Big Bang Theory Wrong? Star Older Than Universe Discovered

a reply to: Phage

An 'A' for effort. The problem with margins of error is that they go both ways. So while it's 14.5 +/-0.8 that means the probability of it being within the current estimates of the age of the universe is about 5 to 10%.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It's not like they are going to just say well that weird and throw away the data.

The article just overstated the reality.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Ridiculous.

An accepted theory I's NOT a religion, it is always up for questioning, which even this acarticle states is what people are doing.

God damn it - pun intended.. Will people stop the arrogant bashing of theory...

Religion is an unmovable object.
Science is an unstoppable force.

Questions are always welcome, it's ignorant claims that get hounded leading to butthurts and cries of science being a religion. Religion is Faith that you are not wrong and asking questions is blasphemy.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You

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.

Stupid argument. The “simulation” has to be running in a universe that was created into being in some mater.

So there was still the birth of existence so what you are referring to could be brought into being.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes but what are the odds that the people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? They're wholly contained within their simulation, it goes for as far as they can see.

a reply to: luthier

Except we have a number of people here and a number of articles that are taking great solace in the 5-10% chance that it could be younger than our universe.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes but what are the odds that the people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? They're wholly contained within their simulation, it goes for as far as they can see.

You said, “There was no big bang.“ then you stated “what are the odds people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world?“ Than I guess you just disqualified yourself from determining if our supposed simulation is running in an universe created by a Big Bang or not.

Back to “what are the odds people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? ” if the simulator is our world, why would we not understand the physics programmed into our simulated world.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Does anyone actually believe in the Big Bang theory?

I know I don't and I'm no scientist...................

Enough said

a reply to: Dfairlite

Or what if we are in a simulation to see if an event like the Big Bang is possible, and the Star is an anomaly in that simulation.

a reply to: neutronflux

*Mind blown*

a reply to: neutronflux

if the simulator is our world, why would we not understand the physics programmed into our simulated world.

Oh, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. We can understand those, we can't understand the physics of the world outside of our simulation. There's not always a direct correlation.

Please show the math of why the Big Bang can't be true. I can show the math supporting that it is true but since you aren't a scientist you wouldn't understand it. The article cited in the OP is rubbish. And it was debunked 5 years ago.

Back to “what are the odds people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? ” if the simulator is our world, why would we not understand the physics programmed into our simulated world.

Could you know all the program instructions and logic in a program just by observing some of the output?

Probably not.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes but what are the odds that the people in any given computer simulation can begin to understand the physics of our world? They're wholly contained within their simulation, it goes for as far as they can see.

Sure anthropic...

But that doesn't appear the case. In fact philosophy through logic alone predicted things that were beyond the universe...meaning the scary magic one...then the God one....now the physical cosmological model being tried with strings....we keep getting out......each level gives us new technology...we forget about philosophy get lazy and then have a renaissance...and boom puzzles solved.


All of a sudden it's a new universe.

In 15 years people will be crispr ing bat wings in themselves...I mean the anthropic principle seems lazy. Because of the Cave.

a reply to: F4guy

Please show the math of why the Big Bang can't be true.

The big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. This star is 13.7-15.3 billion years old. How could something that was the product of the big bang, exist before the big bang?

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: Phage

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

The margin of error is plus or minus 800 million years
Hahahah
That is gold

What a stupid theory

originally posted by: F4guy
Please show the math of why the Big Bang can't be true. I can show the math supporting that it is true but since you aren't a scientist you wouldn't understand it. The article cited in the OP is rubbish. And it was debunked 5 years ago.

You can show maths that nothing became everything
Please go ahead, this will be fun

a reply to: gallop

The only “but hurt” one here is you gallop, stop sooking

Science can, like anything else be adopted into a persons faith, ala evolution, origins and the Big Bang, a seriously stupid belief

Questions are not welcome and believing in scientists opinions without question is stupidity beyond belief
Science is learning and we have barely started the race
You speak of science like it has identity, it doesn’t, like anything it can be manipulated and abused and it has

Stop with all your but hurtedness, wise up, science is a tool and is manipulated by many

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
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.

Ok , let us know your reasoning in how the "Big Bang" Theory is not correct.
And , you do know the meaning of the term theory , yes ?
Any theory has to be 6-Sigma before accepted as "fact" and "undeniable" .
Even Einstein's work is still "The Theory of Relativity" , yet it is accepted nearly 100% by physicists.

(shhh...there was most likely no "Big Bang" . Th true name is "The Great Expansion")

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: F4guy
Please show the math of why the Big Bang can't be true. I can show the math supporting that it is true but since you aren't a scientist you wouldn't understand it. The article cited in the OP is rubbish. And it was debunked 5 years ago.

You can show maths that nothing became everything
Please go ahead, this will be fun

Everything from out of nothing...?

Perhaps that is where Philosophy, Math, Science, QM, Consciousness, and whatever meet ?