Oldest star in the universe is right in our stellar neighborhood

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Most stars don't get wrinkles because of face lifts. How do they know this star is really that old?




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
frankly.. these ppl do not know their ass from their elbow.. i have lost interest in astronomers and their calculations. today it's 10 miles tomorrow it 10 billion.. too unreliable. too many miscalculations and more to come.

they should just be quiet and show us pretty pictures.
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: ur mom asked me to add this


Did you actually read the article and understand it? Basically the margin of error (5%) means it is probably younger than the Universe, and around the age of the galaxy. Thus it is puzzling but not impossible.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
IT'S ALL BS

if there was a big bang at the centre of the galaxy in this vaccuum of space there would be ZERO reason for any of the formations to stop moving outward, much less form orbits and generally all spherical planets whether gas giants or solid matter. i mean think about it. wouldnt they keep moving unless some external force acted upon them? where would that force have come from if they were all strewn in an outward direction from the center of nothing when nothing else existed.

these guys are full of spit! i dont think the big bang works.. for all we know those telescopes could just have large computers in them rendering false images of the universe. how can u trust the hullaballoo that comes from astronomers?

how does heat work from the sun if when i leave our atmosphere and am infact closer to the sun by 65000 miles, why is space so cold, why would i freeze to death being outside of the protective layer of our ozone layer instead of burn to death?



edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



Mate don't give up your day job. Try learning a bit of science before opening your browser and looking like a complete bogan.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by theghoster
So, the big bang maybe older than previously thought?

-Ghoster


Or the big bang just got debunked



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
IT'S ALL BS

if there was a big bang at the centre of the galaxy in this vaccuum of space there would be ZERO reason for any of the formations to stop moving outward, much less form orbits and generally all spherical planets whether gas giants or solid matter. i mean think about it. wouldnt they keep moving unless some external force acted upon them? where would that force have come from if they were all strewn in an outward direction from the center of nothing when nothing else existed.

these guys are full of spit! i dont think the big bang works.. for all we know those telescopes could just have large computers in them rendering false images of the universe. how can u trust the hullaballoo that comes from astronomers?

how does heat work from the sun if when i leave our atmosphere and am infact closer to the sun by 65000 miles, why is space so cold, why would i freeze to death being outside of the protective layer of our ozone layer instead of burn to death?



edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by 0mage because: (no reason given)


It's all BS is that a comment on what you have written


Big Bang at the centre of the Galaxy


You also answered your own question "unless some external force acted upon them?"
Well what about impacts and gravity.

As for heat go look up Radiant heat & convection heat.

Plenty of amateur astronomy pics to see here is a good link set up for the BBC Stargazing live show.

Stargazing Viewers Pictures



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


ahh but i didnt say that. in fact one of my posts on the forum suggested such a thing.. that we may perceive as a big bang.. but what is important.. is the external force of his will after the big bang to create the planets and their orbits and the laws and rules of the universe.

science currently suggest some sort of automaton big bang in which no intelligent interference what soever took place.. and everything just happened.. for no reason and no purpose.

i disagree.. there is a reason there is a purpose.. and the planets and galaxies formed as they are because the intelligent creator willed it so. otherwise as i stated.. there would be no order.. it would just be particles exploding and moving outward forever non stop. but even that is not possible without an intelligent creator.. but im just supposing, to entertain the train of thought science carries in this avenue.

Science should not reject the creator, nor the idea of an intelligent big bang





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join