Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the Moon's New Birthday Means the Earth Is Older Than We Thought

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the just-measure-the-depth-of-the-mold dept.

Moon 98

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes You're likely familiar with the theory of how the Moon formed: a stray body smashed into our young Earth, heating the planet and flinging debris into its orbit. That debris coalesced and formed the Moon. The impact theory still holds, but a team of geochemists from the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France has refined the date, finding that the Moon is about 60 million years older than we thought. As it turns out, that also means the Earth is 60 million years older than previously thought, which is a particularly cool finding considering just how hard it is to estimate the age of our planet.

cancel ×

98 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Origin story sounds familiar (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244151)

You're likely familiar with the theory of how the Moon formed: a stray body smashed into our young Earth, heating the planet and flinging debris into its orbit.

Isn't that how human babies are made too?

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (5, Funny)

Artifakt (700173) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244163)

Why am I not surprised that the first post to this thread is from someone who doesn't know where babies come from?

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244199)

Is this a trick question?

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245253)

Is this a trick question?

Not really. Nowadays tricks have to wear condoms.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244213)

Why am I not surprised that the first post to this thread is from someone who doesn't know where babies come from?

Exactly, everyone knows they come from storks.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244355)

But the Fi-156 [wikipedia.org] is starting to be a rare bird these days!

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (2)

Tuidjy (321055) | about a month and a half ago | (#47247053)

You'd think so, but I remember that in the early 90s, the Bulgarian Air Force School in Dolna Mitropolia was still flying them.

Considering how great the country has been doing since, I doubt they have been replaced... and considering how long they have already lasted, I doubt they are no longer being maintained.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245371)

all those chicken-lovers have been banging the wrong bird??!!

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (3, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245463)

Why am I not surprised that the first post to this thread is from someone who doesn't know where babies come from?

Exactly, everyone knows they come from storks.

I was trying to explain that to a park employee the other day...
he still made me let the stork go and pull my pants up...

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47260021)

... and the stork only delivers on a blue moon. [Smurf 101]

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244221)

Why am I not surprised that the first post to this thread is from someone who doesn't know where babies come from?

You're an idiot. It's babbies! Geez!

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244205)

I prefer to think of my coming-about as analogous to 2 blackholes doing the dance of their people, slowly swinging around each other, distorting the spacetime around them in the room as they go.
Then eventually they smash together with intense energy and speed.
Then 9 trillion years later I was born, a naked singularity in all his glory.
Both my parents died during this birth-giving event.
I shall avenge the death of my parents against Dr. Physics.
I am the Dark Knight.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (4, Funny)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244345)

It has ceased to be customary to hit your date with a rock before mating. These days that is frowned upon.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244421)

These days, in some countries, other people hit your date with a rock after mating. History really doesn't change all that much.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47250303)

These days, in some countries, other people hit your date with a rock after mating. History really doesn't change all that much.

Perhaps someone should explain [rebeccasolnit.net] things to those folks.

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244557)

It has ceased to be customary to hit your date with a rock before mating. These days that is frowned upon.

Of course it's frowned upon. Why would you run the risk of a concussion when the far more effective and less physically harmful Ambien is readily available?

Hooray for science!

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245447)

Really? I thought it was Trichloromethane [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244597)

It has ceased to be customary to hit your date with a rock before mating. These days that is frowned upon.

Well, shit. I'm in trouble.

CAPTCHA: inaction :(

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245191)

It has ceased to be customary to hit your date with a rock before mating.

Whatever turns you on but it sounds like a pain in the arse to me:
http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#D

Re:Origin story sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47261337)

It has ceased to be customary to hit your date with a rock before mating.

Whatever turns you on but it sounds like a pain in the arse to me:
http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#D

If its a pain in the arse - you're doing it wrong... very very wrong

Age of the earth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244153)

Curious that within two separate articles about the age of the earth, no estimate is given at all. The only mention of an actual age is given in a footnote to the sciencedaily article (which says the earth must be younger than ~4.6 billion years).

Re:Age of the earth (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244181)

apparently they're counting from the formation of the solar system, for which they don't have a year. previously had thought the earth to have formed 100 million years after that event but now they put it at 40.

