Solar System and Planet Formation

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:01 pm

dougettinger wrote:A reference was given to the decay rate being found not to be constant. Decay rate are then random, but the values collected and computed are not so random. If enough data is taken, then trends can be seen above some randomness.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA


Right but there probably isn't an absolute baseline for age particularly dealing with geologic or cosmological time scales. You can test rocks and then adjacent rocks. And you can come up with a relative age of the rocks relative to each other. But are these ages absolute? Whereas you can carbon date something to more recent ages (or date something by its state of decomposition at a crime scene by finding the onset of certain bacteria or bugs), radiometric/redshift dating of planets or galaxies or the Cosmos is not very credible. These things are too far, too large, and the scales and processes known and unknown are too beyond humanity.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:16 pm

viscount aero wrote:
Jatslo wrote:
About debunking the BB, that has already been done.


Don't be so sure, they found ripples.

Ok even if they found a signature does that mean it's from the big bang? Does the CMBR indicate proof of the big bang? What are they detecting?


Their research has to be replicated first, so the point is mute; they found ripples: Cosmic Inflation and Gravitational Waves. ~ http://www.space.com/25092-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves-complete-coverage-of-major-discovery.html
Last edited by Jatslo on Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby Jatslo » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:21 pm

Bomb20 wrote:The mainstream researchers believe our solar system is 4.6 billion years old. They think they have found the perfect method(s) to know the age of the whole solar system including Sun and Earth after many failed ways and methods.
See: http://www.universetoday.com/75805/how-old-is-the-earth/

They assume that all matter and celestial objects like Sun and Earth formed at the same time in the same event. And they think they have the perfect method to determine every age with radiometric dating.

However, the followers of mainstream ignore all critical questions concerning the original conditions during the formation, potential contaminations and the (not always) constant decay rate.

Some (hopefully) interesting links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/

http://www.sott.net/article/271479-Cos-mic-Influences-in-Nuclear-Decay

http://cuthelain.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay/

If the constant radioactive decay rates are not constant after all then all settled science and "knowledge" about the age of the solar systems turns into dust.


These are all educated guesses; best guesses based on statistical analysis and probability; they are not right, nor are they wrong. I actually misread this thread thinking the universe, when I supposed to be talking about our solar system; my apologies.
Jatslo
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:59 pm
Location: King City, Oregon USA

Re: Is the solar system really 4.6 billion years old?

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:40 pm

Jatslo wrote:
Bomb20 wrote:The mainstream researchers believe our solar system is 4.6 billion years old. They think they have found the perfect method(s) to know the age of the whole solar system including Sun and Earth after many failed ways and methods.
See: http://www.universetoday.com/75805/how-old-is-the-earth/

They assume that all matter and celestial objects like Sun and Earth formed at the same time in the same event. And they think they have the perfect method to determine every age with radiometric dating.

However, the followers of mainstream ignore all critical questions concerning the original conditions during the formation, potential contaminations and the (not always) constant decay rate.

Some (hopefully) interesting links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/

http://www.sott.net/article/271479-Cos-mic-Influences-in-Nuclear-Decay

http://cuthelain.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay/

If the constant radioactive decay rates are not constant after all then all settled science and "knowledge" about the age of the solar systems turns into dust.


These are all educated guesses; best guesses based on statistical analysis and probability; they are not right, nor are they wrong. I actually misread this thread thinking the universe, when I supposed to be talking about our solar system; my apologies.


They're assumptions first that beget the statistical analyses. The statistics may be applied to non-existent events in non-existent pasts.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu May 01, 2014 8:55 am

Image

Seems Mr. Moon outdates the entire universe in some samples. :shock: or should I say, Miss Moon. :mrgreen:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 01, 2014 9:25 am

JeffreyW wrote:Image

Seems Mr. Moon outdates the entire universe in some samples. :shock: or should I say, Miss Moon. :mrgreen:

Oh yes that graph. I had forgotten about that :lol: The Moon being 14 billion yrs old. That doesn't align with any accepted theory out there.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu May 01, 2014 11:13 am

viscount aero wrote:

Oh yes that graph. I had forgotten about that :lol: The Moon being 14 billion yrs old. That doesn't align with any accepted theory out there.


