This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BlueVeins · 22-25
Venus and Mars weren't habitable for long enough for a civilization to arise. Europa maybe, but I don't know how technology would progress under all that ice.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Nitedoc
A) Almost everything in the solar system is basically the same age, so we can age the Solar System as a whole by using radiometric dating on asteroids and stuff.
B) Stars change in highly predictable ways over the course of their existence in terms of luminosity and composition, so we can use that to age the Sun.
Both principles yield the same age.
The Sun didn't create Mars per se; rather, both the Sun and Mars (along with the other planets, most moons, asteroids, comets) formed from an ancient cloud of gas and dust that collapsed in on itself. The material near the center fell in and became the Sun. Materials in that could which were further away became the planets. That's why the biggest planets are so far from the Sun -- here in the inner solar system, more of the matter was sucked up by the Sun.
How do we know how old the sun is?
A) Almost everything in the solar system is basically the same age, so we can age the Solar System as a whole by using radiometric dating on asteroids and stuff.
B) Stars change in highly predictable ways over the course of their existence in terms of luminosity and composition, so we can use that to age the Sun.
Both principles yield the same age.
How did the sun create Mars?
The Sun didn't create Mars per se; rather, both the Sun and Mars (along with the other planets, most moons, asteroids, comets) formed from an ancient cloud of gas and dust that collapsed in on itself. The material near the center fell in and became the Sun. Materials in that could which were further away became the planets. That's why the biggest planets are so far from the Sun -- here in the inner solar system, more of the matter was sucked up by the Sun.
Nitedoc · 51-55, M
@BlueVeins I understand what you are saying. I just don't know if the scientists who came up with this have an accurate enough method of determining that age.
I thought Carbon 14 dating was highly scientific and accurate for many years. There have been several tests and examples, for many years now, that prove our method of dating objects using the Carbon 14 method simply doesn't work very well. At best It might be around 50% accurate. In my humble opinion if something is only 50% accurate it is unreliable and is providing false information about as often as true information.
Science is constantly changing as new information unfolds. When I see something is dated by the radiocarbon or radiometric method I don't put a whole lot of stock in it.
I thought Carbon 14 dating was highly scientific and accurate for many years. There have been several tests and examples, for many years now, that prove our method of dating objects using the Carbon 14 method simply doesn't work very well. At best It might be around 50% accurate. In my humble opinion if something is only 50% accurate it is unreliable and is providing false information about as often as true information.
Science is constantly changing as new information unfolds. When I see something is dated by the radiocarbon or radiometric method I don't put a whole lot of stock in it.