Big Bang Theory Wrong? Star Older Than Universe Discovered

Well, here you have it. Of course, it was always naive to believe that we knew everything there was to know about the origins of the universe, or at least as much as we needed to, to conclude that the big bang was 100% legit. It's all a computer simulation, people. There was no big bang. The lights were just turned on and the generator was started up and the operators of this simulation made some tweaks.

As for the article, basically there is a star that is nearly a billion years older than the big bang allows for. There is no easy answer to why. It's certainly fascinating and the greatest scientific minds are trying to solve it. However, I think it'll be quite some time before a better explanation and theory is posited and found to withstand scientific rigor.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Unfortunately your source is the Express (known BSers and often post click bait)...

...If you get a legit scientific source i'll be interested

The Big Bang is just something written in a book before I was born.

People believe it on faith

It turned into a religion

a reply to: Diaspar

They're quoting an article written by british physicist Robert Matthews.

originally posted by: Diaspar
a reply to: Dfairlite

Unfortunately your source is the Express (known BSers and often post click bait)...

...If you get a legit scientific source i'll be interested

Here's one from 2013, when the star was first aged at 14.5 billion years:

"Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

www.nasa.gov...

Within the margin of error, it fits just fine with current estimates for the age of the Universe.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age — as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay.

Age 14.46 ± 0.8 (minimum 13.66)[1] Gyr

Not saying this won't turn out to be true and the age of the universe is greater than currently accepted.
Just saying i can't trust this article from the Express.
If i see it in accepted and peer reviewed scientific papers i'll start to believe it.
Unfortunately, for me at least, the Express are tainted by their numerous click bait BS articles they've produced in the past.

Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist, but believing everything in existence is from a singular point explosion makes as much sense as a flat earth theory.

a reply to: Phage

Yea, i agree. I read the margin of error is +/- 800 million years. Still within the scope.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Unless you are a scientist who studied particle evolution than it makes perfect sense.

How old is the oldest star "supposed" to be? Because I remember learning that it would have taken a long time for the universe to cool down enough to enable stars to form. So, a star that is approximately as old as the universe would still completely FUBAR our understanding of the origins of the cosmos.

a reply to: luthier

Are you one of those "particle evolution" scientists or something?

Could be the light traveling 200 million lightyears, if it really is, might be affected in some way so the star seems different than it is.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I am just saying the big bang/squeeze etc constant pattern is derived from a part of a code in physics math. This article is exaggerating the claim made in the paper.

Gotta go along with Phage on this one.

Taking the margin of error into account, it really isn't anything paradigm shifting.

Add to that the fact that we don't have a complete understanding of either dark energy, or the effects of spacetime on the rate of expansion of the universe, and what you really have is, at best, just another clue to hone the theory.

a reply to: Mach2

Yep,..on the other hand it will be interesting to work on it some more just in case we missed a big part of something for the dreamers

There is no way that we could figure out how the universe was created from this point in space. I have a hard time believing that anyone could actually prove the theory wrong though, the ones believing in the theory will not accept anything that makes them look like a fool for believing in the big bang theory. If enough scientists parrot a fallacy, it becomes real in this reality we live in. I choose to believe that we have no way of knowing how or when our universe was created.

a reply to: rickymouse

Hey man just so you don't hate scientists check out Luke Barnes in physics.

It's good stuff you would probably enjoy it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: rickymouse

Hey man just so you don't hate scientists check out Luke Barnes in physics.

It's good stuff you would probably enjoy it.

I spend a lot of time reading scientific research. I actually like lots of the discoveries in science. I read mostly research and avoid some of the interpretations of the research done by some of the attention seekers or people who will profit by deceiving us. I will not accept things I know we have no possible way of concluding. If people want to believe the big bang theory, I won't burst their bubble, but will not accept something as real if it is most likely not real.

a reply to: luthier

I nominate this guy for a comedy award, not now, but later. You get what I mean.

Why couldn't a rogue magnetar burst have stripped the iron out of this big non-metal baby?

Besides, who's to say this isn't evidence of a megastructure from the iron extraction?

Maybe there are some healthy iron sources nearby.