Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Weitter Duckss

Why craters, not the old 4.5 bil. years?

47 posts in this topic

On Earth is discovered and excavated a large number of craters whose age is 100 years (obska explosion) to 2 billion years (Vredefort, Free State South Africa, Yarrabubba Western Australia Australia) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why there are no traces (craters) formation. We should have craters from the time when the Earth was "cold" (4.2 bil. Years).

For all the meteorite was determined age of ~ 4.5 billion years for the oldest sample of the Earth, old age is estimated at 3.8 to 4,200,000,000 years, why?

How old is the magma (the lava is still in eruption from the crater of the zero year)?

More: http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#growth1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few very basic concepts that maybe you should research Weitter Duckss:

  1. Plate tectonics
  2. Weathering
  3. Erosion

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5 billion years ago, there wasn't much in the way of a landmass, or even solid surface. Meteor impacts would leave as much of a crater as a rock thrown into a mud puddle. It stayed that way for about 3 hundred million years, giving us the Australian zircons. After that, tectonic activity degreaded the current physical features and created new ones. Unless it was in a very tectonically inactive area, like the middle of Australia, you won't find very much. If you dug deep under Iowa, you would find the Mansosn crater, a relatively recent impact (about 75 million years ago) that is already nder hundreds of feet of glacial deposits. The Chicxulub crater, from the one that killed the dinosaurs, is mostly under the ocean.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all questions have been comprehensively answered within a few minutes. Next please. Oh, wait ...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(obska explosion) ????

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(obska explosion) ????

I'm thinking 'Tunguska'. Not sure (as usual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few very basic concepts that maybe you should research Weitter Duckss:

  1. Plate tectonics
  2. Weathering
  3. Erosion

It is noted in my attached text.

theotherguy

Missing 2.5 billion empty years. Where did the dirt on "hot" planet? For the Icelandic and Australian zircons I published an article-commentary www.geek.hr.

It is important to see that the process of creation is not interrupted. Also that is a balanced pace, and if is the same, why the planet is not still hot? Is it at all was hot? ...

ninjadude

& Likely Guy

Strike asteriida in Russia ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

& Likely Guy

Strike asteriida in Russia ..

The Tunguska asteroid in 1908! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Edited by Likely Guy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tunguska asteroid in 1908! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Whenever Tunguska is brought up, my mind immediately goes to Ghostbusters.

tumblr_moqfs4gcLQ1qfr6udo3_500.gif

Edited by BeastieRunner
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theotherguy

Missing 2.5 billion empty years. Where did the dirt on "hot" planet? For the Icelandic and Australian zircons I published an article-commentary www.geek.hr.

It is important to see that the process of creation is not interrupted. Also that is a balanced pace, and if is the same, why the planet is not still hot? Is it at all was hot? ...

The liquid magma Earth cooled enough to create a solid crust a little under 3.9 billion years ago (bya). From 4.5 bya to 3.9 bya, Earth was more or less liquid, and couldn't hold the shape of a crater. After that, there has been 3.9 billion years of tectonic activity deforming the surface as plates move around, grinding each other down, crashing into each other, forming and destroying mountains and plateaus. From your original post, you suggest that Earth had cooled 4.2 bya. I'm pulling my number (3.8 bya) from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152833/ , and yes, they are estimates, but I would like to know your source for the 4.2 bya figure. The current oldest known crater is off the coast of Greenland http://www.universetoday.com/96047/oldest-impact-crater-on-earth-discovered-in-greenland/ and is believed to be 3 billion years old. I'm not sure where you're pulling the 2.5 billion empty years from--either the surface was to liquid to hold a crater, or tectonic activity would have at least buried it, more probably obliterated it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liquid magma Earth cooled enough to create a solid crust a little under 3.9 billion years ago (bya). From 4.5 bya to 3.9 bya, Earth was more or less liquid, and couldn't hold the shape of a crater. After that, there has been 3.9 billion years of tectonic activity deforming the surface as plates move around, grinding each other down, crashing into each other, forming and destroying mountains and plateaus. From your original post, you suggest that Earth had cooled 4.2 bya. I'm pulling my number (3.8 bya) from http://www.eoearth.o...article/152833/ , and yes, they are estimates, but I would like to know your source for the 4.2 bya figure. The current oldest known crater is off the coast of Greenland http://www.universet...d-in-greenland/ and is believed to be 3 billion years old. I'm not sure where you're pulling the 2.5 billion empty years from--either the surface was to liquid to hold a crater, or tectonic activity would have at least buried it, more probably obliterated it.