14 billion? What about the 28 billion? Double the age of the universe! :mrgreen: Will establishment explain this one away too? Probably. This study was probably buried as deep as possible... but I found it! Yay!
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Sun May 11, 2014 5:40 am

Hello to JeffreyW and Viscount aero,

I have returned after a long trip and see that both of you are criticizing the current accepted age of the solar system. You have used sample data from the Apollo Missions to support your case.

I wish to criticize your evidence. Firstly, the age of the solar system is based on isotopes in meteorites, the age of the oldest rocks on Earth, zircon crystals on Earth, including the age of Moon rocks. The Apollo data would be the most questionable due to more chance for contamination and malfunctioning instrumentation.

Your chosen data from Apollo sample seems very skewed. In particular, the sample numbering indicates a very specific selection. Any collection of data will possess anomalous values which must be evaluated in context of the type and location of acquisition. If anomalous data gathers around a certain value then, of course, it cannot be ignored. Even so, the data for six of these samples shows a good trend toward accepted values. One must consider the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) period that occurred 3.9 bya and lessening bombardment occurring over the next 900 million years on the Moon's surface.

You just cannot rule out all the data because certain anomalous values are indicated unless these values show a trend and begin to overpopulate the sampling. So, gentlemen of science, what is your best educated guess of the age of the solar system. You do believe it had a beginning?

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun May 11, 2014 10:22 am

dougettinger wrote:Hello to JeffreyW and Viscount aero,

I have returned after a long trip and see that both of you are criticizing the current accepted age of the solar system. You have used sample data from the Apollo Missions to support your case.

I wish to criticize your evidence. Firstly, the age of the solar system is based on isotopes in meteorites, the age of the oldest rocks on Earth, zircon crystals on Earth, including the age of Moon rocks. The Apollo data would be the most questionable due to more chance for contamination and malfunctioning instrumentation.


I'm not in love with or focusing solely on Apollo data as that data, too, may be erroneous. However the alleged relative age discrepancies between the Earth and Moon are quite compelling. If science is in love with radiometric dating then it must accept that the Moon may be older than Earth.

dougettinger wrote:Your chosen data from Apollo sample seems very skewed. In particular, the sample numbering indicates a very specific selection. Any collection of data will possess anomalous values which must be evaluated in context of the type and location of acquisition. If anomalous data gathers around a certain value then, of course, it cannot be ignored. Even so, the data for six of these samples shows a good trend toward accepted values. One must consider the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) period that occurred 3.9 bya and lessening bombardment occurring over the next 900 million years on the Moon's surface.


You are assuming the base assumption is a fact: LHB? That is a real epoch? What if it isn't? LHB assumes as fact that most cratering is due to bombardment.


dougettinger wrote:You just cannot rule out all the data because certain anomalous values are indicated unless these values show a trend and begin to overpopulate the sampling. So, gentlemen of science, what is your best educated guess of the age of the solar system. You do believe it had a beginning?


We've already gone over this, mate. There is no conclusive way to date the solar system particularly if its members, the Sun, planets, asteroids, planetoids, comets, are migratory visitors. There is no way to date these things because traces of their orgin are vanished forever. For example, what if the solar system is more akin to tree rings whereby the layers represent epochs? That would make the inner solar system much older than the outer. That is but one example.

To cling to the probably myopic and flawed base idea that the solar system all formed as one mass, at the same relative time, is to assume that that model is the most plausible one--which it isn't. On the contrary, solar nebular collapse is highly specious and physically reaching of an idea. "Hot gas" in outer space tends to dissipate, not collapse. Moreover, cold debris tends to remain that way--cold and dusty and un-accreted. Cold dust does not accrete and then ignite into a thermonuclear bomb in space.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon May 12, 2014 6:54 am

Hello Viscount aero,

"I'm not in love with or focusing solely on Apollo data as that data, too, may be erroneous. However the alleged relative age discrepancies between the Earth and Moon are quite compelling. If science is in love with radiometric dating then it must accept that the Moon may be older than Earth." quote by viscount

Yes, I agree, the Moon was made at a different time than the Earth. But the span of time between their births should only be in the 100,000-years to one million-year range which was determined from the data. You are right, the solar system was not instantly made within a very short period.

Also, the Late Heavy Bombardment period peaked at 3.9 bya and lasted about 900 million years. This massive disruption of an organized solar system was either caused by impacts and/or arcing between close encounters of highly magnetic cosmic bodies. Nevertheless, this disruption was either caused by the capture of later cosmic bodies or the currently accepted model of the Nice hypothesis. I definitely favor the capture of later bodies.

