Homepage Forums Plasma Cosmology and BBNH Oldest star

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Avatar pluto 5 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1433
    Avatar
    AaronB
    Member

    http://rt.com/news/oldest-star-universe-discovery-889/

    “Bond and his team calculated that the star is 13.9 billion years old. This actually places it beyond the time that the universe exists. The current estimate is that the Big Bang happened some 13.77 billion years ago. This is explained by an experimental error, which may be as large as 700 million years. So the star is at least 13.2 billion years old and may be several hundred million years older than that.”

    It’s interesting that the calculated age of the star is older than the universe itself, and they adjust the margin of error to barely fit within the BB model.

    #12449
    Avatar
    ikanreed
    Member

    AaronB wrote: http://rt.com/news/oldest-star-universe-discovery-889/

    “Bond and his team calculated that the star is 13.9 billion years old. This actually places it beyond the time that the universe exists. The current estimate is that the Big Bang happened some 13.77 billion years ago. This is explained by an experimental error, which may be as large as 700 million years. So the star is at least 13.2 billion years old and may be several hundred million years older than that.”

    It’s interesting that the calculated age of the star is older than the universe itself, and they adjust the margin of error to barely fit within the BB model.

    That’s a bit misrepresentative of what the article says. If a method really has a 700 million year window, you’d expect 5% of cases to have even more error than that. I don’t think I need to point out just how many stars there are.

    #12450
    Avatar
    AaronB
    Member

    And here’s an interesting article about the the largest structure just discovered. It’s bigger than it’s supposed to be to fit in the BB model.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/

    “This is hugely exciting, not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe.”

    “The newfound LQC is composed of 73 quasars and spans about 1.6 billion light-years in most directions, though it is 4 billion light-years across at its widest point.”

    “The newly discovered LQC is so enormous, in fact, that theory predicts it shouldn’t exist, researchers said. The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale. Calculations suggest that structures larger than about 1.2 billion light-years should not exist, researchers said.”

    #12451
    Avatar
    Lerner
    Participant

    Well, the Big Bangers response to this is:
    “This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
    Then observers find out another prediction that is wrong and BBers respond:
    “This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
    Repeat ad absurdum.
    Until the little boy says ”but the cosmologists are naked!” then everyone starts laughing. This has not happened yet, but it will at one point.

    #12452
    Avatar
    benf
    Participant

    And here’s another problem. It seems that the popular dark energy theory doesn’t fit the new data

    #12485
    Avatar
    ikanreed
    Member

    Lerner wrote: Well, the Big Bangers response to this is:
    “This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
    Then observers find out another prediction that is wrong and BBers respond:
    “This is an anomaly, but since BB gets everything else right it must be true.”
    Repeat ad absurdum.
    Until the little boy says ”but the cosmologists are naked!” then everyone starts laughing. This has not happened yet, but it will at one point.

    Not to be obnoxious, but if big bang cosmology is incorrect, then why do so many stars fall inside the expected age range? I mean, if a greater than 5% proportion of stars fell outside the expected age range as determined by an error prone metric, it would be a dramatic invalidation of a long-standing hypothesis, but cherry-picking data like that is hardly the correct approach to science, when there are known assumptions. Let me make it clear I don’t disagree with plasma cosmology: as a layman, it’s out of my expertise.

    I just don’t understand why this single data point is relevant, given the understood problems in the method of interpretation. Is there some mechanic of the method that creates a hard limit to the observational error?

    #12948
    Avatar
    benf
    Participant

    And how old is this “blob”? A more recent finding here

    #12996
    Avatar
    pluto
    Member

    Hello one and all

    To understand the universe one needs to understand. Reading via arXiv search.

    Condensates, Gauge field on the lattice, Dirac matter, Spontaneously generated inhomogeneous phases, Lattice QCD etc etc and the formula E=MC^2.

    and to know that 95%of the universe is a form of a condensate.

    One of the properties of a condensate is, Electric-Magnetic dipolar field, that ejects matter from the core in the various transientphases from Neutrons(compaction 10^17) to Quarkes(compaction composites upto 10^25 plus) to Axiion matter(compaction 10^35).

    This simple property prevents the formation of the classical Black Hole, creates the jet vortex that adds in the turbulence of the solar envelopes, creates the arms of spiral galaxies, the soliton vortex that we see at the centre of the MilkyWay(5,000Lyrs), M87 over 50,000 light years and within the core of super clusters of galaxies a vortex jets over 3 million light years.

    The pure application of E=MC^2 is where matter enters the core and goes through a transiton into the various phases creating part of the cyclic process throughout the core of every star and AGN.

    As for the Big Bang, there is no evidence to suport such a theory.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.