Star Found To Be Nearly As Old As The Universe

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by iori_komei
Jeesh, don't shoot the messenger.

I just reporting what I think is interesting, not my fault the science-news sites are presenting
it as new.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound nasty to you. I don't blame you, I'm just wondering why these things are being published as "new"...

You shot the messenger! All iori_komei was trying to do was bring a little hope, a fanciful dream for your soul and all you do is spit in the messenger's face!

Only 4.6 billion years old!

i dont know any humans 4.6 billion years old.

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
I'm just curious, how exactly do we know how old the universe is? I really don't think we have a damn clue and the only thing we could possibly have is a theory.

So how do they say this star is as old as the universe? And really, how do they come to the conclusion that the universe is 13 billion whatever years old?

I really do want to know...

The ages of both stars and the universe are calculated from observations matched with the leading theories about their creation and evolution. But using leading theories, we find that some stars appear to be older than the universe. So one, if not both, of these theories must have serious problems since it makes no sense that stars could be as old as or older than the universe as a whole.

This is awesome, even though I think their way of dating is flawed, this is still some kick butt stuff!

I think scientific attempts to assert the age of the universe are silly using the current methods. The universe is going to turn out to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY older than they think. They still operate with the subconcious mentality that earth is the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I think scientific attempts to assert the age of the universe are silly using the current methods. The universe is going to turn out to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY older than they think. They still operate with the subconcious mentality that earth is the center of the universe.

Right on! They is loco They are rather silly to believe they know what they are doing.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Cydonian Priest]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It reminds me of a favorite quote from Mr. Lear.

"I don't care about the depths of your ignorance." That about sums it up. They sometimes have to confirm our worst fears by showing us that they are just hoping that the next paradigm shift happens after they are retired and comfortably tucked away in their graves. Then they don't have to lose all funding and grants for being such an avid supporter of "bad science".

It is obvious to most that science is propping up old dead theories, complete with pennies on the eyes, for the simple need to exploit for various types of gain.

Exactly.

The Earth was flat until they proved it wrong.

Still, I haven't been into space and seen it for myself......

The "Age Paradox" has troubled astronomers/cosmologists for years and years. Some stars actually appear to be older than the universe.

Thats interesting.

What does "appear" mean. Are they proven to be older then the universe or do they just look that way.

If it is the case that some stars are older then the universe would kinda pop the balloon for me and I would not listen to anything that these scientists say. I really hate it when you think you know something and it turns out to be false. Seems these days everything is changing into false. What then is left for everyone to do ? IF there are know known facts then how can we know anything ?

If you havent discovered the edge of the universe how could you possibly know its age. It may extend trillions or ?illions of light years more. Its impossible to even guess its age.

Originally posted by earth2
If you havent discovered the edge of the universe how could you possibly know its age. It may extend trillions or ?illions of light years more. Its impossible to even guess its age.

The smallest the Universe is estimated to be is 24 gigaparsecs, or 78 billion light-years, however
it may be, as many think, myself included to be infinitely large.

We base the age of the universe on the Cosmic Microwave Background.

I don't believe in the big bang theory, after all it is only a theory, and theorys have a way of proving the theory wrong.

And on hte sixth day god said let there be light. Bang! And there was light. And on the seventh day he rested and logged on to ATS to check his U2U's.

the universe has no age, it was never started, it will never end

it is infinite! so this star only being 13 billion years old has nothing to do with being the oldest star inthe universe, just the oldest star weve found

im sure there are stars that are trillions of years old, come on people th e universe is infinite we cant even grasp whats out there

The universe is older. And we don't know how old.
We can only observe a part of it, for all we know a very small part.
Big Bang still is a theory with evidence for and (more) evidence against it.

More and more discoveries are hinting at the big bang theory being wrong.

The theory of a big bang and seemingly nothing older is simply so popular because it can be molded to fit with religion and the idea of a creator imho.

Other theories fit much better with actual observed reality.

Apart from that we don't need the big bang beginning to ponder about the existence of a creator. We have quantum physics for that.

Might be an interesting read (just came across it)
metaresearch.org...

The big bang reminds me of when we thought we knew all the rules and the truth would only be in the decimals now.. shortly after we discovered radiation and a lot of other finds that didn't fit. A lot doesn't fit with the big bang now.

just my 2 cents.

