It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13.2 billion year-old galaxy found in 13.8 billion year old universe. :0

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




what a fantastic fairytale. Very entertaining.


Yes it is, considering that 400 years of research from people like Newton, Kepler, and Einstein helped us understand the universe and their work governs the technology we use today.

Now a geocentric universe, that was a fairytale.


edit on 8-9-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Thanks Braco, but you give no data or research in your reply, just philosophy. This isn't a metaphysics post, so I'll stick with scientists and the research they take the time to provide .



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZakOlongapo
a reply to: 3danimator2014

all You know is based on theories... You know that, right? no mater what school You go. just theories


how You said:
"because there is a wealth of info/maths/experimental data and real world usage that points to us being at least in the right directrion with thage of the universe, big bang etc..."

all based on theories man


sorry, but i think we need to wait for truth xx


No. They are not theories. Relativity has daily uses. Time dilation HAS to be taken into account for GPS sats otherwise they would drift out place. This is just one real world use for relativity.

They just shot past Pluto using Newtons and Einsteing "theories"

Are you aware that a transistor is a PURELY quantum mechanical device. Computers run on them. The fact that transistors work is (just one) of the many things that prove quatum theory to be correct.

Black holes...yes they are just theory, but they are supported by a lot of observational and mathematical evidence. So, its an "educated guess" lets say.


So, no, They are not just theories. And yes, im smart enough to understand their inner workings to a point. You can be too if you did proper "research"



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




but which alternate theory for the creation of what we call our universe fits the observational data and experimental data the best?


Maybe we just dont have it yet...maybe we never will. One the fits in all details...has all the explanations. When everything fits. But we cant begin to understand until we know all the components. It is rather presumptuous of us think that we know the elements and forces during creation and it's nature in general.

But I don't mind guessing. Just dont call it truth.


While others may not agree with the bluntness of your replies, I have to agree that the evidence is barely even evidence considering we still dont know what on the other side of the "=" sign. One of the physics lectures I've seen recently by Lawrence Krauss suggested that the universe came from LITERALLY "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"

Go figure.
edit on 8-9-2015 by zinuru because: grammatical error



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
If this galaxy really is that old, this means that intelligent life is 100% out there. Some civilizations could be millions of years more advanced than us. Time travel, wormholes, would be childs play. There kindergartners would be at university level in intelligence. I do feel that open contact could be soon. We are related after all.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
To think about it a moment, one has to wonder what the content of said galaxy is... It must have stars and planets like all the others. With such a head start on... say us for example how might it have evolved??? Does/did it have life??? The mind races.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
To think about it a moment, one has to wonder what the content of said galaxy is... It must have stars and planets like all the others. With such a head start on... say us for example how might it have evolved??? Does/did it have life??? The mind races.

By this time, it could have merged with another galaxy or two, and may be nothing at all like it was 13.2 Billion years ago (which is what we see of it now). Heck, it may nave had a run-in with another galaxy and had its stars spread around and/or engulfed into that other galaxy.

For example, the Milky Way and Andromeda will be merging in about 4 billion years from now, and the resulting galaxy will be quite different than either existing galaxy is today.

Edit to Add:
Plus, many of the stars that existed 13.2 billion years ago in that far-away galaxy may have since long died. Consider our Milky Way galaxy: The raw materials for our Sun and solar system (and the stuff that makes up your body) came from materials from long-dead stars that exploded 7+ billion years ago.

Actually, our sun is a "third generation star", which means the materials for our solar system came from at least 2 earlier generations of exploded stars -- and probably more than that. The stars that existed in the Milky Way 13.2 billion years ago have mostly all died, and we are the result of some of those star deaths.


edit on 9/8/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: sycomix
To think about it a moment, one has to wonder what the content of said galaxy is... It must have stars and planets like all the others. With such a head start on... say us for example how might it have evolved??? Does/did it have life??? The mind races.

By this time, it could have merged with another galaxy or two, and may be nothing at all like it was 13.2 Billion years ago (which is what we see of it now). Heck, it may nave had a run-in with another galaxy and had its stars spread around and/or engulfed into that other galaxy.

For example, the Milky Way and Andromeda will be merging in about 4 billion years from now, and the resulting galaxy will be quite different than either existing galaxy is today.



The galaxy likes stopped existing billions of years ago.

Those early galaxy were made up of supee giant stars that are so huge our star would be but a pin prick against them. Those stars burn bright and very fast and have life spans of less than a few hundred million years rather tgan billions. Not only would life likely have never go a chance to evolve round such stars but 12 billion years later those stars would have long ago died turning into black holes and neutron stars.

What we see now are just ghosts.


