Oldest star in the universe is right in our stellar neighborhood

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


If you think the images that come from space telescopes are just computergenerated, then what do you think you are looking at when you watch the night sky? Not stars?

It's real. Buy you own telescope and have a look.

The question you raise about why it all doesn't just keep going is not one I have an answer for. I am not an astronemer. But I am sure there is a theory for it. I'd imagine it would have something to do with dark matter, which to my understanding is a rather new area of investigation.
But I am not sure if the big bang ever really stopped in the sense of matter and perhaps even spacetime expanding and moving.
Try to looking it up instead of just assuming that they are wrong.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


No, what you're saying is BS. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about it exploding at the centre of our Galaxy. I switched off after you said that as you are clearly having a pop at something you don't understand even remotely.

Oh, Dinosaurs weren't reptiles... Just thought I'd chuck that in as well.

As for the OP, very interesting stuff indeed and it is very local to us, relatively speaking..



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
because weve determined the age of every star in our universe...right?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bkfd54

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

shouldnt the oldest star be the Sun is that was "Created" first?


Your postulation reminds me of the age old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Which, I might add has yet to be answered as well.



Not to turn this into a religion debate (please NO) but which came first, the elements or the Stars?

Big Bang produced Hydrogen, but where did all the elements come from? Uranium comes from hydrogen? Can't see it.. Also, you cannot fuse past Iron... so?

Which came first?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by bkfd54

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

shouldnt the oldest star be the Sun is that was "Created" first?


Your postulation reminds me of the age old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Which, I might add has yet to be answered as well.



Not to turn this into a religion debate (please NO) but which came first, the elements or the Stars?

Big Bang produced Hydrogen, but where did all the elements come from? Uranium comes from hydrogen? Can't see it.. Also, you cannot fuse past Iron... so?

Which came first?



Outstanding question!

As you stated: the first element created was hydrogen, once the universe cooled down enough for subatomic particles to form.

Then, the very first stars, being Type I composed of just hydrogen began to forge the elements heavier than hydrogen, and when they die, by either out gassing, going nova or super nova, those heavier elements were spread out, and help seed the universe with those elements.

But, as you also pointed out, that fusion that happens at the cores of stars stops with Iron. So how did all the elements heavier than iron form?

The answer is: Super Novas: source of heavy elements


Supernovae are a key source of elements heavier than oxygen.[96] These elements are produced by nuclear fusion (for iron-56 and lighter elements), and by nucleosynthesis during the supernova explosion for elements heavier than iron.[97] Supernovae are the most likely, although not undisputed, candidate sites for the r-process, which is a rapid form of nucleosynthesis that occurs under conditions of high temperature and high density of neutrons. The reactions produce highly unstable nuclei that are rich in neutrons. These forms are unstable and rapidly beta decay into more stable forms. The r-process reaction, which is likely to occur in type II supernovae, produces about half of all the element abundance beyond iron, including plutonium and uranium.[98] The only other major competing process for producing elements heavier than iron is the s-process in large, old red giant stars, which produces these elements much more slowly, and which cannot produce elements heavier than lead.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by 0mage
 


Oh, Dinosaurs weren't reptiles... Just thought I'd chuck that in as well.




Wikipedia
Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Rather, they represent a separate group of reptiles with a distinct upright posture not found in lizards, and many extinct forms did not exhibit traditional reptilian characteristics.


I'll admit that it was an assumption when I called dinos reptiles. So at first when I saw your reply I figured you were properly right. So I wanted to learn what they were.. Turns out they were reptiles... Just thought I'd chuck that in.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


There is nothing which would indicate that any part of the universe is older than any other part. When we peer through telescopes which can take us to the edge of the visible universe we are looking back in time to the very beginning, and we do see very old stars out there as well.
The expansion at bigbang from singularity to universe, happened very rapidly and gas was spread out across the universe. Eventually the gas clustered together and sparked the first stars, do to the pressure of gravity.

So we can assume that the star was at the center of a great gascluster since it developed so early.... which would also explain it's impressive size.

Hope it makes sense. I am no expert. But this is how I would understand it.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



Thanks. That helps. still not 100%, but better than nothing.

What if we are an old star in a younger part of the universe .....or a young star in an older part of the universe



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Number 1, there never was a Bang to begin with, or rather the Bang, cyclically, was something else.

Number 2, can't really imagine they could speak of anything as being the oldest in the universe. What they can see of the universe is extremely microscopic portion of it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From one very informative video, this transcript I took on the Magical Kingdom of our Science, which includes big bangs and black holes, and our model of the atom.

Just a hint, we have these odd little magnets called protons that are all positive....(all things have 2 poles) and they have mass. And then we have massless, (imaginary?) electrons (all negative) and photons (I think these are probably the waves emitted from the poles and all things have poles. We live in an electric magnetic universe, micro and macro). The electrons dont snap to the photons with attraction, rather orbit them. The photon magnets, though all positive seem to snap together to form greater mass.


