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.

 

Big Bang Theory Wrong? Star Older Than Universe Discovered

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist, but believing everything in existence is from a singular point explosion makes as much sense as a flat earth theory.


Everyone whom believes in the BBT: believes in the BBT.

But who is to say what makes more or less sense?




posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist, but believing everything in existence is from a singular point explosion makes as much sense as a flat earth theory.

Ok , let us know your reasoning in how the "Big Bang" Theory is not correct.
And , you do know the meaning of the term theory , yes ?
Any theory has to be 6-Sigma before accepted as "fact" and "undeniable" .
Even Einstein's work is still "The Theory of Relativity" , yet it is accepted nearly 100% by physicists.

(shhh...there was most likely no "Big Bang" . Th true name is "The Great Expansion")



What?
Are you seriously asking someone to prove nothing?

Do you know how dumb that is?

Do you know how many other minds have worked on theories about the beginnings and have nothing but the big bang
And you seriously ask another to prove nothing, again do you know how dumb that sounds?

The Big Bang was a joke, still is a joke and most don’t see the joke because it’s all they have to cling to



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist, but believing everything in existence is from a singular point explosion makes as much sense as a flat earth theory.

Ok , let us know your reasoning in how the "Big Bang" Theory is not correct.
And , you do know the meaning of the term theory , yes ?
Any theory has to be 6-Sigma before accepted as "fact" and "undeniable" .
Even Einstein's work is still "The Theory of Relativity" , yet it is accepted nearly 100% by physicists.

(shhh...there was most likely no "Big Bang" . Th true name is "The Great Expansion")



What?
Are you seriously asking someone to prove nothing?

Do you know how dumb that is?

Do you know how many other minds have worked on theories about the beginnings and have nothing but the big bang
And you seriously ask another to prove nothing, again do you know how dumb that sounds?

The Big Bang was a joke, still is a joke and most don’t see the joke because it’s all they have to cling to


Well , dang , I see you got the gist of my post.
Although , I can tell you did not read it with comprehension .
Reading comprehension is a skill
Where in HADES did I ask of anyone for "proof"



Ok , let us know your reasoning in how the "Big Bang" Theory is not correct.


And you actually used the word "dumb"
With this reply , "who was the beauty , and who was the beast ?"

edit on 8/7/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Not quite how this works. The Methuselah star is a known "oddity" and has been for a good while.

The problem here is the Hubble "constant" is constantly adjusted, and we keep pushing the age of the Universe out. However HD140283 has a very large accuracy range on its age (about 0.8 Billion years), meaning it might be too old, or its not as old as we think.

The media, as usualy are saying, based on a single data point "the big bang theory is wrong". This is not the case. People need to stop jumping on these things, and denouncing science. What it says, is the Universe is probably older than we think. The age of the Universe is a different thing to how it probably started (Big Bang is how the universe may have come to be).



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Phage

An 'A' for effort. The problem with margins of error is that they go both ways. So while it's 14.5 +/-0.8 that means the probability of it being within the current estimates of the age of the universe is about 5 to 10%.

How many stars are in the milky way?
Now multiply that number by 5% and you have the number of stars that could have a 5% chance of being that far from the midpoint of the age estimate range. That's a lot of stars, right? And we are talking about one star?

Even if you say there's only a 1% chance of a star meeting a certain criterion, 99% of them won't meet it, but if 1% will, 1% of the stars in the Milky Way is still a lot of stars.

Here's how the authors of the paper written in 2013 put it:

HD 140283: A Star in the Solar Neighborhood that Formed Shortly After the Big Bang

Uncertainties in the stellar parameters and chemical composition, especially the oxygen content, now contribute more to the error budget for the age of HD 140283 than does its distance, increasing the total uncertainty to about +/-0.8 Gyr. Within the errors, the age of HD 140283 does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 +/- 0.06 Gyr, based on the microwave background and Hubble constant, but it must have formed soon after the big bang.


Historically there actually was a problem with the age estimate of the universe being younger than the oldest objects in it, more than 20 years ago, but with better data and improved age estimates those issues were largely resolved. There could be more tweaking of the age estimates of the universe and of HD 140283 but it's nowhere near as bad as the age conflicts used to be more than two decades ago.

edit on 201987 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I'm not convinced of the 14.5Gyr figure for the age of the entire universe. It defines the limit of our light horizon given our current technology, but could very likely be just the local neighbourhood. Like standing on the spire of the village church and stating that the world is only as large as you can deduce from your observable horizon.

Universal expansion could be thought of another way, along the lines of weather patterns and atmospheric pressure here on earth. If you take the concept of our observable universe being just a tiny village, the universal expansion of matter could be thought of as being in a local weather system with the force being gravometric rather than barometric.

