Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mars Rock Older Than Thought

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the you-don't-look-a-day-over-3-billion dept.

Mars 37

Rambo Tribble writes "The BBC reports on a finding, reported in Nature, (abstract), that the so-called 'Black Beauty' rock, discovered in the Sahara, is over twice as old as previously thought. The meteorite is now thought to be 4.4 billion years old, dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."

cancel ×

37 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Silly to assume (-1, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 9 months ago | (#45488915)

What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?

Re: Silly to assume (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489217)

Does Mars exist in this universe? Yes. Is it traveling at relativistic speeds? No.
Therefore Mars and Earth time are similar if not the same.

Also, we can communicate with Curiosity fine, except for a delay due to distance.

Re:Silly to assume (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45489265)

What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?

What makes you think they might not be?

Re:Silly to assume (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#45489687)

Timecube... duh

Re: Silly to assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45491679)

Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth

Re: Silly to assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45493273)

Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth

RELATIVITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

back you you Dian.

Re: Silly to assume (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | about 9 months ago | (#45496169)

Yes, it does. [wikipedia.org]

Re: Silly to assume (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 9 months ago | (#45499433)

Assuming you are talking about time dilation, they are not going NEARLY fast enough (even on the ISS) for even a very expensive watch to be noticeably out of sync. The time difference is so minute you'd need 2 atomic clocks to even be able to measure it (1 on earth, the other in space).

Re: Silly to assume (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | about 9 months ago | (#45501279)

Time runs at different speeds at different points in space. The poster has a point. When astronauts return to earth their watches are slightly out of synch with clocks on earth

RELATIVITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

The emphasized bit is correct, and another AC claimed "relativity does not work that way", which is incorrect, because relativity does work that way. Astronauts on the ISS experience a net dilation of 21 or so microseconds per day -- dilation of about 25 microseconds due to velocity relative to ground and compression of about 4 microseconds due to being higher up the gravity well. Over a 6-month stay, that would be about 4 milliseconds.

While that's probably well within the margin of error of any mechanical watch, GPS devices are a different story. They have rather accurate internal clocks, and relativistic errors are large enough that GPS satellites have to compensate for the discrepancy [wikipedia.org] .

Re: Silly to assume (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 9 months ago | (#45512819)

Thank you for doing the math. The 2 atomic clocks would definitely work then.

Re:Silly to assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489557)

Sometimes you need a -1 Moron mod

Re:Silly to assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45490613)

What makes you so sure that "time" is the same on Mars as it is on Earth?

Are you actually that stupid?

This rock is so old... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45488969)

...it's older than thought itself!

That's what I felt (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45489205)

But I didn't cotton to browsing /. in time to drop that gag, Anonymous Corduroy. I blame Satinic influence.

Re:This rock is so old... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 9 months ago | (#45489841)

...it's older than thought itself!

More importantly, is it older than dirt?

Re:This rock is so old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45491411)

...it's older than thought itself!

More importantly, is it older than dirt?

Actually it would be, since dirt comes from broken down rocks.

Re:This rock is so old... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 9 months ago | (#45499435)

Don't forget organic material.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489051)

I think Kim Kardashian has found her next engagement ring.

Woah, dude (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45489063)

Mars Rock Older Than Thought

That's nothing. I've got underpants that are older than time.

Re:Woah, dude (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489635)

Dude, my neighbor down the street is older than God.

His lawn is immaculate.

Re: Woah, dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45491735)

Just keep of the grass. Ok?

yeah (2)

MoreThanThen (2956881) | about 9 months ago | (#45489405)

but 1st I gotta complete the Dr Who doodle over @ google.fr

scientists are eager to know more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45489851)

4.4 billion years ago was a very important turning point in the history of Mars. Some believe it may have looked something like this [youtube.com]

Re:scientists are eager to know more (0)

rickb928 (945187) | about 9 months ago | (#45490069)

"dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."

And there is a time in Mars' history that scientists are NOT eager to know more about?

Vapid. Utter waste of bits. 'turning point' no less so. Troll video included.

Re:scientists are eager to know more (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45493295)

"dating from a time in a nascent Mars' history that scientists are eager to know more about."

And there is a time in Mars' history that scientists are NOT eager to know more about?

I think we can all agree that there is no reason to look back at the '70s.

Re: scientists are eager to know more (0)

rickb928 (945187) | about 9 months ago | (#45494309)

No more reason than to look back at the 80's, or the 60's, or the late 1700's.

Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... (5, Funny)

Laxator2 (973549) | about 9 months ago | (#45489865)

"...Older than thought".
Humans became a sentient species only recently, on the geological time scale.
So a rock being older that thought itself, is not so surprising.
Now, what was I just thinking about?
My head feels heavy, like a rock ...

Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45490867)

sentient: able to perceive or feel things.

"Sentient" is not a synonym for "self-aware."

Even a fish is sentient, but it is probably not self-aware.

Humans became a species only recently, on the geological time scale.

FTFY

Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... (1)

erice (13380) | about 9 months ago | (#45493379)

"...Older than thought".
Humans became a sentient species only recently, on the geological time scale.
So a rock being older that thought itself, is not so surprising.

To be older than human thought it easy. However, to be older than thought would require that the rock be older than thought anywhere in the universe. We lack evidence to decide that one.

Re:Proof that thinking is a recent occurence ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45499899)

Good reasoning, but you stopped too soon:

After stating that we lack evidence, you would need to state what evidence we lack - presumably, evidence for thought or lack thereof elsewhere in the universe.

From there, it is reasonable to conclude that the statement would be from an entirely human-centric perspective, thus rendering your post as nothing more than pedantic nitpicking.

Adapted from Futurama (2)

barlevg (2111272) | about 9 months ago | (#45490135)

Q: Why does a Mars rock taste better than an Earth rock?

A: Because it's a little meteor.

So they finally counted the rings (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45490787)

It took them how long to decide to cut it open and count the rings?

Did scientists throw the rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45490821)

until it smashed into pieces and they discovered its true age, like they found out the clam was 100 years older after they opened the shell and killed it?

In related news ... (2)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#45492681)

... Earth rock still holds the record thanks to Mick Jagger.

so-called (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45493345)

That is not how this word is used.

Gotcha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45494903)

Is Mars rock older than the Beatles?

Cool, but to put things in perspective... (1)

Theodore Wirth (3040559) | about 8 months ago | (#45503983)

To the many Murcans (including elected officials) that think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago, this revelation means nothing. I abhor the indifference. On another note, the Bible IS fiction.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>