oldest star in the known universe –right on our galactic doorstep

[Levina]

Suppose while searching again for further older star if by chance the scientists discover a star which is older than the universe then how would our science be affected, any clue? question also to @Skull and Bones ? (Parallel universe?)

Hehehe then the Big bang theory can be safely trashed.
@OrionHunter why don't you attempt to answer his question???

 

[Skull and Bones]

Suppose while searching again for further older star if by chance the scientists discover a star which is older than the universe then how would our science be affected, any clue? question also to @Skull and Bones ? (Parallel universe?)

Yes, there are already stars thought to be older than our universe. It has been found that there are celestial bodies beyond the limit of the university which would have been applied if the universe have experienced uniform rate of expansion after the Big Bang.

 

[Dem!god]

Suppose while searching again for further older star if by chance the scientists discover a star which is older than the universe then how would our science be affected, any clue? question also to @Skull and Bones ? (Parallel universe?)

how can something be older than the universe....universe was always there.....maybe in form of dark energy and matter only.....

 

[Skull and Bones]

how can something be older than the universe....universe was always there.....maybe in form of dark energy and matter only.....

Big Bang is just a theory, which holds true in answering most of the queries. But at the same time few discrepancies are there which cannot be answered satisfactorily with present understanding of the universe. Coming decades will be very interesting.

I have always equated the 'Big Bang' model to that of an 'Atomic orbital' model, old model will be discarded with newer model satisfying the conditions better.

 

[thesolar65]

Yes, there are already stars thought to be older than our universe. It has been found that there are celestial bodies beyond the limit of the university which would have been applied if the universe have experienced uniform rate of expansion after the Big Bang.

Yes, thought to be, but not found!!. when I took my son for a visit to local Sc. park, I found out one interesting thing. There was a photo of a family sitting in a park. The next photo was taken some 10 mtr. above and it showed the family along with other family. The next photo was from above 100 mtr. It showed the entire city and then the next entire India and like that it went on and after some 20 photos the last photo showed (not actually) if we go beyond 100 billion light years away and take a snap, our Universe would be seen as a star(a glowing dot).

But what strike in my mind that at that time if we reach there and find that there are infinite numbers of star like objects are there (universes) to be precise, then what?
@Dem!god

 

[Dem!god]

Big Bang is just a theory, which holds true in answering most of the queries. But at the same time few discrepancies are there which cannot be answered satisfactorily with present understanding of the universe. Coming decades will be very interesting.

I have always equated the 'Big Bang' model to that of an 'Atomic orbital' model, old model will be discarded with newer model satisfying the conditions better.

hmmm...yes BB is just a theory... says all universe started from a pin point dot.....but we nothing know about what was before it.....and it's highly idiotic to say there was nothing before and then suddenly BB occurred...there must be something....may be in energy form only..

But what strike in my mind that at that time if we reach there and find that there are infinite numbers of star like objects are there (universes) to be precise, then what?
@Dem!god

yes may be....but we can't say that for sure.....what if there are thousands of such big bang and thousands of such universes ....
can be ...and is certainly possible....

 

[Skull and Bones]

Yes, thought to be, but not found!!. when I took my son for a visit to local Sc. park, I found out one interesting thing. There was a photo of a family sitting in a park. The next photo was taken some 10 mtr. above and it showed the family along with other family. The next photo was from above 100 mtr. It showed the entire city and then the next entire India and like that it went on and after some 20 photos the last photo showed (not actually) if we go beyond 100 billion light years away and take a snap, our Universe would be seen as a star(a glowing dot).

But what strike in my mind that at that time if we reach there and find that there are infinite numbers of star like objects are there (universes) to be precise, then what?
@Dem!god

It is convenient to think Universes as bubbles, multiples co-existing at the same time without interacting with each other. Seldom the entity of one universe enters into another. Just my thought.