In fact our galaxy is likely made up from the rements of those stars when they went nova.
edit on 8-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: sycomix
To think about it a moment, one has to wonder what the content of said galaxy is... It must have stars and planets like all the others. With such a head start on... say us for example how might it have evolved??? Does/did it have life??? The mind races.

By this time, it could have merged with another galaxy or two, and may be nothing at all like it was 13.2 Billion years ago (which is what we see of it now). Heck, it may nave had a run-in with another galaxy and had its stars spread around and/or engulfed into that other galaxy.

For example, the Milky Way and Andromeda will be merging in about 4 billion years from now, and the resulting galaxy will be quite different than either existing galaxy is today.

Plus, many of the stars that existed 13.2 billion years ago in that far-away galaxy may have since long died. Consider our Milky Way galaxy: The raw materials for our Sun and solar system (and the stuff that makes up your body) came from materials from long-dead stars that exploded 7+ billion years ago.

Actually, our sun is a "third generation star", which means the materials for our solar system came from at least 2 earlier generations of exploded stars -- and probably more than that. The stars that existed in the Milky Way 13.2 billion years ago have mostly all died, and we are the result of some of those star deaths.



...or so all the LIES you have been taught at school and uni!!


Joke
edit on 8-9-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZakOlongapo
a reply to: 3danimator2014

all You know is based on theories... You know that, right? no mater what school You go. just theories


how You said:
"because there is a wealth of info/maths/experimental data and real world usage that points to us being at least in the right directrion with thage of the universe, big bang etc..."

all based on theories man


sorry, but i think we need to wait for truth xx


It is incredible how much misinformation you can show in little post of yours.

My first bet is that you don't even know what theory in science means - it is not hypothesis, but proven model, testable and able to reproduce the same results over and over. This being said, current accepted and proven model of big bang is a theory, so not like someone told here 'fairy tale' (no, that is taken by all religious books and stories
).

There are still some issues with current model, but overall data supports it, from background radiation to size and formation. One of interesting things is that according to evidence, one of stars in model shows all signs to be older then universe?! As this field is fairly new, we still miss some of data and evidence, but as you can see, we learn more and more every day.

Just saying 'it's fairy tale' is very wrong and counterproductive, especially if you can't point 'why' or point to documentation that proves otherwise, except 'documentation that is based on belief, such as religious books'. Of course that non-sense does not count as any argument or evidence.

And if you interested in this field, edX (www.edx.org...) offers many classes in astronomy, all of them free. Sign and learn, rather then show absence of knowledge in such a short post as this one...


a reply to: crazyewok
Not just that they burned fast and bright, but they did not have heavy elements and just as you said, our galaxy and earth would not be possible without star dust of those long time ago burned stars that went supernova. As Dr. Carl Sagan used to say, we are all made of star dust...

edit on 8-9-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




Fine, but every theory needs to be taken seriously when it is being developed, and thought of as being "a reasonable explanation". I'm not sure when you want people to start considering a theory to have good enough evidence for science to consider that they are going in the right direction and should keep working on that theory.


Hey...dont get me wrong. I like science...it's a great tool. What I don't like is overreaching conclusions. Maybe it's just me..but even though we have a "working theory"...ultimately we must concede it's made up of some knowns and some estimates, with a pinch of space constants. What is missing is the fact that there are a decent number of unknown variables in the mix (surely must be so, unless you claim we know everything about the universe ?)...even some we are not aware exist. There is a perfectly reasonable chance...that the entire BB theory is false.

here's one way of thinking...


phys.org...

if this "theory" is ever proven...it will mean BB was completely wrong...and many of our dear estimates and constants...were...overreaching conclusions...and ultimately cost a few lives and many ruined people.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




Fine, but every theory needs to be taken seriously when it is being developed, and thought of as being "a reasonable explanation". I'm not sure when you want people to start considering a theory to have good enough evidence for science to consider that they are going in the right direction and should keep working on that theory.


Hey...dont get me wrong. I like science...it's a great tool. What I don't like is overreaching conclusions. Maybe it's just me..but even though we have a "working theory"...ultimately we must concede it's made up of some knowns and some estimates, with a pinch of space constants. What is missing is the fact that there are a decent number of unknown variables in the mix (surely must be so, unless you claim we know everything about the universe ?)...even some we are not aware exist. There is a perfectly reasonable chance...that the entire BB theory is false.

here's one way of thinking...


phys.org...

if this "theory" is ever proven...it will mean BB was completely wrong...and many of our dear estimates and constants...were...overreaching conclusions...and ultimately cost a few lives and many ruined people.



Way to change the goalposts on what you said originally.


Didnt have an answer world the real worls applications of quantum mechanics, time dilation etc?

