collection rate, pressure induces heating, radioactivity induces heating. Get enough mass together and the heat will melt it. Uranium was twice as prevalent 4.5 billion years and radioactive aluminum is believed to been the largest contributer of heat from radioactivity.

and conglomerate and then moved into the asteroid field.
Why move? It can form there. Some did move but there is no evidence that most didn't didn't form there.

ALso, just how did those asteroids form in the first place?
Covered the by first question.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2011
From what and how?
Dust and gas from the nebula that Solar System formed from. We can see such nebulae and we can see accretion disks around young stars. See the Carina Nebula for one that may be a close match, due Eta Carinae, to what our System formed out of. Ours may have been a bit busier based on evidence that there might also have been a Wolf-Rayet star involved.

I've already read the obvious links to the accretion theory and find it just too magical
There is no magic involved. You don't like the whole concept of an old Solar System so you simply aren't trying to understand.

and contra-physical-science to believe[the basic part about rocks sticking to each other is somewhat light on credibility].
No. Atoms are quite capable of attaching to each other even in an atmosphere. Much easier in a vacuum.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2011
So please enlighten us as to how planet earth got born and grew. Thanks.
You welcome.

In case you didn't notice I just answered that. If you have a problem with it be specific instead of running like you usually do. Keep in mind that the Lunar dust stuck to everything on the Moon landings so your problem with stuff sticking to other stuff is purely to support your religious beliefs. Sorry, but that is why you refuse to accept the basics of what went on.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
shoot, i spelled deity wrong and didnt notice before it was too late to edit it. my error.
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2011
and contra-physical-science to believe[the basic part about rocks sticking to each other is somewhat light on credibility].

This made me think-Has anyone seen the video of a guy in the space station who takes a bunch of salt and puts it in a bag and shakes it up and to his amazement it instantly started clumping together into a ball? i saw it somewhere but i dont remember where it was cool so i'd like to watch it again...
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 13, 2011
Experimental facts:

1. Molybdenum isotopes made by different nucleosynthesis reactions (r-, p- and s-processes) were never homogenized in iron meteorites.

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Iron meteorites were not produced by geochemical differentiation after element synthesis.

2. Isotopes of many other elements in stone meteorites also remained unmixed since the material was ejected from the nuclear furnace that made our elements:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Stone meteorites were not produced by geochemical differentiation after element synthesis.

3. Primordial noble gases and decay products of extinct elements from element synthesis are still trapped inside the Earth today.

"The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets", Geochemical Journal 15, 247-267 (1981)

http://www.omatum...eGas.pdf

Earth was not layered by geochemical differentiation after element synthesis.

4. The gravitational field is 0 at the center of the Earth.

Iron did not sink there
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2011
Time to stop evading

Iron meteorites were the first material that accreted to form iron cores of planets near the Sun
That isn't how the iron cores formed. ALL those iron meteorites got hot enough to melt and THEN the iron moved in to the center of those rather large asteroids.

Theses became accretion sites for stone meteorites that formed further away from the pulsar on which the Sun reformed
No. There was no pulsar. Your Neutron Repulsion theory proves they can't form. Of course there is no actual evidence of Neutron Repulsion except what is covered by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

"Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth". Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6, 346-348 (1969)
Which is entirely a wild assed guess wholly dependent on your Iron Sun theory and is not independent of it. There is no evidence to support it is just speculation on your part and it would likely be correct IF the Sun had a the rigid Iron Mantle you claim it does. Only there is no evidence for it.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2011
I know you have seen these before Oliver but it is time you stop pretending that ignoring it will make it go away. Iron most certainly did sink here. A rigid solar iron mantle would also sink

"Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)
That is the same exact WAG based on and dependent on the Neutron-Iron Sun theory which is contrary to physics and evidence

The Solar Neutrino puzzle isn't. The neutrinos are all accounted for. Have been since the Sudbury experiment showed that the three flavors of neutrinos, that were all coming from the Sun, add up to the correct amount. Further experiments have continued to confirm that evidence for neutrino oscillation. Competent scientist take new evidence into account. Its about time you did that

Is the Sun a pulsar? Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)
No. IF Neutron Repulsion was correct than there can be no pulsars. How did you miss that and why haven't you answered the question?>
RealScience
4.4 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2011
Keinrtrs - Dry dust sticks through electrostatics, damp dust sticks through hydrogen bonding and surface tension, icy dust sticks through point-melting and freezing, and ruble piles go smoosh rather than smash.

Omatumr - the gravitational field NEAR the center of the earth is plenty to cause iron to sink.
Molten rock and iron are quite low viscosity, and at 1 G a density difference of 0.1 gm/cm3 in low viscosity fluid differentiates in seconds per foot (meat settles to the bottom in a pot of soup).
While the gravity near the core is ~ 1/10 that much, the density difference is ~50 times greater, so the gravity is sufficient to differentiate very quickly as earth-core temperatures are approached.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2011
Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core, Astron. Astrophys. 149, 65-72 (1985)
No. That is evidence that a Super Nova was involved in the formation of the Solar System. Other evidence shows there may have been multiple SN and even a Wolf-Rayet involved. At present it appears there may have been a supernova of sort that is going to occur in the Carina Nebula when Eta Carinae goes boom.