 

[hunter_hunted]

Our galaxy is 13 billions years old give or take so this Ancient remnant must have born at the very beginning. Or this might have been born in other Galaxy but may be kicked our of that galaxy and later caught by our Galaxy.

Cosmos I salute you for slapping us with your wonders everyday

 

[Levina]

Suppose while searching again for further older star if by chance the scientists discover a star which is older than the universe then how would our science be affected, any clue? question also to @Skull and Bones ? (Parallel universe?)

searched some more on this topic...
I found something about the Methuselah star.When the scientists found it and calculated its age they found it to be 16billion yrs old when our universe's age is calculated at 13.8billion.
But then scientists calculate the age using Hubble constant,which is the ratio of the radial velocity of a distant galaxy to its distance. The radial velocitu is easy to measure, but the diatances are not. Thus there is currently a 11% uncertainty in the value of the Hubble constant measured directly by the Hubble Space Telescope.
In short even if a star older than the universe is found then scientist use these uncertainities as an excuse to not challenge the BBT.
An another issue would be that some of the galaxies observed were found to have travelled more than they should have after the big bang.Infact the theory of big bang assumes an empty universe.( FYI: @Dem!god )Only then could have the matter travelled at the speed of light of initially.
So BBT had its issues but then we dont have anything better as of now.

 

[Dem!god]

searched some more on this topic...
I found something about the Methuselah star.When the scientists found it and calculated its age they found it to be 16billion yrs old when our universe's age is calculated at 13.8billion.
But then scientists calculate the age using Hubble constant,which is the ratio of the radial velocity of a distant galaxy to its distance. The radial velocitu is easy to measure, but the diatances are not. Thus there is currently a 11% uncertainty in the value of the Hubble constant measured directly by the Hubble Space Telescope.
In short even if a star older than the universe is found then scientist use these uncertainities as an excuse to not challenge the BBT.
An another issue would be that some of the galaxies observed were found to have travelled more than they should have after the big bang.Infact the theory of big bang assumes an empty universe.( FYI: @Dem!god )Only then could have the matter travelled at the speed of light of initially.
So BBT had its issues but then we dont have anything better as of now.

ya, I always knew there are many discrepancies in BBT ...and till date it's the best explained theory that we have....
yes, BBT uses the concept of empty universe....but again let me take you to the other side of it....suppose we have a empty room and we place a torch in front of a corner(consider corner to be empty and room to be universe..) and light it on ....so, what happens..light is scattered to the corner....but does it effect the other side of the room ...NO...why b'coz the torch was facing the corner...same may be the case of big bang theory.....it may be one small explosion in our humongous universe....and who knows there may be many such rooms here.....one more thing though when we looks up in sky it looks like sky is filled up..but truly..it's not..most of the spaces are empty in the universe...almost more than 90-95% space....

 

[OrionHunter]

Hehehe then the Big bang theory can be safely trashed.
@OrionHunter why don't you attempt to answer his question???

Spot on! The Big bang Theory exploded some time ago! If you remember, I had posted inconsistencies about this theory in another thread of mine.

After reading through numerous papers, it does seem that black holes and even the Big Bang are myths perpetuated by a disingenuous coterie. It has been recently proved that the black hole and the expanding Universe are not predicted by General Relativity at all!

As per Nikias Stavroulakis:

* The given distribution of matter cannot be reduced to a point.Thus the falsity of this theory.

* Black holes never appear in solutions of the Einstein equations.

The theory was exposed by Edwin Hubble when he discovered that atomic spectra from the galaxies had uniformly increasing red shifts for galaxies that were farther and farther away. The explanation of this phenomenon that soon caught on among cosmologists was that this red shift was a Doppler shift caused by all of the galaxies rushing away from an initial “big bang”. They had no real evidence to support this explanation of the Hubble shift other than the idea that it could happen and the fact that it did have all the characteristic of a Doppler shift.

There are other glaring paradoxes. The Big Bang theory is very much believed and defended by those who think about those things but no one has found solutions for its many anomalies and violations of natural law.

