We’ve found the oldest star in the known universe – and it’s right on our galactic doorstep

Bedlam

Korg Trinity
.... after a few billion years the sphere expanded to it's current size.
Korg.

That's wrong, too. The inflationary period was over in a fraction of a billionth of a second. By 10E-32 seconds post Bang that was over with. So even if you postulate a "center point" (and there's not one), there would be bupkes for difference in ages between any two points.

Oh so the universe is not expanding anymore?? Really???

I think you need to brush up on your astrophysics....

The universe is indeed still expanding... and what's more it's accelerating....

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

and yes the universe really does have a location that is the center point.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

The only thing for sure is that it is not well known. It'd best be defined as a hypothesis ... but people like to call it a theory for some reason.

And, if I'm included in the group that's "arguing" with you, I do it because this is a fun topic to talk about. I'm not criticizing what you think ... just continuing the dialogue.

Snarl

Korg Trinity

Bedlam
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It expanded everywhere at once. There are no edges.

Yes it expanded everywhere at once and still is... from a point of origin......

And if you think the universe has no edges you maybe right... but infinite or not... it did have a point of origin.... and thus that point is within our known universe....

You're thinking three dimensionally. What would the universe look like from outside?

A better question might be: Why can't we see the edges of space?

edit on 1422014 by Snarl because: (no reason given)

The reason is really simple...

We have looked back almost as far as is possible... almost to the first stars that were formed.... before that there is a dark period... as in no light...

The other reason is that the expanding universe is accelerating to the point where it will out run the speed light could reach us.

Peace,

Korg.

Snarl
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

The only thing for sure is that it is not well known. It'd best be defined as a hypothesis ... but people like to call it a theory for some reason.

And, if I'm included in the group that's "arguing" with you, I do it because this is a fun topic to talk about. I'm not criticizing what you think ... just continuing the dialogue.

You think that the knowledge of the universes continued expansion and acceleration is not a well known fact??

Korg.

Korg Trinity
The reason is really simple...

And that is that the universe is finite but unbounded. There are no edges, there is no center. It wraps on itself.

Bedlam

Korg Trinity
The reason is really simple...

And that is that the universe is finite but unbounded. There are no edges, there is no center. It wraps on itself.

You're really having a hard time with this aren't you. There is ZERO evidence that the modius model is correct.. in all prbability the shape of the universe would be more like a football....

Try and get used to the idea that the universe has an event horizon of it's own.... That the universe is indeed expanding into something... outside of our own universe...

In time people will see that the universe in the great scheme of things is miniscule and that we are a spec when taking into account the multiverse.

Korg.

Sometimes i think these Astronomers just throw darts when coming up with the age of a star.

Korg Trinity

Snarl
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

The only thing for sure is that it is not well known. It'd best be defined as a hypothesis ... but people like to call it a theory for some reason.

And, if I'm included in the group that's "arguing" with you, I do it because this is a fun topic to talk about. I'm not criticizing what you think ... just continuing the dialogue.

You think that the knowledge of the universes continued expansion and acceleration is not a well known fact??

It is a much discussed possibility. What is going on at the edge of visualization is a guess at best.

I don't understand, but I'm pretty darn sure NO star can exist for anywhere near 13 + BILLION years.. It would have for sure used up its fuel and lost its equilibrium. I don't normally argue with scientists, but I'm gonna here. I think it shows a huge fundamental error in which they calculate a stars age.

reply to post by andy06shake

So if they found what they believe is the oldest star in the known universe. So what does that mean that this particular place in the cosmos is one of the more oldest around? What does that now makes us the old fogies of the universe. Well considering there are countless stars out there most of which are so far as to be inconceivable in there distances, lets just say I would hold my regards on just what may be considered the oldest stars in the universe.

taoistguy
i'm just waiting for them to find a star several billion years older than the universe.
i predict that will happen yesterday.

I second that.

There was no big bang and their methods of testing ages all rely on theories that aren't real.

Snarl

Korg Trinity

Snarl
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

The only thing for sure is that it is not well known. It'd best be defined as a hypothesis ... but people like to call it a theory for some reason.

And, if I'm included in the group that's "arguing" with you, I do it because this is a fun topic to talk about. I'm not criticizing what you think ... just continuing the dialogue.

You think that the knowledge of the universes continued expansion and acceleration is not a well known fact??

It is a much discussed possibility. What is going on at the edge of visualization is a guess at best.

Snarl,
Korg is correct, universe is still expanding and in fact accelerating. It is not a possibility, its a fact. Lookup: redshift
However, its expanding into what, THAT you can argue and its up to debate.
--------------------------------------------
Why we cannot see past that, because even with that 13Billion something, that is actually the minimum age we can penetrate/see. the truth is, its much older but we unable to see that far.

Universe do have center point - the singularity point, but nobody know where it was, because universe expand in non uniform shape, except of course, God, who exist before it happen.

This oldest star news is just an assumptions and most probably incorrect, because it based on materials around that star, pretty much like saying Australia is old continent, because its mostly desert because everything dead already, pretty much assumption like that.

As somebody said, its scientist weather balloon reflected by Venus luminance.
Big, high, shiny, illuminated by mass media, bloated by namely scientist, but actually have no content.

Since it's 6,000 light years away why not name it after things mentioned in the deep space movie called The Black Hole?