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011 (1998)
More of that circular reasoning. Its utterly dependent on a rather large number of ideas of yours that don't actually fit the evidence or known physics.

We are also still waiting for actual evidence that the Sun has a RIGID iron mantle. You have never posted anything that supports the idea. I love those pictures that show an iron plasma in the corona that you think counts as a rigid iron surface. Please post them again.

Ethelred
Peteri
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2011
Hmm. It seems that Oliver Manuel has been engaged in something even more repulsive than neutrons in his past:
http://mominer.ms...hildren/

In my eyes he's just totally lost what little credibility he ever had in the first place.

Thanks to isdarkdestruction for bringing this little gem to our attention.
jselin
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
This made me think-Has anyone seen the video of a guy in the space station who takes a bunch of salt and puts it in a bag and shakes it up and to his amazement it instantly started clumping together into a ball?

Search "Particle Agglomeration in Microgravity" on youtube...
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
This made me think-Has anyone seen the video of a guy in the space station who takes a bunch of salt and puts it in a bag and shakes it up and to his amazement it instantly started clumping together into a ball?

Search "Particle Agglomeration in Microgravity" on youtube...
Awesome video!
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2011
Uranium was twice as prevalent 4.5 billion years and radioactive aluminum is believed to been the largest contributer of heat from radioactivity.

Thanks for the explanation. It does, however raise a few more questions: Where did the Uranium come from? If it was a previous star that exploded, where did that come from? And so on. Basically - where and how did the first stars get to form to supply all the heavier material for the later ones?
In fact how do stars form from a uniformly [given the inflationary event] accelerating particle[gas] cloud?
If such first stars are required to supply material for later systems, why do we not see any evidence of type III supernova remnants? In fact, given the number of stars and the estimated age of the universe, the rate of star formation must have been or still be absolutely staggering. How come we're not seeing any more such high activity at the moment?
rubberman
3 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2011
Kevin, see Physorg stories under the Astronomy section--" Hubbel uncovers tiny galaxies bursting with star birth in the early universe" (slightly older than 10,000 years) and directly under that one is a very informative one on primordial gas composition which explains the origin (to some degree) of the heavier elements scattered throughout the Universe today. Enjoy!
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 14, 2011
Ethelred,
Can't help but note the manner of expression: your explanation sounds like FACT, as if you or someone else were there to witness and record these formation events occurring. Perhaps I am mistaken but surely your explanation is simply what you[and perhaps others] THINK / GUESS what really happened. You should perhaps then be a little more modest and use words like "it is thought" or "It is believed that" or "it was shown in simulation that" and so on.
Your explanation simply raises a lot more questions: If the process was as you described, why are all the planets not the same - i.e. what was the differentiator and how come only earth has so much water?
How does gravity play a part in particle accummulation when it can only begin to make any great impact at really large masses? In other words you need gravity to make the large objects so that they can have enough gravity to make the larger objects-but you can only have it if you already have large enough objects. Check it out
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2011
Rubberman, just how do you know that what was observed was actually star birth and not just speculation of star birth? Has anyone ever witnessed a complete cycle of star-birth to be able to specify the exact characteristcs such that we can now recognize it when we see it? The answer is an emphatic NO.

How are you going to explain the presence of blue stars in those supposedly really, really older galaxies? Or for that matter in the Milkyway? How do the two reconcile?
Standing Bear
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2011
If Earth's core is 1.2 GYA older than thought, then also so is our central star, given that planetary formation seems a mundane step in stellar development and aging. If that places humanity in a closer 'pickle' as now 'older' sun ages according to its stellar class, then it is even more imperative that we develop space travel using non chemical systems before our planetary cache of chemical propulsants are exhausted or become too expensive to use. For instance, a space elevator solar powered from space would use nothing but the sun, mainly, in normal operation.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
Nice of you to engage for a change instead of the typical "hit and run" posts Kev. Neither of the articles mention blue (class O) stars, or any other stellar classifications for that matter. However they do describe in detail HOW they made the obsevation regarding stellar formation and identified it as such. (As opposed to some other random energetic emission in space who's signature mimics star birth, I don't beleive THAT has been discovered yet). It would appear that god simply hasn't bestowed upon you the ability to grasp most of the subject matter on this site, or the time required for these things to take place......
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2011
Thanks for the explanation. It does, however raise a few more questions: Where did the Uranium come from?
Ah yes. The infamous moving target, I wrote the previous post knowing this was coming. You should work in Hollywood accounting kevin. They love rolling breaks.

The Uranium came from a supernova. I think I mentioned supernova.

And so on.
Where did Jehovah come from? The world isn't going to magically become young because we don't know everything. I will get to this later despite this bit of reality that Jehovah is a much more magic based answer and does NOT fit the evidence.

In fact how do stars form from a uniformly [given the inflationary event] accelerating particle[gas] cloud?
Not fully understood BUT the CMBR does have variations, at least partly due to the Uncertainty Principle, that seem to be enough to cause galaxy formation.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2011
If such first stars are required to supply material for later systems, why do we not see any evidence of type III supernova remnants?
We do. Some of the metals are from them.

