an Impossible star found a "13 billion year old relic" from the past

What I don't get about the Universe being 13.7 billion years old, is if we can look out in a telescope to objects not too long after the big bang then is our galaxy travelling directly away from the epicenter at the speed of light or at least very close too. Well based on this theory we must be otherwise the view of a 13 billion year old object would have long passed us. I think by now light from the start of time will have long passed us by as according to einstein nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including inflation in the universe.

So in a nutshell I don't subscribe to the 13.7 billion year old theory, I think there is much more beyond that we just can't see it.

Originally posted by XPLodER
because how can a star be a "nulclear" furnace if there are no heavey elements?

xploder

All you need is hydrogen

It is the fusion reactions that create helium and all the heavy elements

reply to post by repressed


wouldnt a 13 billion year old star have made some heavey elements by now?
i mean is it imposable to have an old star without heavey elements unless nuclear fission has not taken place?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


The heavy elements are mainly created towards the end of a star's lifecycle, once the hydrogen becomes exhausted, the star starts to collapse (less outward pressure from fusion), leading to helium being ignited, sustaining the star longer (repeat with helium exhaustion->lithium/berylium ignition, etc etc).

This is because heavier elements require more pressure to fuse (due to higher charges repelling; HH fusion is just + fusing with +; HeHe fusion is 2+ with 2+, hence 4 times higher electrostatic repulsion, etc etc) and so need higher gravitational pressures which are not provided with just Hydrogen fusion.

So the cycle goes: Hydrogen gas collapses under gravitational pressure, ignites, fusion sustains the pressure (therefore helium cannot fuse), fusion dies off due to lower concentration of hydrogen, gases collapse under grav pressure, helium ignites, dot dot dot, heavy elements are created. All the He/Li/Be fusion chains are much shorter in duration than the initial H burning.

(Of course some heavy elements are created in HHe fusion etc, but this is only a small amount, compared to the amounts created at the end of the star's life)

All I have said applies to first-generation stars. There are differences in the processes with 2+ generation stars (those formed from supernova remnants). But this star, being 13 Gy old, will be a first gen star.

Also I should mention when I talk of collapse, this is the core. The whole star could actually expand, e.g. some red giants are fusing helium.

So they are making GIFS

neat lol

reply to post by XPLodER


It's just one more message from The Universe..
Saying.. "You guys there on Earth, you don't know $%^#!"
We need to stop pretending we do.

Cool thread, thanks.

reply to post by XPLodER


nice find,

all we can do is LOOK!

we ain't got a leg to stand on about how the universe works and probably never will.

we are clueless.

Move on nothing to see here,

It is Chinese lanterns or a lens flare,

This is otherwise definately CGI,

Current observations prove this is impossible,

Thought I would debunk the "Scientists" even though they strangely dont participate in threads where science debunks current science.

Strange that considering all science "facts", were once Chinese lanterns and debunked by the old gods of facts.

S+F Intriguing Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by XPLodER
Don't forget the star isn't 13 billion years old. It's around a half a billion years old and we're looking at it in its infancy.

Not only that, if current models are close to accurate, if we could be in that area (at that time) the universe would be a lot smaller; billions of light years smaller!

I was reading about this today and found this quite interesting. Thanks for bringing it to ATS and getting a discussion going.

The current accepted theory of the big bang has to go. There was no big bang, as space couldn't have existed before it, and that is just crazy. If there was a big bang that would mean there would be an edge to the universe, which would mean if you could get to the edge there would be no more space. That would be theoretically impossible.

Although the big bang model is currently the most accepted in society, many cosmologists are coming out against it, and there is just no major front runner leading the pack of alternatives. We have M-theory, but with our current math the basic equations for the theory are 400+ years away, and that seems to be the best bet at this point.

I think the universe is infinite and cyclic. We have black holes which take energy out of our universe and disperse in another universe through white holes, keeping the universes cycling and not static. Maybe the black holes lead to another brane rather than a universe, connecting the two and over time they get pulled together creating higher and higher dimensions when they clash or hit.

I'm happy to see something that makes us all think, because when we get comfortable, the thinking stops.

Pred...

Originally posted by Ahmose
reply to post by XPLodER

 

It's just one more message from The Universe..
Saying.. "You guys there on Earth, you don't know $%^#!"
We need to stop pretending we do.

Cool thread, thanks.

reply to post by MischeviousElf


There really isn't such a thing as "debunking science".

Science and scientific theories adapt with the currently available evidence.

reply to post by XPLodER


That's, odd. Obviously if something is witnessed in the universe, chances are it's not unique. The full article is worth a quick skim. What surprises me most about it is its age. If the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old, and this star is 13 billion+ years old that's an awfully short amount of time to make a star. Or so I would think. Of course, as to it's age we have to remember that what we're "seeing" is as it was 13 billion years ago. Might not even be there right now.

Unfortunately science cannot be fully deductive, so induction leads to mistakes.

I study both physics and math and believe in the biblical worldview. I believe even our best rational ideas may not every lead us to certain truth, only to "this is the best we know". We may conquer nature, but just because we have much technological progress doesn't mean our inductive reasoning is necessarily correct.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

There really isn't such a thing as "debunking science".

Science and scientific theories adapt with the currently available evidence.

Well what "debunkers" do is no differant to new facts/observations do for the "accepted model".

Your bringing semantics into it.

btw I was being tongue in cheek about some prolific members of ATS

Kind Regards,

Elf

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Does anyone else chuckle when they mention.

VERY LARGE TELESCOPE

Why do they always say that, its not as though we would raise a dissmissive eyebrow if they just said telescope. Maybe they dont think we'd believe them if the telescope is not large enough.

Be prepared for a belly laugh , here it comes .....The Extremely Large Telescope due begin operations in 2018
www.space.com...

How long do we have to wait for the Unfeasibly Large Telescope

hmm....

If this is coming from nazi er i mean nasa, why do i feel they're omitting
or fabricating the events of this article?

Originally posted by Aeons
How can a star be in a state of 13 billion years of fission without heavy elements? I have no idea. Perhaps the original isotopes of hydrogen and helium in this cloud were unusually heavy with other quanta.

How far away is the star again? I'd imagine that the star is already dead and all we are seeing is the light from it.

IRM

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Does anyone else chuckle when they mention.

VERY LARGE TELESCOPE

Why do they always say that, its not as though we would raise a dissmissive eyebrow if they just said telescope. Maybe they dont think we'd believe them if the telescope is not large enough.

What are they going to do when they want even more resolution?

EXTREMELY GIGANTIC MEGA TELESCOPE! Sounds way better.

All about the e-peen, eh astronomers?



On a OT note, love discoveries like this. Science needs its' apple cart blown to bits on a much more regular basis.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Aeons
How can a star be in a state of 13 billion years of fission without heavy elements? I have no idea. Perhaps the original isotopes of hydrogen and helium in this cloud were unusually heavy with other quanta.

How far away is the star again? I'd imagine that the star is already dead and all we are seeing is the light from it.

IRM

That's likely. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how long such a star might burn for?

Wouldn't finding a star similar to this, but closer to us and closer to the end of its lifecycle then allow for someone to extrapolate the parameters of the environment? If such a star is "impossible" in a larger expanded universe, perhaps the universe these are contained in are significantly smaller than is currently in the model. Making the gas clouds denser. Making the end of the lifecycle when you can find these super-light stars an excellent way to show the speed of expansion.