[edit on 12/5/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by biotic
the universe has no age, it was never started, it will never end

I agree somewhat, but the truth is the big bang theory may be right, it does have a good
amount of science and evidence backing it up.

im sure there are stars that are trillions of years old, come on people the universe is infinite we cant even grasp whats out there

There are no stars that old, a star has a finite lifespan that is entirely dependent on the
amount of fuel it has, the star found is 13 billion years old, and it's at the end of it's life, and while there are most likely stars that are a bit older, there are no stars that old.

[edit on 5/12/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by biotic
the universe has no age, it was never started, it will never end

I agree somewhat, but the truth is the big bang theory may be right, it does have a good
amount of science and evidence backing it up.

im sure there are stars that are trillions of years old, come on people the universe is infinite we cant even grasp whats out there

There are no stars that old, a star has a finite lifespan that is entirely dependent on the
amount of fuel it has, the star found is 13 billion years old, and it's at the end of it's life, and while there are most likely stars that are a bit older, there are no stars that old.

[edit on 5/12/2007 by iori_komei]

There is so much evidence against the model above that it is hard to understand why we still have such an archaic model in place. Yes, it may be correct....but there are a lot of inconsistencies to deal with first. And having to use a massive "mulligan" with dark matter seems pretty suspect to me.

Currently, the electric model is more logical and more coherent to me....but there are holes there as well.

Isn't funny....we are trying to be space bound, but there is still quite a bit of dissent about just what it is the moon and sun are made of. After all these centuries, the same questions seem to still nag us.

This is one of the most stupid "findings" ever...like scientists know how old the "Universe" is. Those scientists know NOTHING about life, existance, nothing. Absolutely nothing. And they have found "A Star To Be Nearly As Old As The Universe".

This is a joke, a comedy. Ignorant scientists and us, ignorant readers.



[edit on 12-5-2007 by swimmer]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The ages of both stars and the universe are calculated from observations matched with the leading theories about their creation and evolution. But using leading theories, we find that some stars appear to be older than the universe. So one, if not both, of these theories must have serious problems since it makes no sense that stars could be as old as or older than the universe as a whole.

The only reason some stars have been calculated to be older than the universe is because of faulty data...

The universe is calculated to be 13.7 billion years old according to the WMAP satellite. Of course in the future we will get better estimates due to better technology.

Read the link I provided, those are 'only' the top 30 problems with the big bang theory.

A correct theory predicts new things before we encounter them. The big bang theory hasn't predicted much correctly but instead needs constant adjustable variables to make up for the numerous discrepencies found every year.

As for the age, we can not be sure. again we only see a part of the universe and as such can't judge how old it is.
The 'current' age of the universe is an estimate based on the visible universe (and a faulty theory of it's evolution (big bang) imho.)
So the age estimate depends on if you believe in the big bang and there's a lot going against it.


[edit on 13/5/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The ages of both stars and the universe are calculated from observations matched with the leading theories about their creation and evolution. But using leading theories, we find that some stars appear to be older than the universe. So one, if not both, of these theories must have serious problems since it makes no sense that stars could be as old as or older than the universe as a whole.

The only reason some stars have been calculated to be older than the universe is because of faulty data...

The universe is calculated to be 13.7 billion years old according to the WMAP satellite. Of course in the future we will get better estimates due to better technology.

The only problem with this view is that it presupposes that our theories and models are right. We have the "old guard" dying off, and they are the ones that "invented" physics in its modern form. Their progeny are aging and dying, too. So, what is left are a group of people who have found an all too comfortable place of refuse inside the little box of "physics".

The problem with astrophysics is that we presuppose to many things. Red shift is my pet peeve, as it seems like someone just made it up. Sure, the explanation is logical, but so is the explanation that "God" makes it all happen, if you squint hard enough.

This one piece alone, the star being older, should be enough of a warning to scare most of us away from physics. You konw what keeps people tuned in though? The perception that academics know any more than the rest of us. I mean, i can agree that they have spent their lives educating themselves on the breakthroughs of scientists past. But this intellectually lazy scientific environment has also stymied any real growth. We base our understanding on flawed principles that we KNOW are flawed (thus, the gap in quantum and GR physics), and then wonder why we are unable to accomplish what Tesla, Marconi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein did. It is because we are not finding anything new of any relevance. That sort of discovery is located somewhere outside the tiny, flawed little box of scientific academia. Unfortunately, academia has to keep their paradigm front and center (tuition is big business, you know), and are able to keep their little club exclusive.

Because of this we have guys wasting away in garage laboratories all over this great nation, each hoping they don't get a visit from two spooky G men threatening to put them in prison if they don't hand over their equipment and cease operations.