Re:Age of the earth (2, Funny)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244291)

Duh, it's 6,000 years old.

Re:Age of the earth (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244397)

At least, thanks to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, we know that Earth is a Vega. Or has that theory been busted as well?

Re:Age of the earth (3, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244477)

With what did the collision happen if the earth wasn't already there? I fail to see how the moon being carved out the earth 60 Myr earlier affects the age of the earth.

Re:Age of the earth (1)

Hategrin (3579025) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244645)

This. I thought exactly the same thing. It's like, I have a 20 year old toaster, I made toast in it 4 years ago. So, that means it has to be a 24 year old toaster?

Re:Age of the earth (2)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244987)

With what did the collision happen if the earth wasn't already there? I fail to see how the moon being carved out the earth 60 Myr earlier affects the age of the earth.

This. I thought exactly the same thing. It's like, I have a 20 year old toaster, I made toast in it 4 years ago. So, that means it has to be a 24 year old toaster?

From what I understand, the article should say that the earth could be up to 60 million years older than we thought. Because we do not know the exact time difference of the formation between the earth and the moon, we may still say it is 0 up to 60 millions years. If the earth and the moon have formed at the same time, then the earth is 60 million years older than we thought. If the earth had been there 60 million years or longer before the moon formed, then there is no change in the earth age.

Re:Age of the earth (1)

toddestan (632714) | about a month and a half ago | (#47251151)

It's a bit more like the house has a toaster in it, and the wiring was upgraded to handle the current the toaster draws, which gives you a rough idea of how old the house must be because of how old the toaster is. Except now you discover that the upgraded wiring may have been done to power some other appliance before the toaster showed up.

Maybe I should try a car analogy?

Re:Age of the earth (5, Insightful)

coofercat (719737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244927)

Day 0 - Our sun is puked into existence, with a shit-tonne of rubble floating around it.
100 million years later, a big rock hits earth - thus earth must have been there, so we know earth was made on or before 100 million years after the sun. Previous measurements of our atmosphere from rocks suggests this to be true.

French people look at all the observations, and saw that the calibrations were a bit off, and then worked out that collision took place 60 million years earlier than previously thought. Therefore, the earth must have formed 60 million years earlier than first thought, and been solid and "finished" enough to be able to produce the moon from the impact. That suggests the earth was formed in 40 million years, not 100 million years - that makes quite a difference to our understanding of how planets are formed. From the French perspective, this means the FSM didn't have as many RTT days in his contract as was previously thought, and possibly worked many of the days we now consider public holidays too.

Re:Age of the earth (5, Interesting)

butalearner (1235200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245129)

With what did the collision happen if the earth wasn't already there? I fail to see how the moon being carved out the earth 60 Myr earlier affects the age of the earth.

I believe that conclusion comes from the idea that the collision was between two proto-planets - that is, for all intents and purposes, the Earth and the Moon only came into being after the collision. Wikipedia calls them "the proto-Earth" and "the impactor" which supposedly was the size of Mars. An impact like that would have changed everything so dramatically that even if we had some age-measurable material that survived the impact, we wouldn't know whether it came from the proto-Earth or the impactor. So it makes some sense to use that event as the "birth" of our planet.

And of course you can't just use the absolute age of some atoms, if we could measure such a thing. Maybe some of the heavier atoms fused in that impact, but some material came the supernova(e) that seeded our solar nebula with heavier atoms and induced the rotation that eventually became the Sun's accretion disk, some came from other, smaller impacts of bodies probably formed at the beginning of the Solar System, etc.

Re:Age of the earth (1)

alva_edison (630431) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245409)

Curious that within two separate articles about the age of the earth, no estimate is given at all. The only mention of an actual age is given in a footnote to the sciencedaily article (which says the earth must be younger than ~4.6 billion years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
About 4,533 million years. So I'm guessing the new estimate would push it to ~4,593 million years.

Re:Age of the earth (1)

alva_edison (630431) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245471)

Sorry for the reply to myself, but that number conflicts with the estimate for the formation of the sun given in Wikipedia (4.567 billion years, but looking at the references that estimate seems to be indirect).