"We've already gone over this, mate. There is no conclusive way to date the solar system particularly if its members, the Sun, planets, asteroids, planetoids, comets, are migratory visitors. There is no way to date these things because traces of their orgin are vanished forever. For example, what if the solar system is more akin to tree rings whereby the layers represent epochs? That would make the inner solar system much older than the outer. That is but one example." by aero

"To cling to the probably myopic and flawed base idea that the solar system all formed as one mass, at the same relative time, is to assume that that model is the most plausible one--which it isn't. On the contrary, solar nebular collapse is highly specious and physically reaching of an idea. "Hot gas" in outer space tends to dissipate, not collapse. Moreover, cold debris tends to remain that way--cold and dusty and un-accreted. Cold dust does not accrete and then ignite into a thermonuclear bomb in space.[/quote] by Viscount aero

Yes, I agree that a star and its organized system of planets and/or any binary brethren star are formed by electromagnetic phenomena which is later during its evolution dominated by gravitational forces. Like you, I do not believe in most of the tenets of the nebular hypothesis.

However, do you agree that radiometric dating in spite of some of its erroneous nature does provide a rough span of time when the solar system was constructed by both electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena?

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon May 12, 2014 11:12 am

dougettinger wrote:
Yes, I agree, the Moon was made at a different time than the Earth. But the span of time between their births should only be in the 100,000-years to one million-year range which was determined from the data. You are right, the solar system was not instantly made within a very short period.

The data indicates a billion year difference in ages if not more--not merely 100,000 years which is virtually geologically invisible.

dougettinger wrote:Also, the Late Heavy Bombardment period peaked at 3.9 bya and lasted about 900 million years. This massive disruption of an organized solar system was either caused by impacts and/or arcing between close encounters of highly magnetic cosmic bodies. Nevertheless, this disruption was either caused by the capture of later cosmic bodies or the currently accepted model of the Nice hypothesis. I definitely favor the capture of later bodies.

Again, the LHB is almost as speculative as the CMBR being related to the big bang. Nobody knows how the solar system got here or evolved. I tend to favor models like "Nice" and rogue body capture as well as electrical activity--a hybridized model. I tend to ignore "heavy bombardment" models as that implies one epoch. How can that be known if 1. planets and moon systems have come from elsewhere 2. tiny bodies with hundreds of craters exist--how would a tiny body like an asteroid have hundreds of craters all over them--some being rather large relative to the body? Those were not formed by impacts. They couldn't have been. For example, look at Hyperion. Look closely at its structure and you'll immediately realize it wasn't shaped via impactors. It looks more like a giant piece of pumice or something like that, with internal structuring of the pockmarking going deep into it like a beehive: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/hyperion.htm
You'll see that the establishment struggles with their words when describing this moon. They try to assign their assumed "facts' to something clearly out of their models.

dougettinger wrote:Yes, I agree that a star and its organized system of planets and/or any binary brethren star are formed by electromagnetic phenomena which is later during its evolution dominated by gravitational forces. Like you, I do not believe in most of the tenets of the nebular hypothesis.

Ok very good ;) Consider that if the Sun is an electrical "node" whereby its diffuse but mind-bogglingly immense heliopause represents and electrical circuit attached to the galactic environment, does that indicate gravitational dominance? I'll meet you half way and say its a confluence of both. Moreover is gravity purely mechanical?

dougettinger wrote:However, do you agree that radiometric dating in spite of some of its erroneous nature does provide a rough span of time when the solar system was constructed by both electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena?


I'm on the fence with radiometric dating methods. I think they can be truthful in certain contexts. You can have adjacent material dated relative to other material and a relative age between those regions can be attained but what is the "origin" or baseline "date"? I don't know if that can actually be known. You can begin looking into the problems with this method here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... ercrabs-2/

excerpt:

"One possibility is that fossilization is in fact instantaneous. Under conditions of powerful electrical discharge one element (such as carbon) might be transmuted into another (such as silicon). Low temperature electrical transmutation has been observed in the lab, though it has been kept fairly quiet and out of public view. As for the stratigraphic layers in which fossils are found, might it be possible that these were laid down more quickly, in a kind of electrical sputtering effect used in modern nanotechnology applications?

