Age of earth core less than 1.5 billion years

There aren't enough noble gases in the atmosphere to explain a 4+ billion year old earth. Also the current Urey ratio is too high to explain the earth's heat transfer rate over such a long time. The internal temperature of the earth is not sustainable by nuclear reactions -- hence Urey's paradox.

From Numerical Models of the Earth's Thermal History:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woody,

For many years there was a great discrepancy between the age of the universe as calculated by cosmologists, and the age of the oldest stars as calculated by stellar physicists. The stars were much older (apparently) than the universe! This has been resolved by a flood of data from improved instrumentation. All are in good agreement now. All your "earth core vs other dates" indicates is that we need more and better data to understand the mechanisms of core heating and such. Chill out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old -- I've already said that on several occassions. An older view of the earth is consistent with genesis, though many christians might disagree.

The evolution community has it's own obsticals to overcome and one of them is Eurey's paradox -- where apparantly you can't have your 4.5 billion year old earth and current temperature at the earth's core (also unknown for sure) given the heat transfer mechanisms. For some time, scientists have maintained that nuclear reactions inside the earth maintained the higher temperatures -- not so, and this technical paper shows that.

The point I'm making is that thermal modeling sets an old age limit at 1.5 billion years on the earth's core -- this is the maximum, assuming the earth's core started out quite hot. I've been searching for the "assumed" initial starting temperature for the earth's core -- no luck so far. The lower limit is set by polar ice cap data at about 150,000 years provided by S/M.


I've been looking into a theory that a worldwide flood event can be created by tidal surge -- by gravitational interaction between planets. The Roche limit implies that a lot of pressure could be relieved inside the earth (where 95+% of the earth's water is located in an extremely superheated state with immense pressure) -- thus allowing water vapor molecules to be released from deep inside the earth where pressures are like a million atmospheres and temperatures are like 15,000 degrees F.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Roche phenomena is credited with creating Saturn's rings and with Mars' loss of water. It (the theory) has been around for a while.

 

Come now, Woody, you've asked us to believe a great many ridiculous notions, but to have us believe you actually understood that paper is really a stretch.

 

Believe what you want to, I don't care. I am a degreed mechanical engineer with a PE license. Heat transfer is within the domain of my profession.

I think you're having trouble with the technical paper.

 

It would seem that this thread is in the wrong subforum. Doesn't the topic belong in Earth Sciences? But then, the way its being presented, perhaps it belongs in Pseudoscience.

 

Just like atheists don't belong on a religion subforum. Yeah you're right Duke University, Caltech, and Yale are pumping out a lot of pseudoscience.

And you are an anthropology major? Physics is a little out of your league isn't it?

 

Dont be hypocrite.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mythbuster said:

Those aren't my words. You're a liar.

 

That's cool and argon-argon dating places the earth (not its core) at 4.5b years. So we're left with two measurements that show ~4x difference between the ages of parts of earth.

This could mean:

* One or both measurements are incomplete / inaccurate.
* Both measurements are correct and show that earth has gone through changes which we don't know how to model yet.

 

BTW, what does this have to do with religion?

 

Well he's trying the same trick all creationists do: Trying to scrape the barrel of science for little snippets of information that can in some small way support the general creationist view of a young Earth, floods etc..

Give a creationist a paper of the age of the Earth and they will ignore 99% of it until they find something that can vaguely support a Bible bashers view.

 

In a science forum, atheists are the only ones that fit in at the religion sub-forum, where we discuss the science of religion. You know... the anthropology of belief; the sociology of the superstitious; etc. We just put up with proselytizing nutters because they're occasionally entertaining.

It might be. But then again it might not. I'm an anthro major that focuses on archaeology and I'm also a geology minor.

The pseudoscience in this thread isn't in the paper, which is based on solid work. Its in the assumptions that you create with your apparent limited education. Even I, the liberal arts major, noticed that the paper was talking about the age of the inner core being 1.5 Gyr (1.5 billion yrs) in age. This is the current inner core. The paper's authors aren't saying that the age of the core is 1.5 Gyr!

Here's the peudoscience:

• Woody has a conclusion
• Woody seeks data to support conclusion
• Woody finds paper from real scientists who have real educations and sees what he wants to see in their work
• Woody says, "thermal modeling sets an old age limit at 1.5 billion years on the earth's core."
• The real scientists said, "...we estimate an age of the inner core that is close to 1.5 Gyrs."

The Earth was still here before that point. What they don't know at this time is if there was an "inner" and "outer" core or just a single prior to the current inner core. There may have been an inner core of different or even same composition prior to the current inner core. Or there may have been only a single core (perhaps the more likely explanation based on readings of the literature I've already done) that separated into inner- and outer- cores.

The main point of this paper was to further confirm the hypothesis of radioactive potassium as a heat source in the Earth's core, a hypothesis that was presented by Nimmo et al the year before (2004).

.

I don't know Woody.. I think I saw those words just prior to your edit of that post.

Nimmo et al. (2004). The influence of potassium on core and geodynamo evolution. Geophysics Journal International 156, pp. 363–376

+++++++++++++

Now... can someone move this to the appropriate forum?

 

A very important point I might add.

 

Is this true Woody? Is the intent to adapt science to your beliefs and / or vice versa? If 'God' (the all-powerful universe creator) exists, where is he? Why doesn't he stop by for a cup of coffe with you?

 

Then you must have left your PE license at the door on this one. I don't think too many people here, other than yourself, are having trouble recognizing that the article has nothing to do with justifying a "4+b year old earth."

Woody, the PE would signify you are a professional engineer. I doubt anyone would trust your professionalism if you can make such elementary blunders.

 

I agree with several of the above posters. It seems strange that woody accepts the conclusions of science in some cases but refuses it in others. I need only point out the finding of 4.4-billion-year-old zircon grains found in Australia.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~museum/symposium/about_the_Zircon.html

 

According to Hindu philosophy, the age of the earth is 1,972,949,107 years. The earth will live for a total of 4.32 billion years -- a 'day of Brahmâ' -- after which it will die and its lower elements will disintegrate. After a rest-period or 'night of Brahmâ' of equal length, it will reembody.

 

Ho. Ho. Woodys off again.

It all comes down to magic in the end
Dee Cee