We learned through observation and measurement using the technology available, that changes in local weather patterns were part of a greater dynamic system on a scale far larger than our village, country, or continent. We just haven't devised the measurement tools needed to make those kind of observations yet.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I don't believe it proves the theory is wrong, it was an estimate the whole time. Hence theory, not law.

All this proves, using ferric dating, is that the universe is older than they guesstimated, and only pushes the potentially known approximate date back further than previously known.

Meaning nothing other than, until a more accurate means of measure is established, our techniques are inaccurate because it's not an exact science, yet.

This may help breath new life into that field.

Imagine Space Force mapping out clusters by ferric content dating, or something else completely different and more advanced.

Advancement brings opportunities for research, research brings funding, funding brings advancement. Rinse repeat etc etc.

Advancements showed us a star older than thought possible.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: timski

How would your weather model explain that the early galaxies we observe look different. Have more gas, fewer stars, don't look as old as our neighbor galaxies. If the universe is much older than estimated, it should look about the same everywhere.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist, but believing everything in existence is from a singular point explosion makes as much sense as a flat earth theory.


Absolutely, it's not some untested idea.
Not only is it plausible to explain everything we see, it's needed.

All that we can ever see was definitely contained at 1 point at a certain time.

Whether that's all there is, is the question.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

this has been " doing the rounds since 2013 " - funny how the express fails to mention that

google people - the troof is out there



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The "Big Bang" is sooo 'last week'!

If you want to contemplate something really interesting, you should check out the dudes who were steppin' out 1.5 billion years BEFORE the Big Bang! Now these cats were some COOL mo-fo's! They could turn air into Snickers bars even!

Or, the Universe only 'seems' like it is expanding, but in reality the Universe is just leaking out through all the black holes...into another universe, which seems like it is expanding. Somewhere in our Universe there is a "universe machine" which generates more universe to fill the universe we lose to the other universe (through the black holes). Thus, equilibrium is established.

And if you act right now, you can get a 2nd universe FREE (plus postage and handling), but only if you act right now! Call 1-877-UNI-VERS. That's right, folks; a 2nd universe absolutely FREE! But you have to call right now. This is a one time offer, so get yours now. Call 1-877-UNI-VERS; that's 1-877-UNI-VERSE. Don't miss out on this spectacular offer to get a two universes for the price of one. Call NOW! 1-877-UNI-VERS
edit on 8/8/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes but what are the odds that the people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? They're wholly contained within their simulation, it goes for as far as they can see.



If were following the simulation topic.
Well,

I think whoever they were, did it. They found a way to glitch the system.


Now back to the fun theory that ATS conspirators are about:

We found out where god lives?

Someone got tired living in the dark and stated their generator and boom, like a "hold my beer moment" universe explodes in marvelous beauty.
Or that species knew if they ignited the universe it would be at the cost of their own.
Of they survived and are the forerunners of the universe.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: timski

How would your weather model explain that the early galaxies we observe look different. Have more gas, fewer stars, don't look as old as our neighbor galaxies.
That's well known to astronomers and probably cosmologists too, but I don't see it discussed much in the popular literature so that may be something the "amateur theoretical physicist" may be completely unaware of (among other things) when making their guesses.


originally posted by: ADVISOR
All this proves, using ferric dating, is that the universe is older than they guesstimated, and only pushes the potentially known approximate date back further than previously known.
It doesn't prove that at all, see the paper I cited saying the researchers think the star likely formed soon after the big bang 13.77 billion years ago, which is allowed within the error bars of their age estimate. Of course either estimate could be a little off but there's not really as much of a conflict as some people seem to think...see what the scientists actually said about it in my previous post.


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Not only is it plausible to explain everything we see, it's needed.

The big bang is a good theory which can explain a lot of observations

All that we can ever see was definitely contained at 1 point at a certain time.

I seriously doubt that is true and I'll post an article by a physicist to back me up on that, but first, a crude analogy.
Let's say you see a train 30km west of Berlin going west at 30km/hr, and a train 30km east of Berlin going east at 30km/hr. If you suppose that speed has been constant then you could surmise that about an hour ago, both trains originated in Berlin, and that's roughly how I see the big bang in this analogy. But when you try to guess exactly what happened inside Berlin an hour ago, things get complicated, and if you're not familiar with all the track layouts it may not be such a great idea to conclude that therefore the two trains must have occupied the same space at the same time 1 hour ago, and of course we know that they didn't do that.

Here's what physicist Ethan Siegel has to say about your assumption of everything being contained at 1 point, otherwise referred to as a "singularity":

There Was No Big Bang Singularity


Almost everyone has heard the story of the Big Bang. But if you ask anyone, from a layperson to a cosmologist, to finish the following sentence, "In the beginning, there was..." you'll get a slew of different answers. One of the most common ones is "a singularity," which refers to an instant where all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a single point. The temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrarily, infinitely large, and could even coincide with the birth of time and space itself.