Finally, physicist Wal Thornhill noted in an interview regarding carbon dating: “I think the problem with radioactive dating is that it assumes the uniformitarian model that radioactive elements were created at some stage in the early formation of the solar system, and since then it’s been a slow process of disintegration. Under the electrical theory, elements are being formed all the time in these discharges and, when you have interplanetary discharges, transmutation of elements is occurring and radioisotopes are being created.”
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon May 12, 2014 12:42 pm

More issues with radiometric dating:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/1 ... -part-two/

excerpt:

"Thus, the extinction of the dinosaurs is said to have taken place over 65 million years ago. However, the popular notion that the geologic column represents vast periods of time is being questioned by a number of geologists who realize that it most likely results from a series of catastrophic events.

Nicolaus Steno is often said to be the father of geology. His “principle of superposition” influences geologists to this day, even though it was formulated in the late 1600s. In many ways it seems to be completely straight forward, but only now is it recognized that it was not based on experiments but on field observation.

“At the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed.”

In February 2000, Guy Berthault wrote a paper in which he described several experiments that analyzed the hydraulic processes involved with sedimentary layering. His conclusions were subsequently published in Lithology and Mineral Resources, Vol. 37, No. 5. Under conditions of constant flow rate and a continuous supply of particles, he discovered that a mixture of coarse and fine particles would separate into thin laminations.

Material flowing through a flume under simulated flood conditions created a downstream deposit that sorted into several horizontal strata that continued to build up on the advancing face. The unusual aspect to the deposition of particles is that each layer was composed of laminations younger than those farther back. Rather than top stratum being younger than the bottom, all strata were deposited simultaneously in a horizontal fashion. As the paper states: “Superposed strata are not, therefore, necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.”

Another problem with the superposed strata theory is speed of erosion. The current weathering rate for the continental shelves is thought to be six centimeters per thousand years. Therefore, in less than 10 million years today’s continental shelves will erode away. The difficulty with that assessment is that sediments hundreds of millions of years old are on top of all the continental shelves. How can this be when that material should have all washed away in the Cenozoic era?

Since rock layers are often dated by the type of fossil contained within them, and experiments reveal that the deposition of sediments containing pre-fossil skeletons can no longer be based on the principle of superposition, then rock layers can no longer be dated in that way.

Another problem with gradualism in geology is the radiometric dating of rocks. Rocks are typically dated using the principle of constant radioactive isotope decay rates and an assumption of the estimated original isotope ratios. The oldest rocks are dated using the uranium/lead half-life ratios.

When rocks form, they contain a certain percentage of elements. Zircon contains uranium and thorium atoms, but no lead. Therefore, the assumption is that all the lead in zircon must be radiogenic. This idea depends on a uniform, gradual process free of sudden alteration. If the decay rates of various elements can be altered by external influences, then the percentage formulae that indicate a sample’s age are unreliable.

“There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.” Fred Jueneman, FAIC, Industrial Research & Development, p.21, June 1982."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon May 12, 2014 4:37 pm

This finding summarily disproves establishment geological dating of rock strata. It's quite shocking in light of what we have been led to believe about geology:
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwA6CGwp ... re=related
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjXjf9dR6A0
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5yJeSrzyw
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exxtkN8610
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon May 12, 2014 5:42 pm

To Viscount aero,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. I am just beginning to understand the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism in fossils. I read all your suggested references.

A question arose for me about the dating of a column of geological strata on Earth. Earth is really the only known solar system body with significant plate tectonics, continental drift, volcanism, along with wind and water erosion and the wasting of land masses. Hence, Earth may be the only celestial body in the solar system to have such strata that can reveal a timeline of catastrophies for the solar system. The other bodies can only show the build-up or accumulation of electrical arcing affects over the eons of time including those of actual impacts. Hence, it is difficult to create any timeline of major solar system events on the moons and other planets except for possible crater counting methods. Do you agree with this conclusion?

I should assume if electrical plasma discharges were being released on the Earth's surface at various times to petrify fauna and flora into rock material, then the plasma only existed in broad linear finite sheets that did not cover the entire landmass. Otherwise, all life would have been extinguished. These plasma ribbon most likely following magnetic field lines on the Earth's surface running generally longitudinally. Do you agree with this conclusion?

Having great pleasure in our discussions,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby john666 » Mon May 12, 2014 10:02 pm

If creationist methods of dating are basically correct, that would indicate that Earth is not older than few thousand years.
And if the Earth is so "young", then maybe the Solar system is also, only a few thousand years old.
john666
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests