Universe age

[swansont]

Let's use different approach.

With regards to the most distant galaxy (which is located more than 13 billion light years away from us):

Let's assume that it will be discovered that the age of the stars in this galaxy are similar to the stars in the Milky Way. Hence, there are young stars but some very old stars. So what could be the impact of a 10 billion old star discovery in that far end galaxy?

 

As with all science, if there is solid evidence that does not fit within a theory, then the theory must be adjusted.

[Royston]

So what could be the impact of a 10 billion old star discovery in that far end galaxy?

 

You wouldn't get a 10 billion year old star in an infant galaxy. If you viewed the Milky Way from the galaxy that is 13 billion light years away, you would see early star formation and relatively young stars, just as you would when observing very distant galaxies from the Milky Way. The eldest star discovered in our galaxy is 13.2 billion years old.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Royston

[Mordred]

With that in mind can we constrain the size of the entire Universe in any way or should it be deemed infinite?

Every observer today at rest will see an observable universe of 46 Gly

We don't know if the entirety of the universe is finite or infinite

The rate of expansion today is the same everywhere. Roughly 70 km/s/Mpc, as mentioned recessive velocity is an apparent measurement.

 

Here is a good paper on it.

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

 

I included the balloon analogy as an aid

[David Levy]

Based on the following article - dated: October 23, 2013

http://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html

"However, the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old, meaning that they must have formed just 200 million years or so after the Big Bang. That’s a few hundred million years earlier than astronomers had thought galaxy formation first started"

 

So, if the age of the stars in this galaxy is 750 Million years, than they must have formed in just 200 Million years after the Big Bang. It is also expected that in this limited time frame, the whole galaxy must have been formed.

This might be an unrealistic requirement.

Never the less, it is stated: "the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old". Therefore, technically there is good chance for a star which is 950 Million years old. In this case, This star must have formed in just one year or less after the Big Bang.

This is a pure unrealistic requirement.

However, there is also a chance for a star which is 1,000 Million years old. In this case, the science must eliminate the BBT and look for better alternative theory.

Edited April 18, 2015 by David Levy

[Mordred]

Not really it just means that early formation may be faster than suspected. Might hint for an earlier stage of anistrophies. There is variations in data sets for the exact age of the universe. That link for example didn't use the Planck age.

 

13.8 as opposed to 13.7.

[Strange]

Therefore, technically there is good chance for a star which is 950 Million years old. In this case, This star must have formed in just one year or less after the Big Bang.

This is a pure unrealistic requirement.

However, there is also a chance for a star which is 1,000 Million years old. In this case, the science must eliminate the BBT and look for better alternative theory.

 

Be sure to let us know when you have evidence for such stars (rather than supposition) and we will have the big bang theory cancelled immediately.

[swansont]

So, if the age of the stars in this galaxy is 750 Million years, than they must have formed in just 200 Million years after the Big Bang. It is also expected that in this limited time frame, the whole galaxy must have been formed.

Where is that "expectation" mentioned in the article?

 

This might be an unrealistic requirement.

Never the less, it is stated: "the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old". Therefore, technically there is good chance for a star which is 950 Million years old.

How big is a "good chance" and how did you calculate this?

 

In this case, This star must have formed in just one year or less after the Big Bang.

This is a pure unrealistic requirement.

However, there is also a chance for a star which is 1,000 Million years old. In this case, the science must eliminate the BBT and look for better alternative theory.

Or tweak galaxy formation models, or perhaps the age of those stars have error bars on them too.

[David Levy]

 

 

Be sure to let us know when you have evidence for such stars (rather than supposition) and we will have the big bang theory cancelled immediately.

The evidence is just in front of our eyes. It is stated in the article (Dated - October 23, 2013):

"However, the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old, meaning that they must have formed just 200 million years or so after the Big Bang."

So, in the best case (assuming that the max age of the stars are 750 million years), the whole galaxy including the stars should have formed in just 200 Million years. Is it possible?

Just think about the size of the galaxy, adding to that the whole process of star forming activity. How can we compress it to only 200 My?

However, in the worst case, as the stars age are at least 750 My – the real age could be much more than that. In this case, there is no time left to create any sort of galaxy or stars.

From October 2013 till today, we have improved our detectors. Hence, it is expected that we should get better verification of the stars age in this galaxy. Why the science doesn't try to verify the real age of those stars? Why it is just claimed: "at least 750 My" without any further investigation?

There is also another aspect.

We see today a galaxy as it was 13.2 Billion years ago. If we could get the light just 0.6 By behind it, we could potentially see the Big bang itself.

