Stars older than the Universe ?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Dec 31, 2017.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    Is this about looking for a reason to throw out all knowledge so you can insert "God did it"?

    That's what it sounds like. Nothing that has been observed and tested over and over has been found to be "profoundly" wrong.

    Newton had a theory of gravity that we still use to this day for most tasks. Einstein had to take into account everything that Newton's theory predicted when he came up with his theory. His theory is more accurate. Relativity and Quantum Physics both make use of Newtonian physics but differ mainly in the very large or very small scales.

    The Big Bang hasn't been shown to be "wrong" due to one piece of data. As was pointed out, this "new" piece of data will either show be we were inaccurate to some degree in how we judged the age of this star, or the universe is slightly older than we thought or our methods of dating other stars is slightly off.

    More than likely something is off about the way we are dating this one star.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    No , never occured to me really .

    Something is obviously off about understanding stars , and/or the Universe
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    You mean, it's troubling that we aren't exact when determining the age of something approximately 14 billion years old? Isn't it more amazing that we get that close?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    No its more amazing that we even speculate the age of the Universe in the first place .

    Which leads to the conundrum of stars that are older than the Universe .

    We have become Hubris in our understanding of this Universe .
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,012
    Some people at sixty can look to be eighty and its the same for stars ... the stars that look old have just aged badly.
    The age of the universe has been revised up a few times.
    I say it is 15 billion years old and I should know I own a telescope.
    River what model of cosmology do you like?
    I suspect you are not taken with the big bang?
    I am not either so I wont be critical...at first.
    Alex
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    For Pete's Sake. The title is merely sensational click-bait. If you actually read the article all the way through, you will see that it quickly dispenses with the notion that the discrepancy is in the age of the universe and gets down to brass tacks: that our current simplistic model for calculating the age of stars does not apply in all cases.

    Scientific discovery can interesting in-and-of-itself - not every discovery has to break science to be interesting!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    The understanding of Stars period , is nonsense . From this fusion theory of the sun , which does not explain the 11yr cycles of the sun .

    To the spectrum analysis of the Sun , of which , there are some that to this day are not explained .
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    Ah yes.The ol' "It fits the vast preponderance of data built up over centuries of study - but because our understanding of stellar processes is only 90% instead of 100% - we should throw it all out and start from scratch." gambit.

    It must be gratifying indeed to martyr yourself on the cross of anti-science.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,012
    Well enlighten us River.
    What do you know that the rest of us dont.
    Rather yhan take pot shots I certainly dont understand take the time to explain.
    What is wrong with the current explaination of whats going on in the Sun and all Stars. ...
    Just blurting out one liners does not get us anywhere.
    You say the current cosmology is wrong but where is it.
    How do you see the significance of a star being older than the universe..one estimate is wrong thats all...
    Alex
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    But I'm not wrong , that's the thing .

    Nuclear Fusion of the Sun should be consistent , not leading to cycles of the Sun of any kind .

    And it is true that we do NOT understand the FULL SPECTRUM of the Sun .

    This Anti-science thing about me is non-sense , I just question , which is fundamental to science .
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    What you said was: "The understanding of Stars period , is nonsense ."

    You are not even wrong.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    I'm right
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    One-liners is what Riv does. He hopes it looks like mysteriousness.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    I can certainly agree that stellar dynamics is nonsense to you.

    The anti-science books you prefer aren't doing you any favours.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    So why is the Fusion model of the Sun go in 11yr cycles ?

    And why can we not explain the full spectrum of the Sun ?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,746
    You're asking questions instead of making unfounded assertions. That's an excellent start to learning more.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    For all of us to understand more .
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,012
    Maybe it builds up a pressure that cycles.

    It is a great question but just because one has a question that in no way means you throw your hands up and give up and say everything is wrong.

    And you like so many folk seem to have the idea science has all the answers and science certainly does not but the question is why do you think we/ science has all the answers yet.

    And why say you dont have it all worked out lets give up and make something up...if you want to make something up thats ok but dont say what is in place has no value...that approach makes no sense whatsoever.

    I think the most interesting thing we dont understand about the Sun is the much higher temperature of the Corona.

    I dont think they have any mechanism that comes close yet.

    I know why but if I mention my idea folk will say I am a nutter.

    But as much as I believe in my idea there is no reason to throw out all we have worked out to date.

    What came before the big bang..er we dont know..throw it out.

    No.

    No .... never throw anything out until you have something new and better.
    ....and remember I dont like the big bang.

    The old star thing is no big deal..it simply is not a big deal.

    As Dave says if you look into it there is really nothing to get excited about.

    I say the science reporters try and jazz things up..and that is understandable...
    Like someone says some black holes cant form..the news comes out ..there are no black holes..you say you are in tune and intimate that you are a thinker but you fall for that sort of crap...
    Its just sensationalism and most times if you read the actual scientific paper you will wonder if the news actually was covering what you read in the paper.

    The news should read old stars found so old they must have appeared early in the universe...

    Anything else is nonsense...

    Old star found which must have been around before the universe started and it survived the unbelievable hot and extraordinary dense conditions...

    Alex
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,012
    The danger for River is folk may think his knowledge is limited to the few words he writes.
    Alex
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    That does appear to be the case. It's great to question a subject but it's helpful to understand that subject first. River appears to just watch nutter YouTube videos and then repeat their questions.

    The "Fusion" theory of the Sun as opposed to what the "giant fireball" theory or the "giant lump of coal" theory?
     

Share This Page