And when you accept this ludicrous stuff so the oil industries and corporations can fleece you and mistreat you and your children, have a lollipop!
edit on 14-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Even though it is expanding, it is doing so with the fabric of time and space, so there isn't really such a thing a younger space. The distance between objects just increases. There are old stars and there are young stars, everywhere. When some old stars die, they might give rise to new ones. So I'd imagine you see stars of all ages in all parts of the universe if you travled there.
Through telescopes we can only look back in time because it takes so long for the light to reach us, and the longer we look, the longer we go back in time.
But there is no such thing as old space and new space.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


There is nothing which would indicate that any part of the universe is older than any other part. When we peer through telescopes which can take us to the edge of the visible universe we are looking back in time to the very beginning, and we do see very old stars out there as well.
The expansion at bigbang from singularity to universe, happened very rapidly and gas was spread out across the universe. Eventually the gas clustered together and sparked the first stars, do to the pressure of gravity.

So we can assume that the star was at the center of a great gascluster since it developed so early.... which would also explain it's impressive size.

Hope it makes sense. I am no expert. But this is how I would understand it.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



Thanks. That helps. still not 100%, but better than nothing.

What if we are an old star in a younger part of the universe .....or a young star in an older part of the universe


It is a difficult concept to wrap your head around but even though space is expanding no part of the universe is older or younger, it is all the same age.

It takes mathematics to express correctly but the best analogy for most is to think of blowing up a balloon, you are not creating anything new you are just stretching what is already there.

Edit: Mads1987 beat me to it.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


I would dispute that still. Reptiles are cold-blooded and have scales. Dinosaurs were warm-blooded and recent evidence shows many had feathers.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
No Big Bang. No Black Holes. Something different.


Twin Opposing Vortexes and Misconceptions of Space (CLICK "Show more" UNDER THE VIDEO)

4 37 on shows natural AC video clip.

AND

Big Bang tyep moment: Starting at 5 10. Head-on Collision of coloured Vortex Rings at Re 1071


Sonoluminesence - Cavitation - NanoGeometry & The Future of Technology (CONTINUATION)

From 7 12 on, NASA experiment in space/weightless environment with a crop of water and a charged item.


(astronaut: physics a little different, its not about gravitiation, its about charged forces....)duh!

"According to the standard nuclear model, that waterdrop is supposed to be orbitting the equator of the cylindar on a 2D flat plane."


Where the masons stole their symbol from!


Twin Vortexes - VBM - Winged Sun - Free Masons - Leedskalnin - Louvre Pyramids (MAGNETS)

And the hidden knowledge of the universe!
edit on 14-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Exactly the point I'm trying to get across. I'm far from religious but this riddle requires a person to have faith in a particular bill belief system, whatever it is in order to have one answer when in fact the answer is truly infinite. This is a question older than ?time/space? itself.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
im not talking about home telescopes.. but the extremely large ones at observatories. but it also to say and exaggerate the point that they are always revamping calculations once offered as fact. a whole generation would be brought up being taught those figures in school and theyd be absolutely false. yet they passed their final year exams.

i cant trust their calculations. i like definite information. so until they have such they should just be a picture taking and publishing organisation.

and in correction of exploding from the centre of the galaxy... i meant.. universe.. not galaxy. im just a bit tired of the frequent changes in calculations that keep coming up.. tomorrow itll be 10 miles away again. i cant rely on it and i dont like to fill my brain with false information. that is what's annoying.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


I think you're totally missing the point of science and education..

As it advances, theories change, are updated or thrown out altogether. It's the process of learning and discovery that matters most. not necessarily about the results.

The fact people are taught things and pass exams on it shows an aptitude to understand what is being told to them, not that they necessarily know anything specifically

EDIT: as for you last comment about the Galaxy/Universe, it has never been the Galaxy, it has always been the Universe, which just shows your ignorance on the matter rather than proving any point you're trying to make about science changing it's theories.

You seem to be under the impression that once a theory is presented with some evidence to back it up, everyone else should just stop what their doing and declare that we know everything. That is just stupid. If science worked like that, we'd still think the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that it was flat. The point of science is discovery, learning and trying to understand our Universe.
edit on 14/1/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
im not talking about home telescopes.. but the extremely large ones at observatories. but it also to say and exaggerate the point that they are always revamping calculations once offered as fact. a whole generation would be brought up being taught those figures in school and theyd be absolutely false. yet they passed their final year exams.

i cant trust their calculations. i like definite information. so until they have such they should just be a picture taking and publishing organisation.

and in correction of exploding from the centre of the galaxy... i meant.. universe.. not galaxy. im just a bit tired of the frequent changes in calculations that keep coming up.. tomorrow itll be 10 miles away again. i cant rely on it and i dont like to fill my brain with false information. that is what's annoying.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)


Well, like many things in science, Cosmology is a theoretical field of science. As such, many things that are taught to students are theories only. Not "facts".