Hence, the big bang should be just there behind this galaxy. If the BBT was real, we could see it – with all of its unbelievable light show. However, I can promise you that will never ever see it. It is expected that we should see more and more distant and ancient galaxies with older stars age. That will give us a final confirmation that the Big bang never happened and it is just in our imagination.

 

 

Where is that "expectation" mentioned in the article?

How big is a "good chance" and how did you calculate this?

Or tweak galaxy formation models, or perhaps the age of those stars have error bars on them too.

 

Not really it just means that early formation may be faster than suspected. Might hint for an earlier stage of anistrophies. There is variations in data sets for the exact age of the universe. That link for example didn't use the Planck age.

 

13.8 as opposed to 13.7.

Dear Mordred & swansont

 

I really appreciate your knowledge and support. I do not want to upset you or get anything to myself. I just see it as a mission to offer the real solution for the Universe enigma.

Please be aware that I have no extra time to west for nothing. It is also quite difficult for me to set all of those threads and correspondences as I normally write from right to left.

However I have full confidence in that solution. Therefore, if you wish, I'm ready to deposit 10,000$ in a bank account under lawyer supervision. This money is yours - If you can prove that this solution is incorrect based on any real observation (However, it is forbidden to use any unproved theory or hypothesis).

[swansont]

Why the science doesn't try to verify the real age of those stars?

What makes you think that "the science" isn't continually trying to do better? Given the entire history of it doing exactly that?

 

Why it is just claimed: "at least 750 My" without any further investigation?

For the same reason you can't buy the 2018 model of an automobile: because time travel is impossible. The numbers are based on the latest experiment.

 

I really appreciate your knowledge and support. I do not want to upset you or get anything to myself. I just see it as a mission to offer the real solution for the Universe enigma.

But you have offered nothing.

 

Please be aware that I have no extra time to west for nothing. It is also quite difficult for me to set all of those threads and correspondences as I normally write from right to left.

However I have full confidence in that solution. Therefore, if you wish, I'm ready to deposit 10,000$ in a bank account under lawyer supervision. This money is yours - If you can prove that this solution is incorrect based on any real observation (However, it is forbidden to use any unproved theory or hypothesis).

Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, and that's not how it works.

 

The burden of proof is on you to come up with evidence to support your model. That is, after you have presented a model, which you haven't. Given your past performance, you have used up all of the benefit of the doubt you might have had. If you don't follow the guidelines for speculations, this will be closed.

[Strange]

So, in the best case (assuming that the max age of the stars are 750 million years), the whole galaxy including the stars should have formed in just 200 Million years. Is it possible?

 

Apparently, yes. (Until we find evidence to the contrary.

 

Just think about the size of the galaxy, adding to that the whole process of star forming activity. How can we compress it to only 200 My?

 

So this is purely an argument from incredulity and ignorance: you don't believe it and don't know how it happened therefore it can't be true?

 

However, in the worst case, as the stars age are at least 750 My – the real age could be much more than that.

 

So provide some evidence they are much older than that.

 

In this case, there is no time left to create any sort of galaxy or stars.

 

And yet it seems to have happened.

 

From October 2013 till today, we have improved our detectors.

 

Have we? Could you provide a reference for these improved detectors?

 

Why the science doesn't try to verify the real age of those stars?

 

Can you provide evidence that they are not trying to do that? Did you miss the reference to the James Webb telescope in the article?

 

Why it is just claimed: "at least 750 My" without any further investigation?

 

Do you know how the age of stars is estimated?

 

We see today a galaxy as it was 13.2 Billion years ago. If we could get the light just 0.6 By behind it, we could potentially see the Big bang itself.

 

We can see "the big bang itself". It is called the cosmic microwave background.

 

However, I can promise you that will never ever see it.

 

It appears you are wrong.

 

It is expected that we should see more and more distant and ancient galaxies with older stars age. That will give us a final confirmation that the Big bang never happened and it is just in our imagination.

 

what you expect is not evidence and does not disprove the big bang.

 

I just see it as a mission to offer the real solution for the Universe enigma.

 

Given the level of knowledge displayed in your posts, I think it is unlikely you will have the real solution for anything.

 

But if you think you do, why not start a thread in Speculations, presenting your solution and the evidence for it? So far all I have seen you do is try and pick holes in existing models, purely based on the fact you don't understand them.

 

However I have full confidence in that solution. Therefore, if you wish, I'm ready to deposit 10,000$ in a bank account under lawyer supervision. This money is yours - If you can prove that this solution is incorrect based on any real observation (However, it is forbidden to use any unproved theory or hypothesis).

 

You haven't presented your solution so no one can take you up on this ridiculous offer. And, as there is no such thing as a "proved theory" (which has been explained to you at great length already) you are obviously cheating.

[David Levy]

 

We can see "the big bang itself". It is called the cosmic microwave background.

Wrong.

The CMB could be a direct product of radiation and emission of energy by galaxies & solar systems in the Universe:

For example - X-rays emission by galaxy:

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-satellite-x-ray-emission-falling-black.html

"Most galaxies are assumed to have at their heart a supermassive black hole that draws in vast amounts of surrounding matter. As this matter is sucked in, it releases energy in the form of intense x-ray emissions that in some cases can be more intense than the emission from all the stars in the galaxy combined."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614140504.htm

"The paper states that as gas spirals toward a black hole through a formation called an accretion disk, it heats up to roughly 10 million degrees Celsius. The temperature in the main body of the disk is roughly 2,000 times hotter than the sun and emits low-energy or "soft" X-rays. However, observations also detect "hard" X-rays which produce up to 100 times higher energy levels".

'As the quality and quantity of the high-energy light observations improved over the years, evidence mounted showing that photons must be created in a hot, tenuous region called the corona. This corona, boiling violently above the comparatively cool disk, is similar to the corona surrounding the sun, which is responsible for much of the ultra-violet and X-ray luminosity seen in the solar spectrum".

This radiation by galaxies and solar systems could be the main source of the CMB.

Therefore, the CMB can't be used as a direct evidence for the BBT

[imatfaal]

 

 

Wrong.

The CMB could be a direct product of radiation and emission of energy by galaxies & solar systems in the Universe:

For example - X-rays emission by galaxy:

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-satellite-x-ray-emission-falling-black.html

"Most galaxies are assumed to have at their heart a supermassive black hole that draws in vast amounts of surrounding matter. As this matter is sucked in, it releases energy in the form of intense x-ray emissions that in some cases can be more intense than the emission from all the stars in the galaxy combined."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614140504.htm

"The paper states that as gas spirals toward a black hole through a formation called an accretion disk, it heats up to roughly 10 million degrees Celsius. The temperature in the main body of the disk is roughly 2,000 times hotter than the sun and emits low-energy or "soft" X-rays. However, observations also detect "hard" X-rays which produce up to 100 times higher energy levels".

'As the quality and quantity of the high-energy light observations improved over the years, evidence mounted showing that photons must be created in a hot, tenuous region called the corona. This corona, boiling violently above the comparatively cool disk, is similar to the corona surrounding the sun, which is responsible for much of the ultra-violet and X-ray luminosity seen in the solar spectrum".

This radiation by galaxies and solar systems could be the main source of the CMB.

Therefore, the CMB can't be used as a direct evidence for the BBT

 

This is complete rubbish. Please stop posting such nonsense.

 

The CMBR is flat to an extra-ordinary amount (variation of about one part in ten-thousand where ever you look) - whereas blackhole accretion disks are the most extreme sources of EMR in the Universe. How on earth can you leap from tiny super bright sources to uniform flat 360 degree coverage?

 

The CMBR is background and comes at basically the same wavelength from every direction. We observe light from accretion disks - it is high energy. Stuff falling into a large black hole ends up giving up X-rays and Gamma-rays - do you not understand that this is the exact opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum?

 

And as you clearly don't understand any cosmology or even basic physics why on earth are you contradicting posters (like Strange above) who patiently explain science to you? Don't you realise how rude and trollish this is?

[Strange]

This radiation by galaxies and solar systems could be the main source of the CMB.

Therefore, the CMB can't be used as a direct evidence for the BBT

 

Those sources do not produce a perfect black body spectrum at a tempreature of 2.7K. However, that is exactly what was predicted by the big bang model before the CMB was observed. That is why the CMB was the final nail in the coffin for all the alternative models.

 

Now: about that model of yours ...

[David Levy]

 

The CMBR is flat to an extra-ordinary amount (variation of about one part in ten-thousand where ever you look) - whereas blackhole accretion disks are the most extreme sources of EMR in the Universe.

I didn't claim that the X-ray is a CMB. I just claimed that as the galaxies and solar system generate X-ray emission, than part of the emission and radiation of the galaxies and solar systems could be this CMB.

 

How on earth can you leap from tiny super bright sources to uniform flat 360 degree coverage?

So, if you have over 100 Billion galaxies (with several billions solar system in each one), than this could be the main source for the uniform flat 360 degree coverage.

[swansont]

 

 

So, if you have over 100 Billion galaxies (with several billions solar system in each one), than this could be the main source for the uniform flat 360 degree coverage.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Bald assertion isn't going to fly. You have presented no model of how this supposedly happens. As such, this doesn't fall within the scope of discussion here in speculations. Closed.