ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2006,23:15) | Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.
Henry |
Yes. Lord Kelvin figured prominently in their arguments:
| Quote | | This age is attributed to Barnes (14). Barnes (14) summarizes and supports the arguments developed first in 1862 by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who calculated that the Earth could be no less than 20 million and no more than 400 million years old (127). Kelvin’s calculations were based on the presumption that the Earth was cooling from an initial white-hot molten state, and his calculations determined how long it would take for the observed geothermal gradient to reach its present configuration. Kelvin also calculated that the Sun is probably no more than 100 million years old and almost certainly no more than 500 million years old (126). These upper limits for the age of the Sun were based on his estimate of the available supply of gravitational energy, which, he concluded, would not last many millions of years longer. Nuclear reactions, which we now know are responsible for the Sun’s fires, were unknown in Kelvin’s time. The value of 24 million years, preferred by Barnes (14) and listed by Morris and Parker (97) as the age of the Earth, is attributed by Barnes to Kelvin but was, in fact, first published by King (73). Lord Kelvin (82), however, agreed with King’s value and adopted it as a likely upper limit for the age of the Earth. |
(Dalrymple, internal citations omitted)
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
