Study Questions Scientific Dating Method Used For Lunar Impacts (wisc.edu) 49
schwit1 writes: A new study has raised questions about the methods scientists have used to date the late heavy bombardment in the early solar system. According to the University of Wisconsin-Madison: "A study of zircons from a gigantic meteorite impact in South Africa, now online in the journal Geology, casts doubt on the methods used to date lunar impacts. The critical problem, says lead author Aaron Cavosie, a visiting professor of geoscience and member of the NASA Astrobiology Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is the fact that lunar zircons are ex situ, meaning removed from the rock in which they formed, which deprives geoscientists of corroborating evidence of impact. 'While zircon is one of the best isotopic clocks for dating many geological processes,' Cavosie says, 'our results show that it is very challenging to use ex situ zircon to date a large impact of known age.'" The problem is that the removal of the zircon from lunar rocks changes the data enough to make the dating unreliable. The method might work on Earth, but the dating done on Apollo samples can be questioned. This means that much of the supposed history of the solar system, centered on what planetary scientists call the late heavy bombardment, a period 4 billion years ago when the planets were being hit by innumerable impacts as they cleared the solar system of its dusty debris disk, might not have happened as dated from lunar samples. If so, our understanding of when that bombardment ended and life began to form on Earth might be considerably incorrect.
A scientific dating method? Sweet! Oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else think this was going to help them pick up chicks? ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
I got to "lunar impacts" before I realized it wasn't going to be an article about matchmaking algorithms at dating websites. And I spent at least a fraction of a second considering that "lunar impacts" is a strange name for a dating website.
Re: (Score:2)
awesome, free beer, just open mouth!
thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
I thought it was obvious, dinner and a movie. Did this need a study?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone else think this was going to help them pick up chicks? ;-)
No. That's in the "rod logic" article.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... First step is to take a shower, shave and brush your teeth and hair. Dress in reasonably stylish clothes. Then you ascend the stairs in the early evening and depart your mother's house for some social event where members of the opposite sex who are single tend to congregate in their free time. Book stores, coffee shops, concerts, local parks and even night clubs have been successful places in the past.
The *method* is to smile, make eye contact and engage in playful if not meaningful conversation
Re: (Score:2)
Book stores, coffee shops, concerts, local parks and even night clubs have been successful places in the past.
Also: dog parks, yoga classes, horse riding lessons.
These do NOT work: Chess/Go tournaments, model railroading conventions, civil war re-enactments.
Re: (Score:2)
These do NOT work: Chess/Go tournaments, model railroading conventions, civil war re-enactments.
Voice of experience?
;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I met one of the hottest women I ever dated at a chess club. Heck, I know of married couples that met on internet chess servers.
Going to places specifically for the purpose of trying to meet a woman is a really bad idea. I'm not convinced there is science behind that. It is kinda creepy in general, unless you're exceptionally charismatic. Slashdot users should usually not attempt it. A better idea is to genuinely engage in activities that are not gender segregated. Then, regardless of the actual gender dist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Going to places specifically for the purpose of trying to meet a woman is a really bad idea. I'm not convinced there is science behind that. It is kinda creepy in general, unless you're exceptionally charismatic.
Oh pish Posh! Almost anybody can talk to somebody if you try. Don't sell yourself short either, you may not be as charismatic as the other guy, but you can have interesting and engaging conversations in your own way if you learn how and try.
The "dating method" depends on *practicing* talking to women as much as possible so this activity becomes as comfortable as possible. Successful relationships are more likely when both parties are comfortable when participating in it. So practice.
Sitting on the couch
Re: (Score:2)
Book stores, coffee shops, concerts, local parks and even night clubs have been successful places in the past.
Also: dog parks, yoga classes, horse riding lessons.
These do NOT work: Chess/Go tournaments, model railroading conventions, civil war re-enactments.
Going to a Dog Park can work, but it's best to take a small dog along so that might not be possible.
Yoga classes/Fitness centers, swimming pools, the beach etc. are generally NOT a good idea unless you are in reasonable shape and can keep your eyes to yourself. Leering at women generally makes them uncomfortable with you, which is a huge no-no for the successful dating experience.
Horse riding lessons, assuming you have an interest, can be workable, but can be expensive in some areas if available or require
âoeex situ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
AOE ex-situ, meaning that they're situated outside of the area of effect.