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244171)

So they're basing the age of the earth off the age of the atmosphere, which they're linking to the age of the moon assuming that it (the moon) was caused by a big collision that would have wiped out the atmosphere?

Curse this godless country! (-1, Troll)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244173)

Curse these godless heathens! Now all of Young Earth Creationists will have one more fact to ignore. It ain't easy already!

This reminds me of a previous post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244197)

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/26/161227/findings-cast-doubt-on-moon-origins

Earth is 6000 years old (1, Funny)

h5inz (1284916) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244209)

Every1 knoes that the earth is 6000 years old! U MAD BRO?! Butthurt!

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (2, Funny)

louic (1841824) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244315)

Yes of course. But these new findings show that it is 60 million years older than previously thought so it must be 60 million plus 6000 years.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244325)

Three sixes - I see what u did there!

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244367)

I thought everyone knew that the real devil's number is 6^6^6.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47255805)

Heinlein Fanatic? :)

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47246061)

60,006,000? I only count 2 ...

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (2)

dead_user (1989356) | about a month and a half ago | (#47246245)

Count the zero's?

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244359)

Yes of course. But these new findings show that it is 60 million years older than previously thought so it must be 60 million plus 6000 years.

Well, that is close enough for any argument. If I ware to claim that the dinosaurs lived 60 billion years ago rather than 60 million years ago I wouldn't expect average Joe to correct me either way.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Annorax (242484) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244407)

so it must be 60 million plus 6000 years.

which to a theotard equals 6000 years.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248663)

Creationist off by 60 million years: Stupid delusional creationists

Science off by 60 million years: Just science correcting itself, no problem

---

Wait, how do we know science is correct this time?

We don't.

When will we know that any "fact" according to science is definitively correct?

Never, and there is not and never will be any way to know this.

---

We now return you to our regularly-scheduled scienceyism smugness on the superiority of its epistemology.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244331)

Was there any point to posting this other than to revel in hatred?

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244383)

Nope, because people who do it are in it for the bigotry and circle-jerk.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (2, Informative)

BlindRobin (768267) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244439)

It's not hatred mate... It's pity mixed with dismay about the state of education and social disfucntion engendered in such beliefs all expressed as what would be seen as good natured ribbing if the mistake being pointed at was hmm lets say mistaking Paris, Texas for Paris, France.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244523)

"Was there any point to posting this other than to revel in hatred?"

Making jokes is somehow the equivalent of 'reveling in hatred', I take it your religious?

Oh dear (1, Offtopic)

Viol8 (599362) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244559)

Feeling a bit precious about our fairy tale beliefs are we?

If you can't handle a bit of piss taking it doesn't say a lot about the strength of your beliefs now does it? You might want to pull that bible/koran/torah our of your arse and get a sense of humour.

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244655)

Joke is on you, old earther!

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244963)

YOU THINK IT IS FUNNY? "Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in - angels" [cbsnews.com] . All that progress in science and mankind is going to shait again! It's not funny. Or maybe it is? Maybe it is hilarious? HAHAAAAHA!

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245957)

As someone who is more or less an atheist I can say that I'm sick of it too. It has gotten old, folks.
 
I'm sick of it because most of the people I know who do this blame everything on religion. I'm also sick of it because most of the people who do this are the types that'll post a meme on facebook about something NDT supposedly said and scream "SCIENCE!" at the tops of their lungs but can't engage you in a friendly discussion of science that is anything above the Rocks for Jocks high school level. It has to be what it's like to be a seasoned professor of economics listen to the rantings of a first semester liberal arts student rail on about "Teh Free Marketzzz!!!" or "Obama is da kommunicst!!!"
 
I've been doing a public science outreach program about 15 times a year for a few years now that involve a lot of Q&A about astronomy and cosmology. I'm not a degree holder myself and these sessions are held for the general public. I have yet to have a single person dispute any point I've made on religious grounds but I have heard my fair share of "But... but... but... the science channel had a show that said...." And for what it's worth, either these people are grossly misrepresenting what the science channel says or the science channel should be ashamed of themselves. I don't watch enough of it to know for sure and I don't want to just come out and call anyone a liar so I let it slide.
 