And FYI, everyone who understands how science works is well aware that things could change tomorrow. And if they so, we will embrace it. But that doesnt negate the fairly important fact that we are using our current knowledge to do incredible things. INcluding build computers that allow people to post any old crap online.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Did they not find stars that are apparently older than the currently suggested date/time period of the big bang? Seems to me information such as this posses more questions than it answers. And I hope this is always the case otherwise our universe would be pretty dam uninterested.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Did they not find stars that are apparently older than the currently suggested date/time period of the big bang? Seems to me information such as this posses more questions than it answers. And I hope this is always the case otherwise our universe would be pretty dam uninterested.


Yes, remember posting this back in day....



" Called the Methuselah star, HD 140283 is 190.1 light-years away. Astronomers refined the star's age to about 14.5 billion years (which is older than the universe), plus or minus 800 million years."
...
"Bond and his team used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to study the Methuselah star, which is more formally known as HD 140283.

Scientists have known about HD 140283 for more than 100 years, since it cruises across the sky at a relatively rapid clip. The star moves at about 800,000 mph (1.3 million km/h) and covers the width of the full moon in the sky every 1,500 years or so, researchers said.

The star is just passing through the Earth's neck of the galactic woods and will eventually rocket back out to the Milky Way's halo, a population of ancient stars that surrounds the galaxy's familiar spiral disk.

The Methuselah star, which is just now bloating into a red giant, was probably born in a dwarf galaxy that the nascent Milky Way gobbled up more than 12 billion years ago, researchers said. The star's long, looping orbit is likely a residue of that dramatic act of cannibalism."

Source: Space.com



But keep in mind that this does not invalidate theory of Big Bang, but rather shows that we have still some missing links and that we can expect more incredible discoveries in near future.

Universe never cases to amaze me, more I learn about it, it is more interesting and astonishing.... just look at size of stars... where our sun is little size compared to some huge stars....



Incredible what supreme being can create in one week... makes you wonder what he/she could accomplish if he/she becomes seasonal worker or get permanent job...

edit on 8-9-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I don't completely discount the big bang theory, the problem I have is the something from nothing scenario. Personally I think the universe has existed I'm many different variations/incarnations previous to the current iteration. Then again I also find myself leaning more and more towards the holographic principle these days given the increasing evidence to suggest such. Guess we will know soon enough considering the technology to measure the individual plank unit is possibly only 5-10 years away.
edit on 8-9-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
nm, answered above
edit on 8-9-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Yeah, but the range of uncertainty associated with the age of still puts it within the age of the universe. On top of that range of uncertainty, there is additional uncertainty about its distance from Earth, which could also affect the estimates of its age.

Suffice it to say that it seems HD 140283 (the Methuselah Star) could certainly be younger than the estimated age of the universe -- albeit it is still an extreme old star.

Hubble finds 'birth certificate' of oldest known star

Nearby Ancient Star is Almost as Old as the Universe


I bet there are stars just as old or even slightly older in other parts of the universe because it would seem unlikely that the oldest star in the universe just happens to be right next to us (190 light years away is extremely near to us in cosmological terms).



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Smack

Black holes don't exist..source: YouTube.

I'm convinced!


Well, yes. The video is hosted on Youtube. I like your logic. If it exists on Youtube it is false. That's a very clever way to look at things.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Smack
Big bang never happened.

bigbangneverhappened.org...

Black holes don't exist.

youtu.be...

Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.

www.haltonarp.com...

The age of the Universe is unknown, but it has probably always been here in some form or another. It did not spring out of nothingness. That is a fairytale, dreamed up by a Jesuit Priest.


Well...you have youtube videos...im convinced. Oh wait, the sceintists have verifiable data and marhs to back their "fairytales" up...


Another genius! Hey, boys and girls, if it's hosted on youtube then it must be false. Brilliant thinking!
Oh... And I must lol much at your "scientists" and their "verifiable data" on black holes being as no one has ever actually observed one. They are a mathematical fiction. Pure theory.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Smack
Big bang never happened.

bigbangneverhappened.org...

Black holes don't exist.

youtu.be...

Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.

www.haltonarp.com...

The age of the Universe is unknown, but it has probably always been here in some form or another. It did not spring out of nothingness. That is a fairytale, dreamed up by a Jesuit Priest.


Well...you have youtube videos...im convinced. Oh wait, the sceintists have verifiable data and marhs to back their "fairytales" up...


Another genius! Hey, boys and girls, if it's hosted on youtube then it must be false. Brilliant thinking!
Oh... And I must lol much at your "scientists" and their "verifiable data" on black holes being as no one has ever actually observed one. They are a mathematical fiction. Pure theory.


Black holes have plenty of observational evidence which matches what Einstein et al. predicted. While you may be unaware of it or may not fully understand it that does not mean such observations doesn't exist.
edit on 8-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join