Can stars be older than the universe ?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by timojin, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,332
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,669
    It can be, given that there are large errors in the estimations of the age as of the universe, as of the stars or galaxies.

    For my ether theory it is good news if the universe is older than it looks from point of view of GR, because the equations of my theory contain an additional term which makes the expansion of the universe more close to a linear one. It becomes important earlier than the cosmological constant. If the expansion rate would be measured correctly at the time when the cosmological constant becomes important, the consequence of this term would be that the universe is older than in the standard model of cosmology.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
  8. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Agreed, although I think the only assumption that is wrong is the one made by those that think the way we estimate the age of stars can account for every eventuality. It would seem that the underlying principles of ageing a star are still valid but if something else alters one of the markers that we use, it would seem to be quite possible that we age the star incorrectly.

    The article itself gives a number of such possible explanations for the apparent discrepancy.

    To know if this calculation is anything other than an interesting anomaly we would surely first need to rule out those (and other) possible explanations. Only then will we have something that necessitates a change in the fundamental models.
    That said, it may be that other models actually predict just such a thing and, upon further similar discoveries, these other models begin to become more widely accepted over the current.
    'Tis wonderful how science works.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    No. Stars cannot be older than the universe. This is how the scientific method works. We hypothesize, test, refine, test again, observe test again, etc. Stars are inside the universe and cannot be older than it. For the first 255,000 (edit: 380,000) years of the universe, it was filled with matter-energy and atoms couldn't even form. That says nothing about how long it took for the conditions to reach the point where stars could form about 100 million years.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2017
  10. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
    In the beginning there was the universe with all its components ( atoms and energy ) at very high temperature as reaction started to take place and molecules start to form reduction of volume of matter have taken place . Heat from condensation reaction , maintained the volume of the universe constant.
     
  11. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,214
    ... sorry, but that word salad was rather hard to parse... what are you trying to say here?
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161

    I understand it , just make some effort you might understand it also
     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,214
    Nope, sorry, it's still worthless word salad.

    Specifically:
    First off, there were no atoms "in the beginning" - as was said in literally the post before yours, it took several hundred thousand years for electrons to become trapped around atomic nuclei:

    https://home.cern/about/physics/early-universe
    So... wrong on your first point.

    This... is saying a whole lot of nothing with a lot of words...

    So you are claiming the universe shrank?

    Word salad that appears to be trying to say that heat from the effects of matter condensing into denser materials kept the volume of the universe constant... which is wrong as we know the universe was in fact expanding.
     
    superstring01 likes this.
  14. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    What Kittamaru said. Sheesh. So much woo-woo-ism.

    Look. If you want a good answer that lay-people can get: Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He may not be working on the edges of science, but he's a great science educator. Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos isn't bad either.
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    **cough**

    Inflating?
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
    What was there in the beginning ?
    Electron are part of atoms is that true or not ?
    (it took several hundred thousand years for electrons to become trapped around atomic nuclei

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If so , we would not have atoms but Negative Ions , The fact is we have atoms .
    Each atom have its own volume , as atoms combine the volume decreases
    First learn chemistry , than apply chemistry to physics , Physicist are poor in chemistry
     
  17. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,214
    We did not have atoms at the beginning of the universe, which is what you stated. Ergo, you are the one that needs to go learn some basics.

    At this point, I am wondering why you are peddling demonstrably false information in the science forums...
     
  18. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Yes, it appears so.
    True.
    No we would have positive protons (ionized hydrogen) and negative electrons.
    When the universe was less than about 380,000 years old we did not have atoms. After that point we did have atoms.
    Of course physicist are not chemist. Chemists are not physicists. You are neither of those.

    Glad we got that cleared up....
     
    Kittamaru likes this.
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
     
  20. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
    This was my reply to Kitta If electrons were separated from atoms and than you bring electrons to atoms you will have negative ions . "that would not be possible " I said. I am familiar with plasma , I worked with low pressure and high pressure plasma, tank you for teaching me .
    Now you tell me what happen when you reduce the pressure or increase the volume in the high pressure plasma, I like to hear your opinion without searching into literature , what would happen .
    For some reason I have a degree and publication , but I know I can not compare myself to your wisdom .
     
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
    I am not a sheep, I am entitled to think and examine the information .
     
  22. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,214
    Electrons were not separated from atoms - there were no atoms, period.

    But you are not entitled to post woo in the science forums; kindly keep that in mind.
     
    superstring01 and origin like this.
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,161
    You are funny . What was there in the beginning ?
    Who are you to judge ? do you mean I have follow the pace of the drum. Don't you realise that this opening is telling that the present knowledge of the beginning have some flaw.
     

Share This Page