There are way too many people out there who's knowledge of science and technology is just as ignorant as the supposed throngs of religious fundies that we hear about but nearly never see anything from. The sad thing is that the religious zealot can at least admit that they reject some science in the name of a faceless god while the "SCIENCE!" crowd actually think they're educated and walk about with their unknown ignorance on display like a peacock looking for a mate.

Re:Oh dear (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a month and a half ago | (#47246115)

It's not piss-taking, whatever that means. Please keep your nasty porno habits to yourself. It's outright hatred, and your post is a great example of such.

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248061)

It's a term 'taking the piss out of' something, meaning to mock something. What did you think? Oh. Is that why you're religious? Is it helping to keep your dirty thoughts and urges in control? I don't actually mind if you have piss related fantasies, just try to keep things concentual and keep away from children and animals. Try not to hate-crap yourself now.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (2)

91degrees (207121) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244353)

As a devout Last Thursdayist, I think it obvious that the Earth, as well as the uiverse, my memories and a load of photons already in-flight, were created last Thursday.

Teach the controversy!

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244753)

Filthy heathen! The memories was created Sunday morning at earliest! How else do you explain the memory gap at Saturday night.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (3, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244829)

I have no rational response to that, so if you don't mind, I'd like to burn you as a heretic. Hold still please while I build a fire.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245391)

protip: he'll light up easier after closing time Saturday night

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47255601)

just wait a week and he will be reborn

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245241)

Every1 knoes that the earth is 6000 years old! U MAD BRO?! Butthurt!

As someone that's now considered "Middle aged" let me help you with your "young people" speech. "BRO" was a term that was cool, only to people in highschool about 5yrs ago. It was never cool to 99.9% of the world, but now, 5yrs later, it's not even cool to the people you used to say it to. After you left highschool it moved into the state of "Lets make fun of how we used to talk" but it's even past that now. It's not moved into the same territory as "Righteous" and "Square" you just don't even mention the word without sounding like an idiot.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245559)

WOOSH!

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245925)

no. People who where in HS 5 years ago still use it.

Later, Bro.

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | about a month and a half ago | (#47247441)

Totally bogus, dude!

Re:Earth is 6000 years old (1)

ender8282 (1233032) | about a month and a half ago | (#47249227)

Accodring to Ubran Dictionally [urbandictionary.com] the term originated in Hawaii. I'm not sure that I believe it, but it is certainly alive and strong there.

My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244371)

4.54 ± 0.05 billion years is the old estimate. 4.54 billion + 60 million = 4600000000, which is still pretty close even if it falls slightly outside. Personally, I think the Earth may be 4,593,600,000 years old.

Re:My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244809)

That's a pretty exact number. Pretty interesting that it's so regular too.

Re:My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245003)

It is exact, but I need to do some more research on it. (Not a scientist, or, professional scientist.)

Re:My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245059)

I mean pretty exact. That could be some error.

Re:My comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245123)

Naah. Who am kidding? It's as exact as there is. I can't be wrong.

So how old then? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47244377)

"which is a particularly cool finding considering just how hard it is to estimate the age of our planet."

How would adding 60 million years to our current hard-to-estimate-estimate make that estimate any more accurate?

Creationist: "It's 6000 years old!"

Scientist: "It's 60 million years older!"

Creationist: "Ok then, it's 60006000 years old!"

Re:So how old then? (2)

peter303 (12292) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245275)

Some isotopic ages are accurate to four decimal places. [wikipedia.org] Sixity million years is the third decimal place.

The moon-out-Earth hypothesis is the predominate lunar creation hypothesis these days for several reasons. But an unusually old mineral on the Moon or Earth could void that hypothesis. thats part of the reason scientists are always checking.

Breaking news! (5, Funny)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244403)

Breaking news!
Earth appears to be one year older (see 2014 paper) than previously thought (see 2013 paper).

Yah, sure, youbetcha! (0)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244679)

It's all just part of the vast liberal conspiracy, supported by the left wing media, to drain money from the treasury. Everyone with a brain and a bible knows the earth is 6K years old.

