Why is it so hard to calculate the Earths age?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating young Earth creationism or anything like that, BUT...

The 4.5 billion figure was arrived at when we thought that radioactive decay (specifically Beta decay, the kind used in carbon dating) was a constant. We have since learned that it is not. The closer the Earth is to the Sun, the faster the decay. Now sure, that difference in decay isn't a lot when talking about the min and max of the current orbit, but consider that everything on Earth originated INSIDE the Sun (think inverse square law). How much of that decay occurred before the material ever left the Sun?

 

So? That in no way invalidates anything I said.

 

What in the world are you talking about? Everything on Earth didn't originate in the Sun. The sun has not contracted from over 93 million miles in radius, to the size it is now.

Also, what is your reference for your factoid about radioactive decay not being constant? Please be honest as to how much it varies. (my reading is that the variation is constant.

 

No, everything on Earth did not come from the sun. Only the energy from the sun light itself. The sun and planets were made from the same dust cloud. The planets and the sun came from a dust cloud which coagulated to form the sun and planets etc. The effects of gravity and centripetal forces gave rise to the sun being in the centre and planets orbiting the sun.

Though I am a believer in constants such as G and c (and other constants) are not actually constant with time.

 

Your knowledge of God? And where did this knowledge come from? Unless you have direct conversations with God, then your knowledge of God is all assumption, you assume you can understand God's motivation and reason for creating the universe, you assume you have the vision to understand God even when you are limited to this universe, and you assume human logic can explain God. Its all wishfull thinking.

 

Heavy elements aren't produced in stars?

I first read about it here: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ife-strife-seasons-change-in-the-atoms-heart/
(requires a free registration to read)

The decay rate change within our current ellipse is .3%. But that is at the current rate, at the current distance. The inverse square law would mean that the change would be exponentially larger the closer the Earth (or its precursors) was to the sun.

 

The heavy elements on Earth were not produced in our sun but from a previous exploding sun which produced the dust cloud leading to the formation of our solar system.

I am interested in your link which I hope to read later including http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J11/transparents/fischbach.pdf.
I believe that no universal constants are truly constant. In a previous attempt to unify gravity with the other forces, I attempted to explore the maths involved in altering c by a tiny amount which I believe would release energy into a system (E=m(delta c squared) and see if that could account for the effects we observe as gravity. Allowing c to change, I believe, would also have less holes than the Big Bang theory. But the maths became too complicated for me. All it would take is one constant to be shown not to be universally constant to cause a domino effect on all our physical theories. Perhaps this observation in decay rate is the start as decay rate being constant is a feature of the fundamental forces.

 

All Elements up to Iron are produced within Stars.

All Elements heavier are produced via Supernova.

AboveAlpha

 

Because there are too many candles on the BD cake to count