Originally posted by RJHinds Sometimes so-called scientific facts are just opinions.
-and most said scientific facts from none fundamentalists and mentally abnormal people (i.e. normal people that make up the majority ) are facts, not opinions. Science isn't opinion as you try and fail to pretend.
Religion, however, is; and that is putting it extremely mildly.
Originally posted by shavixmir Unless it came from another universe, how can a star be older than the universe? No maths, please. Just reason.
.
It can't. If someone thinks a star appears older than the universe, there must be something wrong with his model and/or his interpretation of the data.
My hair can't be older than my head either.
It can if you were born without a head but with hair ( very bad deformity ) -but then you would be dead.
(incidentally, you can really be born with hair because I learned that I was born with a load of black hair already on my head! I don't know how rare that is )
Originally posted by shavixmir Unless it came from another universe, how can a star be older than the universe? No maths, please. Just reason.
My hair can't be older than my head either.
well... what's left of my hair anyhoo.
The universe is estimated to be 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old. The oldest star HD 140283 is estimated to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years old. The central value for the age of the oldest star is older than the central value for the estimated age of the universe. However these figures come with errors and the lower bound of the age of the star is 13.66 billion years old, which is less than the central figure for the age of the universe by 100 million years. So the correct answer is that the estimate for the age of HD140283 is probably a little on the high side.
Originally posted by DeepThought The universe is estimated to be 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old. The oldest star HD 140283 is estimated to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years old. The central value for the age of the oldest star is older than the central value for the estimated age of the universe. However these figures come with errors and the lower bound of the age of the star is 13.66 ...[text shortened]... rrect answer is that the estimate for the age of HD140283 is probably a little on the high side.
Your explanation is quite logical.
It occurred to me that to determine the possible age of the oldest star one would just deduct the length of time of a star formation from the age of the universe. I went looking for that figure - an estimation, I presume - and got lost in the theories of star formation without finding anything concrete. Accepting that such figure would depend on the type and size of star, I would like to have found something like "between 100 and 500 million years". No luck.
Originally posted by humy It can't. If someone thinks a star appears older than the universe, there must be something wrong with his model and/or his interpretation of the data.
My hair can't be older than my head either.
It can if you were born without a head but with hair ( very bad deformity ) -but then you would be dead.
(incidentally, you can really be bo ...[text shortened]... ed that I was born with a load of black hair already on my head! I don't know how rare that is )
My daughter was born with wispy black hair but it all fell out. She has
blonde growing through now. Depending on how long your hair is it is
unlikely to be more than a year old. So it really cant be older than your
head!
Originally posted by shavixmir Unless it came from another universe, how can a star be older than the universe? No maths, please. Just reason.
My hair can't be older than my head either.
well... what's left of my hair anyhoo.
My theory is - totally theory- that the universe that we're in at present, was spewed out from a black hole that existed alongside many other universes at the time, IOW that was our Big Bang. Therefore you can have planets "older" than what we can observe at present. Does that make sense?
Originally posted by pawnpaw My theory is - totally theory- that the universe that we're in at present, was spewed out from a black hole that existed alongside many other universes at the time, IOW that was our Big Bang. Therefore you can have planets "older" than what we can observe at present. Does that make sense?
Originally posted by pawnpaw My theory is - totally theory- that the universe that we're in at present, was spewed out from a black hole that existed alongside many other universes at the time, IOW that was our Big Bang. Therefore you can have planets "older" than what we can observe at present. Does that make sense?
wouldn't that only make sense if those planets that are older than our universe formed in another universe but then somehow entered into the black hole (or perhaps some kind of 'wormhole' if such a thing can exist? ) intact (extremely unlikely! ) and was thrown out into our universe when the black hole 'exploded' to form our universe? (this is making some huge assumptions ) Even if somehow that was what happened, surely any super-old planets would vaporize in the early stages of the big bang when our universe was extremely hot.
"...cosmologists believe the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a million times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion. Even the cores of the hottest stars in today's universe are much cooler than that.
..."
I don't see how any molecule made of atoms or any macroscopic solid object or a star or planet can stay intact under those early conditions!
Originally posted by ptriple42 Your explanation is quite logical.
It occurred to me that to determine the possible age of the oldest star one would just deduct the length of time of a star formation from the age of the universe. I went looking for that figure - an estimation, I presume - and got lost in the theories of star formation without finding anything concrete. Accepting that ...[text shortened]... omething like "between 100 and 500 million years". No luck.
Do you know what the theory says?
It depends when you measure the age of a star from. I think molecular clouds could start collapse from any time after recombination. The collapse happens on a time scale determined by the orbital period of an atom in the nebula. The problem is it depends on the mass distribution of the nebula and varies on a more or less case by case basis. As a hack's guess though, suppose all the mass was concentrated at the centre of the solar system, the orbital period at 1 A.U. is 1 year. 1 astronomical unit is 1.5813×10−5 lightyears, making 2 light years about 126,470 A.U.s. The orbital period goes as a^3/2 so this gives a hack's guess of 45 million years for a 2 lightyear radius cloud to collapse.
Originally posted by humy wouldn't that only make sense if those planets that are older than our universe formed in another universe but then somehow entered into the black hole (or perhaps some kind of 'wormhole' if such a thing can exist? ) intact (extremely unlikely! ) and was thrown out into our universe when the black hole 'exploded' to form our universe? (this is making some huge ...[text shortened]... r any macroscopic solid object or a star or planet can stay intact under those early conditions!
You'd be surprised what can pass through a black hole.
Originally posted by RJHinds Then you are at the wrong place. 😏
no, this is the right place because, excluding yourself, some of us here are science experts. You are just an ignorant arrogant trolling opinionated moron who is not a scientist and who arrogantly thinks he knows better than the scientists here and everywhere else.
31 Oct '14 22:448 edits
A star older than the universe?
Back to Top