No? Not Even with time dilation? A fast moving star that formed perhaps a million years afther the big bang could have had over 13 billion years to catch up with the universe through time dilation it would have to move fast though.
The BB was the creation of the universe. If a star formed a million years after the BB, it would not be older than the universe, would it? I'm not sure you understand time dilation.
When aproaching certain speeds outside time seems to slow down it is for example possible for a object to travel(almost) instantly from point A to B but a outside observer well see it takes you ages to do so. ... what are the chances their was a previous big bang in this universe before the latest.
You have to be more specific (what do you mean by 'outside') and use commas and periods so that I can understand exactly what you're saying. Again, you have to be more specific about reference frames, but I think you have the gist of it. Now how does this effect help a star 'catch up' with the universe? And why did it need to catch up in the first place? It was already there. Because you are talking about events prior to the BB, there is no information available to answer your question (at least, not yet). Some people would say that your question is unanswerable because the 'universe' was born of the BB. IOW There was no 'this universe' before the BB.
As far as I understand it the big bang changed the state of the universe (entropy and all, Nothing could really be created It yust changed to a more interesting state). What are the changes that for example there was a big bang before this one and aftherwards the universe sort of changed back to it's big bang point whil a previous star (or any other structure) survived this event change. Our would there be a other way for something to be older then the universe? More clear?
You are contradicting yourself. You admit that the age of the universe can be described as the time between the BB and now, but then you talk about the universe before the BB. You can't have it both ways. As far as the chances that there has been more than one BB, you can make up some number if you really need one. Whatever you come up with will be just as accurate as anyone else's number. It is not possible for a star from some previous BB to exist in our universe if it was not a part of our current BB. In the BB, the entire universe existed in a very dense, hot state and expanded from that state to the state we see it in now. The entire universe includes all matter and all space. Without space, there is nowhere for your lone star to exist. If you are reaching into science fiction, then there is always a way... just make one up.
I rather gues then make things up. Anyway the problem is to advanced for me and in the end might even be a misconception, I'l yust have to rent a book abouth it
There a time when astronomers when there was evidence that some stars were older than the universe. I forget whether they overestimated the age of some stars or underestimated the age of the universe. I remember some whimsical astrophysicist saying
I think Orcot is asking if time dilation could create a paradox in which a star's age could be greater than the age of the universe itself. I'm not an expert, but I don't think time dilation works that way. Besides, I believe that one of the determining factors for the age of the universe is the age of the stars in it; the universe has to be at least as old as the oldest objects within it.
If the universe worked on big bang and big crunch, it would not necessarily mean that all material would be sucked into a collapse before the universe rebounded again. In theory, some material (stars, etc) could survive intact and so they may be untold billions of years old while star formation is just beginning in the "new universe".
Time dilation just slows down change in something. It could be said that a star would age slower (ie: change slower) but it could never be older than the forces that created it originally.
