Question About the Universe

quote:

---

I am sorry that I can't answer all your questions, but in my opinion the observational evidence is enough to show that stars form by the formation and collapse of relatively dense condensations in larger interstellar clouds, even if we don't understand everything about the process.

---

I can appreciate your opinion, but the fact still remains that a actual model in physics is nonexistent, concerning even a single star formation in the early universe. The parameters under which star formation could occur involve more than undetermined apparatus , but defy physical phenomena (gas action in a vacuum).My opinion is that star formation can not be assumed to have a specific time value if we do not know the mechanism.

quote:

---

The conclusion is that we have observations of stars forming in giant molecular clouds and in active galaxies, and that we have empirical and theoretical evidence for the time-scale of star formation. I have not said anything about star formation in the early universe; the first stars may have been more massive than modern stars, and so would have formed more quickly. However, the redshifts (and therefore the look-back times) of the most distant galaxies suggest that they began to form about 500 million years after the Big Bang.

---

Well I might bring up the fact that the oldest known star in the universe is HD 140283, which appears to be 14.3 billion years old, slightly older than the universe. Well if you consider the error of estimation to be .8 billion years, this star supposedly formed shortly after the big bang (although there is no evidence a star could form at all). It is interesting to note that it is a population II star, having low concentrations of metals. So you would have a population III star (mostly hydrogen) form, age and become a super nova in less than 400 million (corrected) years. Then HD 140283 formed from population III supernova in that same 400 million (corrected) years. This seems (Impossible) unlikely.
By the way population III stars apparently don’t exist or have never been observed. Population III should be very plentiful at long distances as observed from earth.See
Star found, older than Abe Vigoda
HD 140283 - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Can you either explain your reasons for rejecting this evidence, or give your own explanation for the detailed facts that I have adduced? Simply saying 'an actual model in physics is non-existent' isn't enough.

---

We are just getting started.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

For example, for a Bok globule consisting of molecular hydrogen with T = 10 K and a number density of 50 billion molecules per cubic metre, a condensation with a mass of 10 to the 30 kg (0.5 solar masses) will contract under its own weight.

---

The problem is not mass it is Jeans’s radius or length.

quote:

---

Sadly I see that nobody has explained to you how the distance to SN1987A was determined. It is really quite simple ... and fun

---

You miss the point completely, the problem is relating the age of the universe. We can see objects 45 billion years ago in time (but light could only have traveld 13.4 billion light years). It is not a matter of relating the speed of light to distances, it is a matter of the assumed inflation epoch.citation for the visible universe (size not age). Observable universe - WikipediaHere are the 3 ways you measure he age of the universe.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/age.htmlBy the way good information anyway.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

I missed the cosmological estimation of age of the universe. Sorry, here is a brief description:"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time." wikiThis related to more of my point than the other estimate methods.

quote:

---

You might want to check your numbers. 400 billion years seems to undermine your argument.

---

You are correct. Unsure about the exact accepted age of the universe at this time, I will correct it to 400 million years.Nobody is reading this except you.... thanksEdited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Does any of this suggest a 6000 year old Earth/universe?

---

Why are you so enamored with 6000 years?

quote:

---

How do you estimate this probability?

---

Since HD140283 is older than the estimated age of the universe with an uncertainty of .8 billion years. The 400 million years would be the overlap of uncertainties between the age of the universe and the age of HD140283.I would claim that HD140283 would have to have formed 400 million years after inflation. Likely this time frame would be impossible, because some Population III stars would have to have formed, aged and went supernova before HD140283 could have formed (that by metals available in the early universe).

quote:

---

Because this is the number creationists such as yourself frequently claim for the age of everything.
And in fact, you have mentioned that number in a previous post.
Are you denying that the whole point of all of your posts is to support an age of about 6000 years?

---

I challenge you to read and find out what Genesis 1 says. The heavens and the Earth were first created then afterward was the six days of creation (concerning electromagnetic radiation, earth from a void state and life). The 6000 years you speak of do not allow a gap between the creation of the heavens and the Earth and the 6 days of creation. The gap is just some interpretation I happen to agree with. I am not set in stone on these issues because my understanding is always improving with information.

quote:

---

You have yet to start, but you're already putting up propositions with errors in them and making assertions without backing them up.

---

Ok, I need specifics from you about what is not backed up. Everyone makes errors, even you.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The stars that go super nova are the very large ones. Very large stars have lifetimes measured in a few million years with the largest having even smaller life times. Given that, what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283? And given the vastness of the universe, what is the basis for assuming that it is unlikely that there is not at least one HD140283? 1 in 10? 1 in 10^9?

---

There is an inconstancy with population III stars, if they were large and ended in supernova they were likely to have dispersed the metals they formed. If they formed black holes the metals they formed were sucked in. Waive your hands to make all the problems just go away.

quote:

---

what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283?

---

Restating my point: There was not enough time for HD140283 to have formed since the end of inflation. Simply because population III stars did not have enough time to form, age and go supernova. HD140283 was a low metal star not a zero metal star when it formed.Your assertion that Population III stars are super massive is even outdated.Large, short lived stars in the early universe create more problems than they answer. Consider the following Population III Stars And The Early Universe Get A New Hypothesis | Science 2.0Smaller stars with less initial metal last longer. So there goes the short lived population III idea. Also population III stars have never been observed (your whole point could be a fairytale).There is a struggle to produce a realistic star formation model without producing numerous paradoxes. So far there is no comprehensive and scientific star formation model.All your hand waiving about stars and there formation is pure speculation and off subject. We were discussing the age of the universe. I still say that stars add nothing to question of the age of the universe.

quote:

---

Two other things that SN1987A confirm are:

​

1 the speed of light has been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred, and
2 radiation decay rates have been constant within measurable error since the nova occurred.
This also confirms a minimum age for the universe of 168,000 years, but also that this is not even close to the real age. The real age must be significantly longer for this star to form and reach the point of going nova.
And it gives us a yardstick to check other star distances.

---

I will give you point 1I think CMB is a better gauge for universe age as it relates to BB.When we talk about age, you may not be considering GR and maybe a gravity well effect for time. This would be a characteristic of a cosmology that disregards the current cosmological principle.NoNukes has set the current topic of this conversation, I am waiting for NoNukes to run out of gas. Let us talk about your points when the former permits.

That is just funny You know God loves the ignorant too At least the un-willful ones.

By the way.... Cheers, it is happy hour here.

quote:

---

Why should I read it? There are so many creationists and other believers who are willing to tell me what it says.
Unfortunately, there is seldom any real agreement among them as to what it means.

---

You are right I have studied scripture for over 30 years and there are still parts that escape my full understanding.The parts I do understand are always fully consistent with the gospel story and satisfy every test of scrutiny.