View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-10-2006
stuart stuart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 101
Send a message via AIM to stuart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Star
No, but the point is that it is subject to change and could be incorrect. Our current methods that say it is "yay old" might have flaws.
The point I was trying to make is that pretty much ALL of our current methods point to a certain age, and many of them are completely independent of the others. So I don't think that ONE new study is going to change the field overnight, but it could cause people to go back and re-examine the assumptions and analysis of the other methods to check for possible ways to make them agree with the new one, or the new one can be re-tested to see if it gets the same results as before (a more likely scenario, I think, than re-evaluating everything else).
__________________
Useful astro site (yes it's mine): http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/index.html
My Photo Site: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/me/photos/index.html
Reply With Quote