Re:Yah, sure, youbetcha! (0)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244911)

You came here for the Bigotry and Circle Jerk?

Re:Yah, sure, youbetcha! (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245081)

6K ought to be enough for anybody?

Re:Yah, sure, youbetcha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248069)

How does it feel to bring nothing insightful into the conversation while passing off your bigotry as wit? Where I come from it's called being a troll.

This will not be accepted science, (-1, Troll)

Grand Facade (35180) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244947)

As it does not reinforce current global warming theories.

Re:This will not be accepted science, (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245911)

Other then in your narrow, limited, conspiracy drive mind, this has nothing to do with AGW.

Re: This will not be accepted science, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47246877)

Humor challenged?

Re: This will not be accepted science, (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | about a month and a half ago | (#47250611)

Troll? Really! :^P

I guess no one has a sense of humor on Monday AM.

Put some Bourbon in your coffee and lighten up! :^)

The Earth is Young (0)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a month and a half ago | (#47244983)

But the earth is only 6,000 years old?!?

An American congressman told me so, so it must be true.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245223)

Our planet is a SHE,,of course it's hard to get the REAL age haha

Better question.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47245543)

Why such a push to tell people how old Earth they think it is. Give some practical reason why a non-scientist should even care about this?

This only matters to the bigots who want to bash religion to make themselves feel better.

Re:Better question.. (1)

hduff (570443) | about a month and a half ago | (#47246503)

Why such a push to tell people how old Earth they think it is. Give some practical reason why a non-scientist should even care about this?

This only matters to the bigots who want to bash religion to make themselves feel better.

If your religious beliefs are sound and resolute, why do you feel so threatened by something you shoudn't care about?

Re:Better question.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248735)

He neither said nor indicated he was "threatened" in any way. Is this an example of your psychic powers? What belief system does that mind reading ability fall under, by the way?

Is that like a reward you get for devoting your life to pointless trolling, the net result even if we stipulated you were right, being... nothing?

Re:Better question.. (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259173)

Theist bashing? What's so bigoted about correcting intellectual and scientific ignorance? Ignorance demands refutation.

um (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47245899)

60 million years is nothing. Seriously, it's a narrowing of previous error bars.

Cool, but don't get all excited like it changes anything.

missing link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47246035)

If part of the eart made the moon then how did it get round? Where is the missing chunk that would fit into the earth?

Difficult to estimate the age (3, Funny)

hduff (570443) | about a month and a half ago | (#47246493)

Given all the extensive cosmic surgery.

Re:Difficult to estimate the age (2)

sconeu (64226) | about a month and a half ago | (#47246915)

Interplanetary News Agency report:

Today, Terra said, "Those damned paparazzi! How did they find my actual birth certficate!" When questioned, Luna (Terra's long time companion) had no comment.

Re:Difficult to estimate the age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47250209)

Everyone who stands around formulating how old the earth is or isn't has their head up their arse. I challenge anyone to build a planet and set one moon in motion around it and set the whole thing perpetually spinning and revolving around a sun in less than 100 Billion years. Then get back to us with some of your other formulas.

for gits and shiggles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47247143)

I'll just leave this wildly speculatative, topical link here...

http://www.tokenrock.com/expla... [tokenrock.com]

Tiamat lives...

Warmers Anthropocene Even More Insignificant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248053)

All the catastrophic warmers, like Holdren and Obama and the AAAS and the AGU really must be banging heads to walls !

Their beloved 'Anthropocene' which does not exist, is now 60 million years more insignificant !

One wonders when the bodies will start dropping from places like the Sears Tower in Chicago as the new "Black Friday"
engulfs the minions of the global warming righteous.

Ha ha

"The impact theory still holds" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47248657)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:"The impact theory still holds" (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about a month and a half ago | (#47259201)

Etiquette is for people who are obsessive/compulsive and have no life.

Scaling It Down To Human Lifespans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47255251)

This is like being 45 and someone telling you it turns out that you're actually 45.6 years old.

Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47255521)

No, No. The earth is only 6,000 years old. Ask any bible thumper to explain it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>