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 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:05 pm

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?
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 D_Archer » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:50 am

No, it is 4.65357 billion billion billion years young, via quantum mechanical computations it is now known that we live in the past of the future that we never had.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

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

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:19 am

Hello Forum,
I now desire to know what the EU group believes the age of the solar system is. I know that the radiometric dating currently used has errors due to the electromagnetic storms in the solar system's past. But, still much supporting data seems to cluster about the value of 4.6 billion years.

The current dating methods to my knowledge are based on the age of meteorites, Earth's oldest zircon crystals, Earth's oldest rocks, and Moon rocks. What is wrong with these dating methods?

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

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

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:25 am

Thanks for the enlightenment about the oldest mature galaxies being 13.7 - 1.6 = 12.1 billion years old. Perhaps galaxy formation goes well beyond the BB age. But, I wish to know specifically your thoughts about the age of our solar system that is thought to be 4.6 billion years old.

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 Aardwolf » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:37 am

dougettinger wrote:Hello Forum,
I now desire to know what the EU group believes the age of the solar system is. I know that the radiometric dating currently used has errors due to the electromagnetic storms in the solar system's past. But, still much supporting data seems to cluster about the value of 4.6 billion years.

The current dating methods to my knowledge are based on the age of meteorites, Earth's oldest zircon crystals, Earth's oldest rocks, and Moon rocks. What is wrong with these dating methods?

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
Surely all those methods can only tell you the solar system is at least x billion years old. None can tell you when the Earth was formed nor if there was a solar system prior to that. Aside from that I don't believe the EU has any particular position on the age of the solar system.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:09 am

Hello to Arrdwolf and others,

The absolute age of 4.6 by is not important. However, the radiometric dating does indicate the oldest materials found thus far in the solar system cluster about certain values. This fact suggests that the Sun initially had a proto-star disk of plasma that roughly solidified at the same time. Dating of the Earth and Moon rocks verify that their own plasma clumps solidified a little later thus suggesting the solar system of planets and hot dust were created at a similar time.

The idea that planets popped into existence or were captured at much different times is somewhat dispelled. Although, as for myself, I believe that some planets could have been captured at radically different times. The visual discovery of proto-star disks also leads one to believe that most (not all) of the solar system's planets were created when the Sun was created.

So, do you believe the solar system has a birth date that spanned about 100,000 years or do you believe the solar system has been evolving (collecting planets and moons) over its entire range of existence ?

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 Aardwolf » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:37 am

dougettinger wrote:Hello to Arrdwolf and others,

The absolute age of 4.6 by is not important. However, the radiometric dating does indicate the oldest materials found thus far in the solar system cluster about certain values. This fact suggests that the Sun initially had a proto-star disk of plasma that roughly solidified at the same time. Dating of the Earth and Moon rocks verify that their own plasma clumps solidified a little later thus suggesting the solar system of planets and hot dust were created at a similar time.

The idea that planets popped into existence or were captured at much different times is somewhat dispelled. Although, as for myself, I believe that some planets could have been captured at radically different times. The visual discovery of proto-star disks also leads one to believe that most (not all) of the solar system's planets were created when the Sun was created.
Or maybe they just discovered a system with no planets so a large asteroid belt has predominated.

dougettinger wrote:So, do you believe the solar system has a birth date that spanned about 100,000 years or do you believe the solar system has been evolving (collecting planets and moons) over its entire range of existence ?
I suspect the latter, although I doubt the system has been collecting planets and moons. Weighing up the evidence I'm of the opinion it's been growing them.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:55 am

Doug,
You might wish to read this paper on the sun by C.E.R. Bruce from 1944.

A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmology

I am sorry but my funky old computer will not cooperate to give you the link; but here is a quote to spark your interest.

"(6) Birth of Planetary Systems
The matter neutralized in the nova discharge gradually condenses, having been set revolving around the nucleus by the looped or spiral form taken by the discharge. The first stage in the former process will be the formation of a huge dust cloud, resulting in a reddening of the light of the star, exactly as is observed in the case of the B-Type stars, which represent in many cases the post-nova type. The final result of the condensation is a family of planets, asteroids and comets, in the case of a supernova outburst, in other words, the birth of a solar system."

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

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

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:56 am

dougettinger wrote:Hello to Arrdwolf and others,

The absolute age of 4.6 by is not important. However, the radiometric dating does indicate the oldest materials found thus far in the solar system cluster about certain values. This fact suggests that the Sun initially had a proto-star disk of plasma that roughly solidified at the same time.

What is evidence? What if the Sun did not have a proto-star disk?

dougettinger wrote: Dating of the Earth and Moon rocks verify that their own plasma clumps solidified a little later thus suggesting the solar system of planets and hot dust were created at a similar time.


The Moon is thus far radiometrically dated to be older than Earth (by over a billion years) and composed of differing materials, suggesting these bodies formed differently and at different times. But what value should be assigned to radiometric dating at such time scales? How accurate is it? Does it really reveal true age? If it gives a ballpark figure then the Moon is older than Earth. That implies an entirely different way of thinking about the solar system.

dougettinger wrote:The idea that planets popped into existence or were captured at much different times is somewhat dispelled.

