Was not the uranium 238 here on Earth with a half-life supposedly of 4.47 billion years created during the supernovae of a previous first generation star? That would seem to mean that it first started decaying right after the explosion and all during the reassemblage of the nebulae material that formed the Sun and planets(no matter if it were from slow self amalgamation or helped along with nearby blast waves of other early supernovae). This "accretion time" has to be taken into account. This yet unknown accretion time is vital in trying to find the age of the Earth itself in my opinion. If the Uranium 238 was decaying for a billion years or more in the pre-solar nebulae for example, would we not have to alter the age minus a billion years. Lord Kelvin may have not considered radioactivity in his famous thermodynamical approximation of earth's age but I think we are ignoring the importance of accretion time of the pre-solar system nebulae. What sayeth the radiomectrically dated zircons
2007-05-02
08:12:42
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Astronomy & Space