Mostly cite a range 3.8 to 4.2 due to various data (newer above 4.4 bya).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks

Draw a parallel: Earth, satellites, Uranus or Neptune. If the conditions are the same and forming at the same time, why all differently?

Why are only two bodies exception and why we take exception to the rule?

If the Earth was hot and it melted is craters, it had to other bodies. If the creation is complete before 4.5 bya which represent events after?

Chapter with zircon is confirmation that the Earth was not created prior to 4.5 bya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uranus and Neptune are gas giants, and are not our satellites.

The rocky bodies, like Mercury and Mars do have impact creaters, Mercury much more so than either Earth or Mars.

Mars did have an atmosphere and geologic activity in the distant past, which eroded some, while its reduced but still present atmosphere has eroded others somewhat.

On Earth the actions or geology and weathering have eroded most craters.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct (for one level of research).

If the emergence of one and the same, why is all different today? Hot body creates equally crust, where the gaseous planets (not to forget Pluto, Eris, Sedna ... no gaseous).

More is than obvious that the body slowly grow, asteroids, planetoids, planets ... to confirm the conclusions of the research and the Australian zircons. Air prior to 4.5 bya was wet and very cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the emergence of one and the same,

It wasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't

Did I miss something?

Novelties in Science are everyday. Older thoughts are replaced with new. New ideas should not be accepted immediately, but neither insist on outdated.

To all of us it is clear that the age of the Earth and the Universe determined based on the age of the Earth's crust, which is totally wrong ..

Proper determination of the age of the Earth can not determine the age of the universe, may be only the first tool or starting fact.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something?

Yes... basic geology.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever Tunguska is brought up, my mind immediately goes to Ghostbusters.

tumblr_moqfs4gcLQ1qfr6udo3_500.gif

I can say, with complete and total honesty, that discovering that the Tunguska Blast of 1909 mentioned in Ghostbusters was actually a real thing that happened, is what opened the doors to the realm of unexplained mysteries for me. From that point on, I was a wide-eyed, teenage Fortean nerd.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something?

Novelties in Science are everyday. Older thoughts are replaced with new. New ideas should not be accepted immediately, but neither insist on outdated.

To all of us it is clear that the age of the Earth and the Universe determined based on the age of the Earth's crust, which is totally wrong ..

Proper determination of the age of the Earth can not determine the age of the universe, may be only the first tool or starting fact.

Yeah, the age of Earth won't really help to give you a good idea of the age of the universe. What will help, though, is the temperature and range of cosmic radiation. I wouldn't say that it's clear to everyone that the age of the universe is derived from the age of Earth, except as a very basic and inaccurate starting point, in that the universe has to be at least as old as Earth.

The first part of this post I think is gerenally accepted, with a couple of minor modifications. The progression of science is from less correct to more correct. The old, incorrect, outdated thoughts are replaced with new ideas that, if done correctly, should be closer to what's really going. They shouldn't be insited on until retested, replicated, and verified, and then they become the current models until replaced by something even more accurate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the age of Earth won't really help to give you a good idea of the age of the universe. What will help, though, is the temperature and range of cosmic radiation. I wouldn't say that it's clear to everyone that the age of the universe is derived from the age of Earth, except as a very basic and inaccurate starting point, in that the universe has to be at least as old as Earth.

The first part of this post I think is gerenally accepted, with a couple of minor modifications. The progression of science is from less correct to more correct. The old, incorrect, outdated thoughts are replaced with new ideas that, if done correctly, should be closer to what's really going. They shouldn't be insited on until retested, replicated, and verified, and then they become the current models until replaced by something even more accurate.

With you it is easy to agree (honestly more like an attack on the arguments, then revive the debate).

Radiation from the sun reaching for 8.3 minutes, the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.2 million light years (the end of the universe 13.8 byi. If Sun is not old 8.3 minutes, Andromeda 2.2 million years why the galaxies from arriving radiation 13.8 byi is old enough (and it is not far away, but is once was)?

Distance = distance and has nothing to do with age.

Waspie_Dwarf

Geology warns that Earth was before 4.5 billion years, wet and very cold. If you refer to the geology, interpret it correctly and do not mix theory with geology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With you it is easy to agree (honestly more like an attack on the arguments, then revive the debate).

Radiation from the sun reaching for 8.3 minutes, the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.2 million light years (the end of the universe 13.8 byi. If Sun is not old 8.3 minutes, Andromeda 2.2 million years why the galaxies from arriving radiation 13.8 byi is old enough (and it is not far away, but is once was)?

Distance = distance and has nothing to do with age.

I do try to be agreeable.

The sun, obviously, is more than 8.3 minutes old. But let's make a situation where there is no sun, and then a sun appears. People on Earth would discover this 8.3 minutes later. They wouldn't know that the sun had appeared 8.3 minutes ago, just that it appeared some point in the past. Let's give them the ability to estimate the speed of light, say, by flashing lanterns over long distances (a real and pretty successful experiment). Let's also give them the ability to estimate the distance to the sun (Aristarchus and Eratosthenes were doing this 2,200 years ago). So they know the speed of light, the distance from Earth to the sun and when the sun first appeared. This will give them the age of the sun. Now, hypotheticals aside, we (or at least some cosmophysicists) know how fast the universe is expanding and can estimate how far it's traveled, and it's the general assumption that the universe hasn't always existed. So, you count the number of billions of years it would have taken for the universe to reach its present state. So distance doesn't deal with age, but distance traveled does. I'm sure my understanding of how it works is very basic, but that's more or less how to find the age of the universe.

Edited by theotherguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont figure the age of distant planets and galaxies by their distance from us at light speed.

Stars have a life cycle, and since galaxies are made up of stars, they do as well.

You can figure out how far into its life cycle a star is by its chemical signature. Younger stars are fusing lighter elements, old stars fuse heavy elements.

Though this depends on the type of star, and stars vary in size. Smaller stars last longer than bigger ones, in general.

The Earth didnt form at the beginning of the universe, and there is rubble from the early solar system that is older than the Earth, still in orbit aroubd the sun.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do try to be agreeable.

The sun, obviously, is more than 8.3 minutes old. But let's make a situation where there is no sun, and then a sun appears. People on Earth would discover this 8.3 minutes later. They wouldn't know that the sun had appeared 8.3 minutes ago, just that it appeared some point in the past. Let's give them the ability to estimate the speed of light, say, by flashing lanterns over long distances (a real and pretty successful experiment). Let's also give them the ability to estimate the distance to the sun (Aristarchus and Eratosthenes were doing this 2,200 years ago). So they know the speed of light, the distance from Earth to the sun and when the sun first appeared. This will give them the age of the sun. Now, hypotheticals aside, we (or at least some cosmophysicists) know how fast the universe is expanding and can estimate how far it's traveled, and it's the general assumption that the universe hasn't always existed. So, you count the number of billions of years it would have taken for the universe to reach its present state. So distance doesn't deal with age, but distance traveled does. I'm sure my understanding of how it works is very basic, but that's more or less how to find the age of the universe.

The expansion of the universe (leaving out the parts where I agree).

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#2b

Then 1.929. year we did not know for a blue shift and the air was that the universe hatched from an egg (great chicken).

Today we see that all the clusters of galaxies (and lots of them) rotate and move in a single direction that is not outward. Red shift does not mean running away from the center but, rotation (today's red + blue, not only red). One rotation of the Universe takes, ~ 94.5 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont figure the age of distant planets and galaxies by their distance from us at light speed.

Stars have a life cycle, and since galaxies are made up of stars, they do as well.

You can figure out how far into its life cycle a star is by its chemical signature. Younger stars are fusing lighter elements, old stars fuse heavy elements.

Though this depends on the type of star, and stars vary in size. Smaller stars last longer than bigger ones, in general.

The Earth didnt form at the beginning of the universe, and there is rubble from the early solar system that is older than the Earth, still in orbit aroubd the sun.

I agree that galaxy made of stars and that there is no proto galaxies that only the stars shine.

I do not agree that it is less greater. The smaller star is younger because she takes less time to gravity, gather material unlike the larger.

For the chemical signature of the sole responsibility of the temperature level, which is in direct relation to the speed of rotation of the stars around the axis. Red are slower and more elements ... white are warmer and less is the elements because it breaks down the temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Weiter you demonstate a profound lack of knowledge and understanding of even the most basic concepts involved in the subject you claim to have a unique insight into. As in every other thread you have started you claim to have the answers but you show that you don't even understand the question.

You make statements without providing any supporting evidence. If you follow the pattern of your previous topics you will claim that you have provided evidence, proving once again that you can not distinguish between personal opinion and fact.

A reasonable person, when confronted by a large number of knowledgeable people presenting evidence that they are wrong would, at the very least, question their own position. An unreasonable person would simply dismiss out of hand the opinion of the others. You consistently choose this second, unreasonable, course of action.

Your lack of ability to grasp basic scientific principles combined with your inability to accept you might possibly be wrong (which you are) and your unwillingness to learn make meaningful discussion with you impossible.

I do not intend to waste any more of my time trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.