HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Science (Group) » NASA'S APOLLO 11 MOON ROC...

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 12:48 AM

NASA'S APOLLO 11 MOON ROCKS CAUGHT LYING ABOUT THEIR AGE

Contributed by
ComicsMe.jpg
Jeff Spry
Aug 6, 2019

Misrepresenting one's age is common to human nature, as most everyone at some time has indiscriminately fudged on the numbers to make oneself slightly younger or older. But who would have thought that our glaring white satellite in the skies was prone to lying about her cosmic age? Yet that's exactly what scientists have now discovered from moon rocks brought back by the crew of Apollo 11.

Determined in a new study from the University of Cologne’s Institute of Geology and Mineralogy published in Nature Geoscience, it appears that the moon is actually 100 million years older than we originally believed.

Prior to this latest revelation, beloved luna was thought to have formed 150 million years after the Solar System was forged. However, the updated research suggests the moon is far older, forming only 50 million years after the Solar System, and making her 4.51 billion years old! An eternity for us mere mortals, but the blink of an eye to the infinite cosmos.

Via a recent analysis of lunar rock samples taken home by NASA's Apollo 11 mission, aimed at determining the geologic age of the specimens, scientists targeted the markers of rare elements such as hafnium, uranium, and tungsten.

More:
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/apollo-11-moon-rocks-caught-lying-about-their-age

2 replies, 571 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply NASA'S APOLLO 11 MOON ROCKS CAUGHT LYING ABOUT THEIR AGE (Original post)
Judi Lynn Aug 7 OP
PoindexterOglethorpe Aug 7 #1
Igel Aug 7 #2

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 02:41 AM

1. And what's the percentage involved?

It looks like less than 1 percent. Sort of like if I claim to have been born six months after I really was. Big whoop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 07:10 PM

2. And yet there are all these words in the article

that are completely redundant with the headline.

Ok, perhaps 1% of them aren't redundant. Perhaps. As an upper bound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread