Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 08 Sep '17 12:02
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe/#76fa348e3c44

    Stars found that are older than universe.
  2. 08 Sep '17 15:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe/#76fa348e3c44

    Stars found that are older than universe.
    It said in that link;

    "...it's always possible that there's something fishy that happened in the star's past that we can't know about today. It's possible that it was born as a higher-mass star and something stripped the outer layers off, reducing the star's lifetime precipitously. It's possible that the star absorbed some material later-in-life that changed its heavy element content, skewing our perceptions today. Or it's possible that we've got a misunderstanding in the subgiant phase of the stellar evolution of these old, low-metallicity stars. These unknowns (and in some cases, unknowables) are possible sources of errors when we try and compute the ages of the oldest stars...."

    So what should be our conclusion?
    Should it be the total absurdity that the stars are older than the universe itself?
    Or should it be that, with perfectly creditable explanation (see above) , they are not?
    This is a non-brainer.
    There are no stars older than the universe and a few of our estimates of age of stars are currently inaccurate; 'mystery' solved!
    Next...
  3. 08 Sep '17 15:37
    Originally posted by @whodey
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/07/the-greatest-cosmic-puzzle-astronomers-find-stars-that-appear-older-than-the-universe/#76fa348e3c44

    Stars found that are older than universe.
    Any object older than 6000 years are older than the universe.
    ...if you ask any Yong Earth Christian.

    Does this mean the YEC are wrong or does it mean that age measuring methods are wrong?
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    08 Sep '17 19:55
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Any object older than 6000 years are older than the universe.
    ...if you ask any Yong Earth Christian.

    Does this mean the YEC are wrong or does it mean that age measuring methods are wrong?
    Yes.
  5. 08 Sep '17 20:57
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Any object older than 6000 years are older than the universe.
    ...if you ask any Yong Earth Christian.

    Does this mean the YEC are wrong or does it mean that age measuring methods are wrong?
    You got me all wrong, I'm an OEC
  6. 10 Sep '17 06:21
    Originally posted by @whodey
    You got me all wrong, I'm an OEC
    If you believe in an old Earth, about 5 billion years old, you are all right.
    Anything older on Earth than these 5 billion years is wrong.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Sep '17 16:32
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    If you believe in an old Earth, about 5 billion years old, you are all right.
    Anything older on Earth than these 5 billion years is wrong.
    4.5 but who'se counting

    I wonder also if the stars really are older than the pegged age of the universe, there are signs in the CBR record of possible other universes banging into ours, there are circular areas in the CBR that have no present theory other than that to account for them.

    So If it banged into our universe, I assume the theory would be universes are like upper dimensional bubbles and in a multiverse world, there could be uncountable number of other universes in the same Urspace, like foam bubbles in soap so some could touch our outer 'skin', which would be a skin only in a higher dimensional sense.

    Anyway, if that is true, could it also be true that some stars from that universe, presumably older than ours, have penetrated the 'skin' and popped into our universe, uninvited and it would be samples of an actual other universe.

    Just a wild theory I pooped out just now
  8. 13 Sep '17 17:03
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    4.5 but who'se counting

    I wonder also if the stars really are older than the pegged age of the universe, there are signs in the CBR record of possible other universes banging into ours, there are circular areas in the CBR that have no present theory other than that to account for them.

    So If it banged into our universe, I assume the theory would be ...[text shortened]... it would be samples of an actual other universe.

    Just a wild theory I pooped out just now
    4.5 billion can be described as 'about 5 billion', right?

    I don't believe in colliding universes. Those circular areas you mention are believed as a flaw in the numerical methods used. Nothing to be bothered about.

    But even if there was a stone emerging from another universe in some higher set of dimensions, this stone would have properties originating from an universe with a totally other values of the elementary constants, which would the stone turn into fumes from the first picosecond of its arrival.

    But to be realistic, there might be a rogue stone from the interstellar space vagabonding through our solar system, incidentally hitting our Earth and surviving to the surface, just to be found by a scientific inclined person who found its radiometric age being well above the age of our planet. It is possible, but very unlikely.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    13 Sep '17 17:55
    Wouldn't the most likely explanation simply be that the universe is older than previously thought?
  10. 13 Sep '17 18:44 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Wouldn't the most likely explanation simply be that the universe is older than previously thought?
    I (informally) researched this and concluded that, although it wouldn't be completely absurd that the universe is older than previously thought (so we shouldn't completely rule that possibly out just yet), the current estimates of the age of the universe are far more reliable than that of the oldest stars, which have certain difficult uncertain variables to contend with. Therefore it is more likely that it is the current estimation of the oldest stars that is inaccurate. Obviously, one thing we can rule out is both estimations being very accurate!
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Sep '17 19:29
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    4.5 billion can be described as 'about 5 billion', right?

    I don't believe in colliding universes. Those circular areas you mention are believed as a flaw in the numerical methods used. Nothing to be bothered about.

    But even if there was a stone emerging from another universe in some higher set of dimensions, this stone would have properties origina ...[text shortened]... d its radiometric age being well above the age of our planet. It is possible, but very unlikely.
    If there was stuff from other universes, it may be here BECAUSE the laws of physic are very close here than there. One mulitverse theory goes like this: Our universe is a daughter universe from a parent universe where in the parent universe a black hole appears and that spurts our universe, the white hole from that black hole becomes our universe and that parent universe coming from a grandparent universe and our universe spawning daughter universes in the black holes we see all over our universe.

    The idea there is the parent universe has X physics laws and the daughter universe would have X+ delta X physics, where we would have ever so slightly different laws than the parent and our daughter universes would have say X+ 2Delta X physics and so forth. with that in mind there could be many universes spawned from a parent with very similar laws of physics and if one of them banged into ours by proximity, and some kind of penetration, a bridge between universes, maybe stars from our universe crossed into that space and vice versa.

    Of course all speculation, freely admitted. Makes a good sci fi theme don't you think?
  12. 15 Sep '17 06:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    If there was stuff from other universes, it may be here BECAUSE the laws of physic are very close here than there. One mulitverse theory goes like this: Our universe is a daughter universe from a parent universe where in the parent universe a black hole appears and that spurts our universe, the white hole from that black hole becomes our universe and that ...[text shortened]... versa.

    Of course all speculation, freely admitted. Makes a good sci fi theme don't you think?
    Perhaps you've read "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov?
    It's about a parallel universe, a bridge between it and ours, and the strange creatures over there. What would happen if you tapped energy from there to ours? Short term nothing, long term everything.

    It has a special place in my heart, because this was the first real book I read in English from the first page to the last by free will.

    It really turned things up-side-down and I was hooked by Asimov.
  13. 15 Sep '17 15:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    If you believe in an old Earth, about 5 billion years old, you are all right.
    Anything older on Earth than these 5 billion years is wrong.
    Sorry. I think the earth is 4.999999999 billions years old, not 5 billion, so I reckon I'm a freak like you thought.
  14. 15 Sep '17 15:21
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    If there was stuff from other universes, it may be here BECAUSE the laws of physic are very close here than there. One mulitverse theory goes like this: Our universe is a daughter universe from a parent universe where in the parent universe a black hole appears and that spurts our universe, the white hole from that black hole becomes our universe and that ...[text shortened]... versa.

    Of course all speculation, freely admitted. Makes a good sci fi theme don't you think?
    Only you could make the creation of the universe sound like a bad porn flick.
  15. 15 Sep '17 15:23
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Wouldn't the most likely explanation simply be that the universe is older than previously thought?
    Challenging preconceived notions and beliefs is most problematic, especially if those beliefs cascade into attacking a whole slew of other beliefs.

    Science is notorious for tar and feathering free thinkers. It's simply human nature.