The big bang theory is really a Creation myth (just like the first book of Genesis!). It states that the universe came into being about 15 billion years ago. Before that, according to this theory, there was no universe, no matter, no space, and, if you please, no time.

At that time, all the matter in the universe is alleged to have been concentrated at a single point. This invisible dot, known to big bang aficionados as a singularity, then exploded, with such a force that it instantly filled the entire universe, which is still expanding as a result. Oh, by the way, this was the moment when "time began." In case you are wondering whether this is some kind of joke, forget it. This is precisely what the big bang theory states. This is what the great majority of university professors with long strings of letters after their name actually believe!

Even if we accept that the universe is finite, the notion of "singularity" leads us to conclusions of a clearly fantastic character. If we take the tiny corner of the universe which we are able to see as being the whole universe—an arbitrary assumption with no logical or scientific basis whatsoever—then we are talking about more than 100 billion galaxies, each containing about 100 billion main sequence stars (like our own sun). According to some scientists, all this matter was concentrated in a space smaller than a single proton!! Oh yeah!

But the question that arises is, where did all the energy came from to propel such an unprecedented expansion called the 'Big bang'? No answers as yet!

Here's another interesting point.

According to this theory, there can be nothing in the universe older than 15 billion years (the age of the universe as we know it). But there is evidence that contradicts this proposition. In 1986, Brent Tully of Hawaii University discovered huge agglomerations of galaxies ("superclusters") about a billion light years long, three hundred million light years wide and one hundred million light-years thick. (Some called it the 'Great Wall'). In order for such vast objects to form, it would have taken between eighty and a hundred billion years, that is to say four or five times longer than what would be allowed by the "big bangers." Since then there have been other results which tend to confirm these observations.

There is virtually no empirical evidence to bear out the big bang theory. Most of the work done to support it is of a purely theoretical character, leaning heavily on abstruse and esoteric mathematical formulae. The numerous contradictions between the preconceived "big bang" and the observable evidence have been covered up by constantly moving the goal posts in order to preserve at all costs a theory upon which so many academic reputations have been built.

As the theory goes, before the 'Big Bang' there was no time, no space, no matter - Nothing!

But then, "Nothing can be created out of nothing." (Lucretius)

QED!

 

[Levina]

ya, I always knew there are many discrepancies in BBT ...and till date it's the best explained theory that we have....
yes, BBT uses the concept of empty universe....but again let me take you to the other side of it....suppose we have a empty room and we place a torch in front of a corner(consider corner to be empty and room to be universe..) and light it on ....so, what happens..light is scattered to the corner....but does it effect the other side of the room ...NO...why b'coz the torch was facing the corner...same may be the case of big bang theory.....it may be one small explosion in our humongous universe....and who knows there may be many such rooms here.....one more thing though when we looks up in sky it looks like sky is filled up..but truly..it's not..most of the spaces are empty in the universe...almost more than 90-95% space....

As an 11th grader when I asked my physics sir the same thing he scolded me for being childish.
Such ppl kill curiosity...and I was so happy once to read in a newspaper that there could me many more such universes like ours.

As the theory goes, before the 'Big Bang' there was no time, no space, no matter - Nothing!

But then, "Nothing can be created out of nothing." (Lucretius)

True...that assumption can leave anyone flummoxed.When the assumptions are wrong then how can the theory be right??
And yes I do remember discussing this on some other thread.
So Mikey was in a mood to explain today

 

[Dem!god]

As an 11th grader when I asked my physics sir the same thing he scolded me for being childish.
Such ppl kill curiosity...and I was so happy once to read in a newspaper that there could me many more such universes like ours.

oh...do not worry..physics teachers are over kill..I never liked mine....but I do liked my chemistry ma'am.....and bio..too....+ we had a geography ma'am she was good too.........
humanity survived till date because of curiosity...if we were not curious we would have been living in stone age.....