Is it real or is it Unicode failure? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait what? (Score:2)
>evidence of early bombardment on Earth
>assuming that this might not have happened on the Moon
That's a pretty big assumption, because it assumes that the Earth is somehow special in "attracting" (outside of gravity, but we're not talking about that, we're just talking about "targeting") bombardment and the moon is not, while both occupy a similar orbits around the Sun.
I don't buy this doubt. It fails the laugh test.
--
BMO
You misunderstand (Score:4, Informative)
These cheese-heads are true deniers! (Score:1)
Criminal nonsense! The models "prove" what happened. We have a graph shaped like a hockey stick that shows the heavy bombardment started 4 BYA. It's proven science, 97.36% of scientists agree. These cheese-heads are true deniers! If there was more money and power involved in this research I'm sure they would be publicly disgraced and banned from further grant money.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal nonsense! The models "prove" what happened. We have a graph shaped like a hockey stick that shows the heavy bombardment started 4 BYA. It's proven science, 97.36% of scientists agree. These cheese-heads are true deniers! If there was more money and power involved in this research I'm sure they would be publicly disgraced and banned from further grant money.
Actually, my dear anti-science, echo chamber bubble boy, your sarcasm shows that you just don't get it.
Scientists are saying that something they thought was right, may now be wrong.
The exact opposite of your stupid rant. It's the exact thing you claim they do not do Try to self correct..
Re: (Score:2)
I read the GP post as sarcasm. Look at it again.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the GP post as sarcasm. Look at it again.
Poe's law in action.
Re: (Score:2)
existing zircons knocked about by an impact rather than formed in that impact
Which makes obvious sense, because much of the moon used to be part of the Earth, and was squashed pretty good in the impact. That would obviously confuse the process of extracting additional impact data from the same material. These numbers should always have been suspect. This is why it is important to be aware of what assumptions are being made, and to continually reconsider if existing assumptions still apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what?
> assuming that this might not have happened on the Moon
I can't find this quote anywhere in the summary or the story. Where did you get it?
Re: (Score:1)
Newton's Laws of Motion were settled science until they weren't when Einstein came along. That doesn't mean they were wrong, just that they have more limited applicability than originally thought.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Newton's Laws of Motion were useful approximations but clearly wrong.
Clearly wrong to who? You? Clearly wrong when? Certainly not until relatively (pun intended) recently.
The fact is, at speeds and scales perceptible to the human animal, Newton's Laws of Motion are clearly right. For you to so cavalierly dismiss Newton, you only put your own ignorance on display. Or maybe your problem isn't simple ignorance that could be cured by mere education...maybe you've got, like, an Axis II problem. Yeah, I bet that's what's going on here.
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact is, at speeds and scales perceptible to the human animal, Newton's Laws of Motion are clearly right."
No. They aren't. Classical Physics is not about bringing the proper numbers but bringing the proper arguments -that, in turn, lead to mathematical expressions that can be tested against experiments. That's why Ptolemaic astronomists were wrong while Copernicus was right despite of the results of the formers being more accurate than those of the latter (it was not till Kepler proposed using ellip
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell the man made global warming crowd...
Actually, don't tell the deniers.
The idea that scientists are willing to say - "We might be wrong here" is the polar opposte of the denier's claims.
Or, it is still right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try personal grooming, clean clothes and getting out of your mother's basement from time to time...
Points are made for each successful conversation. For bonus points, don't live with your parent(s), have a paying job, be polite, smile and make eye contact during any attempted interaction. With enough points you may be rewarded with subsequent dating activity.
However, be warned that some have found that "Dating" if done long enough, often leads to the "Wife" condition which is often accompanied by the comp
Dating the Late Heavy Bombardment (Score:2)
I've met a fair number of Late Heavy Bombardments, but can't say it occurred to me to date them. Have they tried rolling it in flour and going for the wet spot?
Here come the fundamentalists... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. Almost nobody could actually afford a cave. That is premium Cave Bear territory. We had religion before we managed to displace the Cave Bear.
http://viewsourcecode.org/why/... [viewsourcecode.org]
Life was brutal back then. If you were lucky you had a good animal carcass to cower under at night.