In fact, given the number of stars and the estimated age of the universe, the rate of star formation must have been or still be absolutely staggering.
You are easily staggered.

How come we're not seeing any more such high activity at the moment?
You have been on this site a long time. There have been articles SHOWING high activity in many galaxies. High activity is clearly not a always on phenomena.

Can't help but note the manner of expression: your explanation sounds like FACT,
I can't help noticing that your fantasies are treated as fact by you. Much of those explanations ARE facts. Some is theory based on the facts. The fact is the Universe is old. That IS a fact. The Earth is old that IS a fact. Same as John F. Kennedy was shot with a bullet. You weren't there but you know it. >>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
I did see Oswald shot on TV.
Hollow point bullets, revolvers, surprised cops AS SEEN ON TV!

as if you or someone else were there to witness and record these formation events occurring.
Bullshit. Its reason and facts. YOU weren't in Egypt when the Flood didn't happen. You are just trying to evade reality.

Perhaps I am mistaken but surely your explanation is simply what you[and perhaps others] THINK / GUESS what really happened.
Surely not. It is REASON not guesses and often there is a LOT of math involved in the reasoning. Far better then sources than a stuff that came from religion trained scribes that did not witness what they wrote.

You should perhaps then be a little more modest and use words like "it is thought" or "It is believed that" or "it was shown in simulation that" and so on.
Or I could just write the way I did instead being a unbearable pedant with turgid unreadable prose.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
Your explanation simply raises a lot more questions:
Of course. Only the religious think they know all that matters.

If the process was as you described, why are all the planets not the same - i.e.
You claimed you read the accretion theory. Did you fib?

what was the differentiator and how come only earth has so much water?
Only the Earth can HAVE and retain liquid water. Titan has a LOT of water. Pretty much all of it is water. Only frozen.

How does gravity play a part in particle accummulation when it can only begin to make any great impact at really large masses?
What, besides your religious needs, gives you that idea? Gravity control the orbits and thus collisions will occur due to GRAVITY.

Check it out
See the simulations. And try thinking about things other than gravity because there are other things. Dust can easily get an electrical charge.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2011
And this takes place in water but its the same basic thing:
Particle Agglomeration in Microgravity
http://www.youtub...teyMDnwE

Rubberman, just how do you know that what was observed was actually star birth and not just speculation of star birth?
How do you know there was a Great Flood and when was it? We can see star birth occurring in nebulae.

Has anyone ever witnessed a complete cycle of star-birth to be able to specify the exact characteristics such that we can now recognize it when we see it? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Did the Egyptians notice being drowned? We can see the stages. It isn't really that hard to put them together in a sequence and then check the math.

Again you are insisting that since we don't know everything for all time then the Earth is young and the Egyptians were drowned even though they weren't.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2011
How are you going to explain the presence of blue stars in those supposedly really, really older galaxies?
This IS an older galaxy. Eta Carinae is a blue star in the middle of dense nebulae where that are other new stars in different stages of forming.

How do the two reconcile?
Why do you think there is a problem? I don't see one so I am not going to make up for you. Be specific. Cover all the bases. While your at it tell us when the Great Flood was and why we don't see evidence everywhere as we should.

New Link on Earth Moon covering accreation
http://www.physor...ing.html

As for how the Universe came to be my answer, this is philosphy, is that since it is mathematiclly valid why shouldn't it exist? Here is a video on the Universe From Nothing.

http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo
Its a big subject so its long. 65 minutes.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2011
And since you prefer religious answers to reason and evidence here is a rebuttal. I haven't watched it yet as I have a download going.

Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtub...lCR-7AKQ

See you should become a Moslem. God tells you so. So if you say god says I should be a Christian and this guy says god says I should be a Muslim and both of you have the physical evidence against you which god should I follow since going on evidence is right out according to you.

Ethelred
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2011
Kevinrtrs: Congratulations on taking the first step, which is thinking about answers to your questions.
The quest for answers is how humanity's collective knowledge evolved from 'God did it' (or 'the Gods did it') to the current fairly detailed knowledge about how the universe we see came to be.
This knowledge has been built up over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years of making educated guesses, devising experiments that could prove the guesses wrong, and keeping only that which survives repeated attempts to disprove it.

But you are still reading with a mostly closed mind that assumes that science has the answers completely wrong. Please take the next step, throw away your preconceptions, and read physics/astronomy books with an open mind.
You'll get the benefit of thousands of smart people spending their lives figuring out how the universe works, and this message board will get the benefit of more reasoned discussion.

OdinsAcolyte
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2011
Carbon lobbies do not exist. There is no secret society trying to keep new and exciting science a secret unless it is the so-called carbon credit league. There indeed is some questionable science. It is in our nature to try and determine the physics of the universe and the world in which we live. No amount of intimidation by governments or the academic establishment shall ever keep good science down. No corporate conglomerates and all the money in the world can make the truth go away or make a lie the truth...i.e. AGW...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
True the Koch brother's money did not make the evidence for CO2 warming go away. However that post seems to be on the wrong thread. Why is it here?

Ethelred