I read that article. I hoped the BBC journalist had been the one who inserted all that woo woo into a science scientific paper report. But alas, it appears that two people with the Field Museum who have regaled and dazzled museum patrons as their day job were the source of that woo woo.ap215 » Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:32 pm wrote:Oldest material on Earth discovered
Scientists analysing a meteorite have discovered the oldest material known to exist on Earth.
They found dust grains within the space rock - which fell to Earth in the 1960s - that are as much as 7.5 billion years old.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51099609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As I make it out the perhaps real dating is 4.6 to 4.9 billion years old:
"Based on how many cosmic rays had interacted with the grains, most had to be 4.6-4.9 billion years old. For comparison, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion."
That's also happens to the approximate age of the Earth.
Ignore that "however" which follows the above toward the end of the article, it's statistical noise within the second standard deviation:
"However, the oldest yielded a date of around 7.5 billion years old."
Ignore that. That is where the woo woo was inserted. Thus the headline, and the blaring whoopty do.
That article didn't get even the slightest bit real until near the end in the last two paragraphs where the details were hid.
In the very last paragraph we meet Dr. Heck:
"Dr Heck told BBC News: "Only 10% of the grains are older than 5.5 billion years, 60% of the grains are "young" (at) 4.6 to 4.9 billion years old, and the rest are in between the oldest and youngest ones."
There Dr Heck is allowing a glimpse of the real to be seen. In a normal distribution 10% will deviate by about that amount, that's in keeping for the first standard deviation for that kind of dating. That lone 7.5 billion year date is in the second standard deviation, also well within keeping.
The date should read: 4.6 to 4.9 billion years, plus or minus 0.7 billion years.
But heck if he didn't kneed the results a bit after he said, and he did, that headline would have read:
"Exciting science bombshell! Asteroid space rock radioactive ion dated and it's the same age as the Earth!!!
That would be known as a media dud.