But this picture isn't just wrong, it's nearly 40 years out of date! We are absolutely certain there was no singularity associated with the hot Big Bang, and there may not have even been a birth to space and time at all. Here's what we know and how we know it...

We cannot extrapolate back arbitrarily far, to a hot-and-dense state that reaches whatever energies we can dream of. There's a limit to how far we can go and still validly describe our Universe.
He describes how observations don't support the singularity idea and so even though the trains leaving Berlin analogy is rough, our understanding of the big bang is a bit like someone who sees the trains leaving Berlin but doesn't understand the details of exactly where the trains were in Berlin. So my take is that we still aren't sure what's right about the earliest part of the big bang, but we do have a sense of what's wrong and the singularity idea seems to not be supported by observation.


Whether that's all there is, is the question.
What theorists would like to figure out is what physics applied for the first 10^-36 fraction of a second, because before that the physics we know breaks down and even though we think it probably wasn't a singularity, we haven't figured out how to model what may have happened before that. It's a topic of ongoing research.

edit on 201988 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   
What caused the Big Bang, creating our universe?



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The big bang theory is the best explanation we have based on available evidence. There will be more evidence acquired in the future and some may contradict prior evidence we collected. (We - as in humanity)

There may also be a day that evidence shows our prior assumptions are completely wrong about the big band, however at this time the big bang is still the strongest explanation for our origin.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sort of...except infinity and the math doesn't care much about the birth of humans.

We already presume it's a back and forth forever...

youtu.be...

But super strings and m theory may provide a more detailed map fairly soon (AI and tech)

The problem with the Big Crunch/Big Bang model is that the mathematical laws of classical general relativity do not work at a singularity.

edit on 8-8-2019 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I think that the farther back in time you go, the less sense "time" makes to begin with. Does that vague notion we call time even exist if the universe is nothing but a sea of hot particles fluctuating in an out of existence? Is there such a thing as time if you're only looking at it from a basic Euclidean / Newtonian 3-D perspective yet there are dimensions folded into each other that continue to stretch both "forward" and "backward" in time where everything essentially becomes a probability state rather than an actual thing?

The problem comes with trying to define something insanely complicated (the age of the universe) in a simple way that people can relate to in their everyday lives. Beginning and end. Here and there. At a certain point, those things just don't make any sense except in a complex mathematical way -- and we know that math is a very poor symbolic representation of reality.

I was wondering the other day about a theoretical telescope that could see things so far away (back in time) that it would show the same cluster of stars at the beginning of time -- but from different angles -- no matter where you pointed it into the sky. Because the farther away you look, the closer everything used to be, right?

I think what we call the Big Bang is just the little point in the center of this image. And it's happening all the time everywhere, in multiple dimensions, even where you're sitting right now:


edit on 8-8-2019 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

It depends. Time is supersymmetry is novel and can be far less weird



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Blue Shift

It depends. Time is supersymmetry is novel and can be far less weird

Sure, if you can find dark matter to make it work. But even if we do that, do you think it will stop there? I tend to think that the more particles you look for, the more energy you use to create / find them, the more you find. At a certain point, it becomes stacking turtles, and even people like Steven Hawking start talking more about "information" rather than actual stuff. That's a dimensional and philosophical concept shift.

So I don't know. My personal opinion is that until somebody figures out a way to incorporate individual point of view and consciousness into the geometry and mathematics we're only going to get a crippled theory. But how to do that? Where you have a line, but if you switch your perspective you only have a point? Or what about propagated nested infinities? A point on an infinite line creates two (half?) infinities, but then you create four additional dimensional infinities going "towards" and "away" from that point? Not even counting the other -- supposedly larger -- infinity of all the virtual points not contained in the line. But only depending how an observer would look at it. To a different observer, it would be different.

As you can see, I've been pondering this. Still don't have it worked out, though, obviously. Like I said, it's complicated. Food for thought.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I feel like this site needs an FAQ so we don't have to keep denying the same ignorance over and over.

New information, like this, expands upon and redefines parameters of the overall theory behind the colloquial "big bang" but doesn't invalidate it.

Did you know, for example, that one of the most interesting areas of study re the "big bang" doesn't postulate a singularity at all? Other tidbits you might find interesting include multiple bangs, pocket universes "inside" a larger substrate universe, branes banging together and so on.

Anyway, if the age of this particular star proves out it will only help redefine the parameters of our "theory" of the beginning of spacetime., but an older star -- even a much older star -- does little to invalidate the whole.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join