ABOUT FACTS NET

Photo Source: Clipart.com

Well I see that the newest report on how the solar system was formed has some surprises in it. Of course you will have to have ultimate faith in the computer simulation that was used to provide this info, but computer simulations are not without their flaws. Certain information is programmed into them as gospel and from this information the simulation produces the final simulation or report. It is a shame that these simulations or computer programs are all controlled by the information that is programmed into them to some extent.

The latest simulation shows that our solar system was a very chaotic place when it was formed. You wouldn't have wanted to have been around then. It also shows that the Earth and Moon were subjected to a severe asteroid bombardment that may have set life back on our world. What if this was true and intelligent life already existed on Earth at the time. It could have been wiped out. Maybe our life form is not the first intelligent life on Earth. As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy suggests, we are only the third most intelligent life form on Earth, the mice being the first and the Dolphins being the second. Seriously, it has been suggested that there are more advanced forms of life living inside the Earth. Could this be true and is there a chance that maybe there was a fierce asteroid shower and it drove the intelligent creatures to take refuge inside the Earth? What if they decided to stay there and developed advanced societies and cultures and are still there and they are more advanced than us?

The report on the simulation goes on to say that the solar system is only 4.6 billion years old. In truth if this is true than it shoots down the theory of intelligent life moving underground because it would have had hardly any time to form and the Earth would have been most inhospitable at its tender age. But could this be wrong, could the Earth be older than the computer program supposes? The oldest rocks found so far seem to be about 3.8 billion years old, but the age of the Earth has been revised many times. The simulation that was used probably had the age of the solar system programmed into it already. Would the results have been the same if the solar system turns out to be older or even younger? Science will argue that the age of the Earth is pretty accurate because of the science of geochronology. In simple terms, the radioactivity of certain elements is used as an indicator of age. But how do we know that something didn't happen in our past to affect that radioactivity. Could these ores have absorbed more radioactivity in some way? There is still an awful lot we don't know about the universe.

There are those that believe that magnetism in the Earth is the key to determining the age of the Earth. Again I have to wonder if this could have been altered over the course of billions of years by events that we have no knowledge of? Well be this as it may, the most accepted age for the Earth is 4.6 billion years. But there is a second figure that some people agree on and that is 5 billion years. But do these figures agree with the Big Bank Theory? The Big Bang Theory states that there was this huge mass and nothing else and it exerted so much pressure on its core that it exploded, and in so doing, spread the material for the creation of stars and planets into space. Some scientists say this happened as little as 10 billion years ago. Would this have given us enough time for the Earth and planets to form? After all the bang took place somewhere else in space and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light according to Einstein. So how long did it take the material that formed the solar system to reach us? After it reached us how long did it take for this material to turn into the Sun and planets? Why can we see galaxies that are 13 billion light years away, when according to the big bang theory, this is too far to be possible, well at least I think so.

Here is the answer, but I don't buy it. The big bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space and took place everywhere at once. There is nothing like a good mystical scientific explanation to muddy the waters. This explanation smacks of different dimensions, worm holes and time travel. Is this theory correct? I am almost willing to bet that it too will be proven wrong somewhere in the future as will be the theory that the faster something is traveling the more its shift to the red in the light spectrum. While I believe this is true in many if not most cases, I don't believe it is true in every case. There have been a few isolated cases where the red shift didn't seem to coincide with the speed.

So are the latest simulations that predict the formation of our solar system and its age correct? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe partially correct. Take your choice. I think that they are partially correct and we will get better simulations in the future when more powerful computers come on line with more advanced software.