Maximilian - the red terror robot
Cygnus - the mad scientist's ship
Palomino - the ship that finds the Cygnus in orbit around the black hole

I just found out that the actor who played the mad scientist, Dr. Hans Reinhardt, died February 1, 2014 at age 83. His real name is Maximilian Schell, the same as the freaky red robot.

We should call the star Maximilian.

Call it "old man star" for any eve online fans out there

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Most of our theories regarding the formation and shape of our universe seem to work under the assumption that time flows in a linear fashion. What if the flow of time is not linear given that gravitational effects seem to suggest a connection between both space and time. What does that do to our understanding of how time passes/flows/ebbs regarding the age of our universe?

Unity_99
There was no big bang and their methods of testing ages all rely on theories that aren't real.

Yeah....ok................

Snarl

Korg Trinity

Snarl
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Geeze why are there so many people on here that argue with me over something that is very well known....

The only thing for sure is that it is not well known. It'd best be defined as a hypothesis ... but people like to call it a theory for some reason.

And, if I'm included in the group that's "arguing" with you, I do it because this is a fun topic to talk about. I'm not criticizing what you think ... just continuing the dialogue.

You think that the knowledge of the universes continued expansion and acceleration is not a well known fact??

It is a much discussed possibility. What is going on at the edge of visualization is a guess at best.

It's not a discussed possibility it is a fact!

Here is Stephen Hawking doing a fantastic job of simplifying the science..



and from Laurence Krauss



Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by WeAre0ne


Well what's your method then? If there's is so broken you tell us how you would go about it. Oh your just one of those people?

reply to post by andy06shake

Well if you assume the farther out you look in space the farther back in time and space you go. Were does that put us in the whole of it in that linear scale? By that logic we are either somewhere in the new, somewhere in the old, or somewhere in the between, and if everywhere we look we are looking back in time and space, that would mean we are in the pinnacle of that expansion. Or we merely just another vantage point of looking, it could be that if you were looking at things from anywhere else in the universe you would see the same picture of space and time.

That is if somebody on some planet a few billion light years away looks in this direction they would be looking back in time and space, and if we were looking in there direction we would be looking back in time as well some billion light years ago. All it is really is just a system of measurement, so and so is that far away and hence there back in time. On such scales the only thing you would have to measure is that, and it just may be a flawed way of looking at it or measuring it on such scales, that may work on a planetary scale like say I am going to bobs house it is 100 miles and approximately 2 hours away. So what does that now mean that bob is in the future some 2 hours away? Or maybe he is in the past some 2 hours behind? Well since I am going to bobs house that must mean he is in the future, but if he were coming to by house that would mean that he is in the past traveling to the future the future in this case being my house and point of view my focus as I am measuring it.

You see it makes no sense in a spacial context when you look at it that way from an earthly context when traveling over land. So why would it make sense in a galactic or universal context? What is older and what is younger when the very things making it all up the very atoms in the sun and your body and the planet around you were created around the same time in the same place and space?

But that would also mean that every point in space is a central focus point to every other point, unless that is if you reach the end of the universe and look in at it all. But that is all assuming things were created at some point and from there they sort of spreed and aged as they changed, but aged is the wrong way to look at it as well, things did not age they merely changed ie the atoms and particles merely just recombined and reconfigured to make different bonds and by extensions different vibrations and shapes and different matter, a sun being one form of matter a human being another form, yet all made from the same things only in different configurations, one even leading into another as we are all star dust. So from every point in the universe that you would be at, in any direction, you would look you would be looking back in time no matter were you are or were at.

But if you look at it in a spacial context the only logical conclusion is that only the present exists, and everything else is merely just systems of measurements, space and time measured from that present focus point your measuring it from, its not new its not old its just measured differently set into different dimensions space and time being basically just dimensions but rulers and tools used for measurement. And space and time all of that and it all, they are not things of and in themselfs they to are just creations of whatever is the focus, or whatever is looking out from that point that space in time and is projecting outward looking for answers, projecting outward, by the only things it can.

For all anybody knows it could have all been created at the same time in the same place all at once everything that ever existed or ever will, but for all of it to exist it can only exist if it is set apart from everything else ie in different dimensions the dimensions of space and time being one, or else if everything is being received at the same time and place, it will all be one big chaotic static the sort you would get on your tv when it has no reception or is tuned in into a reception or vibration of which it is not capable of interpreting into a coherent picture, so you get static on the tv.

Not because there is nothing there, but because your tv is not capable of interpreting what is there as its just a tool set to receive certain signals and set them into certain patterns and vibrations on the screen which you would be able to understand or perceive, ie you would be able to see it, as its tuned to your dimensions, in literally the very sense of the word ie what your mind is able to receive and translate into coherence and make a picture of, the dimensions of space time being one, but there is also other dimensions such as the dimension of taste, the dimension of smell, and pretty much everything else you would be able to sense or know or perceive of. And off course there is everything else that which you would not be capable of grasping or understanding, the other dimensions, ie the unknown, or 99% of the rest of the dark matter out there in the known universe, that which scientists do not know what it is, but know that its there, as so far what you are able to see and know still only seems to amount to 5% to 10% of things in the void of space.

So I dont know, how does all that work when the farther you look back in the universe the farther back in time your supposed to be looking. But then again you have one of the oldest objects in that known universe right in your back yard. Sort of puts a dent into it all does it not?

Oh my bad, just goggled it and apparently its only 4% of the universe that is known, and by know they mean its out there and can be seen and grasped in some fashion. And the rest? Well not so much. But hopefully one day we will reach that 10%.
4 percent universe