46 ms·

>researchers say they’ve finally pinpointed the exact age of the Moon Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read on. A short while later it leads me to the paper[0]

by 37 5y ago

>researchers say they’ve finally pinpointed the exact age of the Moon Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read on. A short while later it leads me to the paper[0] and I spend a few more minutes on that, finding myself asking: how do we know the zircon fragments aren't from a meteor that is much older? Surely all the fragments came from approximately the same area, yes? Or maybe not? But nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff. Astronomy is just filled with rabbit holes I guess. [0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1602365 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1602365

kfarr 5y ago
Just wait until you hear how astronomers date the approximate age of rabbit holes…
pdonis 5y ago
> how do we know the zircon fragments aren't from a meteor that is much older? Radiometric dating tells you when the sample you are dating last solidified. Of course the atoms in the sample themselves existed before that, but that doesn't matter for radiometric dating since what is being measured is not the age of the atoms but the time the sample, the piece of rock you're analyzing, last solidified. > Surely all the fragments came from approximately the same area, yes? Um, yes, since the Apollo 14 astronauts only collected samples from a very small area. > nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff. Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you. Exactly. Like that comment about the JWST last week that was wondering why they didn't bring down the number of single-points-of-failure. Backseat driving at its best.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    This website's favorite thing is sophmoric armchair contrarianism, as if people who have spent their entire lives dedicated to a topic need some tech industry clown to come along and show them something after 5 seconds thought. It gets very tiresome but I've learned to accept this place will always be like that, to some extent because the example PG set.
    - 37 5y ago
      I feel that after this comment, and it's parent, and it's parent's parent, I should address the topic. No, I am not the smartest person here. I understand that. A few days ago I asked a question and people told me to get more involved in HN with commenting and posting and such. People also warned about gatekeeping. I had seen it talked about with regards to HN before, but never really noticed it. So then I try to get more involved and now I understand. I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort. I am just wondering out loud on the internet. And I don't think I was JAQing off either. (and btw jason, I'm not a tech industry clown, I'm just a nobody clown.)
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort. Statements like these... > Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read on. > But nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff. ...do not lend support to your claim here. Not knowing much about an area of science on which many people have spent a lot of time and effort is fine. Being dismissive about it without knowing much about it is not.
        37 5y ago
        Hmm, okay, I think I understand. For the record, the 'sounds dubious' comment was directed at the claim that we know the "exact" age of the moon. It is more a criticism of shoddy journalism than a statement of my knowledge of the subject. I know enough to know that we cannot pinpoint the "exact" age of the moon. And the 'knowledgeable astronomers' claim was almost more of a meek confession that idk wtf I am talking about. It was not meant sarcastically at all. I know a little, but not as much as people who went to school and do this stuff professionally. Everyone, please note: I'm not trying to back-peddle or make excuses or anything like that here, just explaining my reasoning. (Edit: but thanks for the criticism, it really does help to see your point of view on these things. This is a discussion board after all.)
- kjeetgill 5y ago
  > Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you. My charitable reading of the parent post is that asking these obvious questions first, then hunting down the answer is an incredible way to learn how "we" know things. I think it's a perfectly fair way to note that the poster doesn't have the complete story yet.
  - 37 5y ago
    Thank you, kjeetgill, for understanding my ignorance and line of questioning.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      It's a tragedy what Just Asking Questions has done to just asking questions.
philipov 5y ago
> Astronomy is just filled with rabbit holes I guess. No wonder some cultures think Rabbits live on the moon.

by 37 5y ago

kfarr 5y ago

Just wait until you hear how astronomers date the approximate age of rabbit holes…

pdonis 5y ago

> how do we know the zircon fragments aren't from a meteor that is much older? Radiometric dating tells you when the sample you are dating last solidified. Of course the atoms in the sample themselves existed before that, but that doesn't matter for radiometric dating since what is being measured is not the age of the atoms but the time the sample, the piece of rock you're analyzing, last solidified. > Surely all the fragments came from approximately the same area, yes? Um, yes, since the Apollo 14 astronauts only collected samples from a very small area. > nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff. Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you. Exactly. Like that comment about the JWST last week that was wondering why they didn't bring down the number of single-points-of-failure. Backseat driving at its best.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  This website's favorite thing is sophmoric armchair contrarianism, as if people who have spent their entire lives dedicated to a topic need some tech industry clown to come along and show them something after 5 seconds thought. It gets very tiresome but I've learned to accept this place will always be like that, to some extent because the example PG set.
  - 37 5y ago
    I feel that after this comment, and it's parent, and it's parent's parent, I should address the topic. No, I am not the smartest person here. I understand that. A few days ago I asked a question and people told me to get more involved in HN with commenting and posting and such. People also warned about gatekeeping. I had seen it talked about with regards to HN before, but never really noticed it. So then I try to get more involved and now I understand. I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort. I am just wondering out loud on the internet. And I don't think I was JAQing off either. (and btw jason, I'm not a tech industry clown, I'm just a nobody clown.)
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort. Statements like these... > Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read on. > But nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff. ...do not lend support to your claim here. Not knowing much about an area of science on which many people have spent a lot of time and effort is fine. Being dismissive about it without knowing much about it is not.
      - 37 5y ago
        Hmm, okay, I think I understand. For the record, the 'sounds dubious' comment was directed at the claim that we know the "exact" age of the moon. It is more a criticism of shoddy journalism than a statement of my knowledge of the subject. I know enough to know that we cannot pinpoint the "exact" age of the moon. And the 'knowledgeable astronomers' claim was almost more of a meek confession that idk wtf I am talking about. It was not meant sarcastically at all. I know a little, but not as much as people who went to school and do this stuff professionally. Everyone, please note: I'm not trying to back-peddle or make excuses or anything like that here, just explaining my reasoning. (Edit: but thanks for the criticism, it really does help to see your point of view on these things. This is a discussion board after all.)
kjeetgill 5y ago
> Yes, in fact, they have, plus a lot more things that haven't even occurred to you. My charitable reading of the parent post is that asking these obvious questions first, then hunting down the answer is an incredible way to learn how "we" know things. I think it's a perfectly fair way to note that the poster doesn't have the complete story yet.
- 37 5y ago
  Thank you, kjeetgill, for understanding my ignorance and line of questioning.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    It's a tragedy what Just Asking Questions has done to just asking questions.

philipov 5y ago

> Astronomy is just filled with rabbit holes I guess. No wonder some cultures think Rabbits live on the moon.