Facts are only those things that are quantifiable in such a way that it can be independently replicated with the same results by more that one person (or group of people).

This is why if you do any reading on The Big Bang, it is almost always referred to as: The Big Bang Theory, and is referred to as a "model".

Now some theories have evidence to help support them, and why one theory about something is more popular or considered to be the answer to something than other theories.

For example: Radio telescopes show a back ground radiation that is 360 deg, spherically all around us over 13 billion light years away. This can be directly observed by anyone with the equipment to do so. The theory is, this is the left over result of the Big Bang.
So there is an observed piece of evidence that fits with the theory.

However, let us say there is another theory: The Great Bunny Of All threw up, and what He threw up was all the matter in the universe that made the stars and galaxies.

Now I could propose that theory. But I have little to no evidence at all to support it. So, generally speaking, most scientist are not going to pay attention to it, unless I come up with some evidence that they also can observe on their own.

By the way, the Big Bang didn't happen at the "center of the universe". There was no center, because there was no universe prior to the Big Bang. There was "nothing". No time. No space. So there was no "center" or anything.

As for "changing their measurements all the time":

Yep! Welcome to science! Especially astronomy, astrophysics and for sure with out a doubt, cosmology! As time goes by, we are constantly finding new ways to measure things, giving us better measurements. We also sometimes find out we're wrong about something, so a new theory is introduced (or another that has been around gains support).

Ask what the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is. That figure has changed more times that I have fingers on both hands since I've been alive! 2.2 million light years....no, wait, 2.9 million light years....wait! 2.5 million light years.

Part of the problem is measuring things that are so very far away becomes more and more difficult to do when they are so very far away.

When I was a kid, it was thought that the universe was around 14 billion years old, but might be as old at 18 billion years. The age of the universe had fluctuated back and forth many times.

Doesn't mean anyone is lying to you. It means that equipment, theories and new discoveries are happening as time moves on.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


i never meant galaxy.. and i didnt say i thought it was galaxy previously. it was a mistype on the whole which instead of galaxy i meant to type universe but didnt. english is a hell of a language.

the way you describe it.. makes it sound like it's more philosophy than any sort of science. while real philosophy is discredited as a valuable scientific topic. certainly not something u can get paid for.

im stating my opinion.. i.. personally.. do not care much anymore for the calculative aspects of astronomy at least until they are grounded in facts rather than supposition. i.. personally do not want a clutter of unproven theories in my brain and thus.. will be ignoring all these figures they present.

we may say.. hey that galaxy is 1 light year away .. jump in a ship and head for it.. and everyone dies on the way because it's actually 100 billion light years away. they obviously have no real foundation for their calculations that work and can be counted as reliable.

the pretty pictures.. are cool however.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


regarding this... i see it is very immature in development. at this point.. i prefer the intelligent design perspective. i believe God.. creator of the universe arranged it just so as it is. and quite well, consciously maintains it that way. without which.. all would fall down and dissipate into nothing.

maybe i should have mentioned that earlier.. i consider the big bang theory to be rubbish.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


regarding this... i see it is very immature in development. at this point.. i prefer the intelligent design perspective. i believe God.. creator of the universe arranged it just so as it is. and quite well, consciously maintains it that way. without which.. all would fall down and dissipate into nothing.

maybe i should have mentioned that earlier.. i consider the big bang theory to be rubbish.


Since you prefer intelligent design, then I'll put this forth to you:

How do you know that the Big Bang is not how God created the universe and everything in it?

If you believe in God, who is suppose to be of infinite wisdom and infinite intelligence, then, who are you to say that the Big Bang is not how he did it?

One could take a bible literally I guess (or whatever writings you believe in). But then, it doesn't explain how He made the universe itself, and the universe is out there for all to see.

Saying: well God did it, the Big Bang is rubbish is rather obtuse. No one knows why the Big Bang happened in the first place. Oh there are highly speculative theories of course.

So I guess one could say that it happened because God wanted it to happen that way. I certainly can not prove them wrong or right.

How ever, I would never have the audacity to say: Well it's just rubbish. That's not the way the Universe was made. God created it, and He would never have done it that way.

I say that mainly because it would be quite foolish of me to assume that I know better than God how to make the universe.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
That's just about the worst news for Earth if that thing ever decides to go supernova...

How could it be close to us AND older then the Big Bang if the youngest galaxies are closest to the explosion point? I thought our galaxy was relatively new?
edit on 14-1-2013 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join