Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
anyman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
apparent remnants of a supernova, previously dated to 10,000ya (10ka), has been redated and is now proposed to be identified as the remnants of a supernova that the chinese recorded observing ~ad185, which would put it ~1821ya

original linkie

another story

as an afterthought, how many other celestial objects, previously dated much older, should now be re-examined a/o redated

what was wrong with the earlier dating methodology

i mean we are talking about a variance of >80% younger here...hardly a trifling error/misreading/miscalculation (although it will likely be *spun* that way)

ahh, the dating games we play, eh :-)

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I fail to see what your link has to do with the story. Perhaps you should recheck it.

Amaranth

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
anyman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
they have apparently withdrawn the news item (perhaps it revealed too much :-)...but here is another which still gives enough of the same dating info to justify my afterthought :-)

see the new link in the lead post of this thread

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
anyman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
couldn't readily find the original via yahoo or google searches, but after checking the history in my browser was able to recover the original url

it is now available *again* in the lead post as *original linkie*

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Thanks for the fix. It was an interesting story. How Science corrects itself when necessary. No religion is revisionistic.

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
anyman Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
yeah, it's kind of nice to know that someone got it right the first time and there is thus no need to keep on changing the teaching...

unlike the writings and teachings of men where we keep on changing the teachings because we realize we just got it wrong again :-)


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5