EU doesn't believe that things just pop into existence without cause or process. Capture is only dispelled if you believe in a variety of core accretion theory (from an alleged proto-disk which is not actually proven).

dougettinger wrote:Although, as for myself, I believe that some planets could have been captured at radically different times. The visual discovery of proto-star disks also leads one to believe that most (not all) of the solar system's planets were created when the Sun was created.


Why are those structures absolutely proto-star disks? What if they're not? What if they're leftover disks of material, dross, from a formation process? Thus far all observed rings of material such as the asteroid belt and planetary rings are not in the process of forming a planet or moon--they are leftover material from something and they're not caught in the act of coalescing into anything.

dougettinger wrote:So, do you believe the solar system has a birth date that spanned about 100,000 years or do you believe the solar system has been evolving (collecting planets and moons) over its entire range of existence ?

The age of the solar system cannot be determined. Radiometric dating has been found to vary, being possibly and ultimately inaccurate. Moreover, some evidence for what happened, too, is missing and cannot be found similar to how a crime scene will lack forensic evidence as such things inevitably change, vanish, or become degraded.
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 viscount aero » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:00 am

dougettinger wrote:Thanks for the enlightenment about the oldest mature galaxies being 13.7 - 1.6 = 12.1 billion years old. Perhaps galaxy formation goes well beyond the BB age. But, I wish to know specifically your thoughts about the age of our solar system that is thought to be 4.6 billion years old.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

That cannot be known at this time.
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 tayga » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:18 am

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, in his talk on the CMB, mentioned something called 'anchoring' in medical circles. Essentially it means inherited assumptions. Today's cosmologists don't question the assumptions inherent in the hypotheses of their predecessors and continue to build on foundations of sand, to use a popular metaphor.

Given that, how can you test the age of the universe using the age of a galaxy when both are based on a raft of hidden and uninspected assumptions? I'm afraid that when the paradigm shifts we are going to have to tear up most of what has been written about the universe and start again. :roll:
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

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

Unread postby Bomb20 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:54 am

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.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

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

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:50 am

I believe an answer from the forum came hither. The EU community has no estimation of the age of the solar system and definitely is suspicious of any being assigned. I should know by now that it is downright embarrassing to ask the age of a celestial body or group. I should have known that the facts of the "crime scene or birth scene" have long ago been obliterated.

I will atill continue to use my estimates just for talking purposes until I like a better estimate and replace the previous one. Let's say a collection of particles in the vicinity of Earth gave rise to a being called Arrdwolf or Viscount aero. One could rather easily pinpoint the being's beginning but never the beginning of the formation of the composite particles. But if we identify the being's DNA one may trace the basic building blocks to another location on Earth. As one goes back farther to determine which star these building blocks came from can become very blurred. But someone will even try to pinpoint the open star cluster from which Arrdwolf's or Viscount aero basic building blocks came from. The farther back in time the more blurring occurs. Let's call it the Uncertainty Principle of the Cosmos; the farther back in time and generations of particle re-organization the less you know about the precise time and volume of space for any origin of any conglomeration of particles.

Anyway, I am enjoying the discussions. But, please don't ask anyone's age.

Keep the electrons flowing,
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 Apr 28, 2014 12:21 pm

dougettinger wrote:I believe an answer from the forum came hither. The EU community has no estimation of the age of the solar system and definitely is suspicious of any being assigned. I should know by now that it is downright embarrassing to ask the age of a celestial body or group. I should have known that the facts of the "crime scene or birth scene" have long ago been obliterated.


Right. But realize that not all evidence is gone. Crime scenes are rife with evidence. But what of the missing things? Some things are untraceable and unknowable, hence reasonable doubt, probabilities/statistical analyses, etc... are used to guesstimate a finding. Everything needed to actually piece together what happened at the birth of a planet is currently unknowable. When material, too, is recycled and re-purposed then how old is it really?

dougettinger wrote:I will atill continue to use my estimates just for talking purposes until I like a better estimate and replace the previous one. Let's say a collection of particles in the vicinity of Earth gave rise to a being called Arrdwolf or Viscount aero. One could rather easily pinpoint the being's beginning but never the beginning of the formation of the composite particles.


Right.

dougettinger wrote:But if we identify the being's DNA one may trace the basic building blocks to another location on Earth. As one goes back farther to determine which star these building blocks came from can become very blurred. But someone will even try to pinpoint the open star cluster from which Arrdwolf's or Viscount aero basic building blocks came from. The farther back in time the more blurring occurs. Let's call it the Uncertainty Principle of the Cosmos; the farther back in time and generations of particle re-organization the less you know about the precise time and volume of space for any origin of any conglomeration of particles.


:idea: You see it, yes. Hands clapping. Blurring of evidence can also occur in real time, right now, too. If you go to a murder scene again you are going to find a mystery. How much of that mystery you can piece together is a case by case affair that depends on myriad conditions being present or not. You can only garner a composite guess of what happened. Some of these guesses are virtually 100% correct while many others, a majority, are much less certain than that.


dougettinger wrote:Anyway, I am enjoying the discussions. But, please don't ask anyone's age.

Age implies that the theory can trace a process back to an absolute origin. This becomes particularly specious when talking about the big bang as cosmologists continue finding galaxies that "shouldn't be there" because they defy the big bang timeline for age. So instead of actually questioning the big bang theory in general, they simply extend the age of the universe back a bit farther. At a point that will become untenable and laughable.
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 dougettinger » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:51 pm

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
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests