|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I will give you point 1 I 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
That is just funny You know God loves the ignorant too At least the un-willful ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
By the way.... Cheers, it is happy hour here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Restatements are not arguments. There was plenty of time.
Smaller 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). Smaller stars are not the ones that would provide early super novas either. Your source does not claim that there were no large population III stars. At best they were rarer than they are now. So no, that does not eliminate the possibility of large stars at all. HD140283 seems to be fairly unique.
Also population III stars have never been observed (your whole point could be a fairytale) If that were the case, then low metal stars would not be much of an issue, would they? We would instead be back to wondering how stars formed at all? As I've argued before, after 13.x billion years, visible population III stars ought to be fairly rare. The small ones at large distances will be undetectable and the big ones would be all gone. ABE: Just looked up some numbers the size of star that can form a type II supernova is about 10 solar masses. The expected life time of such stars is 31 million years. The expected lifetime of a 25 solar mass star is about 3 million years. These time frames are quite small compared to 400 million years. On the other hand, a star having a lifetime of an appreciable portion of 400 million years would be about 4 solar masses. Exactly what limits does your article put on the sizes of population III stars? Oh wait, it doesn't give any such details. End ABE: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I will give you point 1 Point 2 is confirmed by seeing the (β ) decay chain 56Ni → 56Co → 56Fe SN 1987A - Wikipedia
quote: The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements.
I think CMB is a better gauge for universe age as it relates to BB. So you agree with the 13.7980.037 billion years, currently accepted age?
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. And you may not be considering aspects of string theory and the 'brane model ... Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Nice try, but again it is best to express a condescending attitudes when you are right about something. This proposition of yours is total nonsense. Black holes are not super vacuums. The gravity surrounding a black hole is perfectly normal unless you are well within the event horizon. For a very large black hole, there would be no sensation of having crossed the event horizon. Formation of a black hole would not prevent metal from being dispersed. We would expect a 50 solar mass star to leave behind a black hole of only a few solar masses. The rest of the mass is dispersed. I know I should cite a source for this, but I'm not going to bother. Such sources are pretty hard to avoid... Okay... My conscience started bothering me... Science
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I 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. I'm well aware of your belief in alternate cosmologies. But when the discussion gets there you'll be tasked with showing that those cosmologies are more plausible than current cosmology. In the meantime, it is interesting that there are non-cosmological methods for putting limits on the age of the universe. I highly doubt that you can propose a gravity well explanation for SN1987a or the ages of the sun and the moon because those things are too close to the earth. But we'll see.
I am waiting for NoNukes to run out of gas. Amusing.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 153 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
7
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. If you look at photographs of the Crab Nebula, the Cygnus Loop and other supernova remnants, you will see that supernovae do disperse their material into interstellar space.
Large, short lived stars in the early universe create more problems than they answer. Consider the following ... quote: Thank-you for this interesting reference.
quote: In other words, what your reference is saying is that a model of less massive stars in binary systems yields metal abundances in better agreement with observations than a model of single supermassive stars. The original paper was published in 'Science' (vol. 325, no. 5940, pp. 601-605) on 31 July 2009 as 'The formation of Population III binaries from cosmological initial conditions. According to the abstract,
quote: A 50 solar mass clump that breaks up into two cores having a mass ratio of two to one yields two clumps with individual masses of 33 and 16 solar masses. A 16 solar mass star has a life-span of about 15 million years, whereas a 33 solar mass star has a life-span of about 2-3 million years. Both life-spans are much less than the ~400 million years between the Big Bang and the formation of HD 140283, so there would have been plenty of time for these massive binary systems to form and go supernova, dispersing their newly formed metals into space, before HD 140283 was born.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: The citation claimed that Population III stars were primarily binary star systems and yes smaller. HD 140283 in not rarer than population III stars. Population III stars should dominate the farthest stellar objects observed, but they do not. In fact no population III stars are present, to the surprise of astronomy.
quote: Your point is valid, but it is just speculation at this point if these stars even existed. Since finding a population III star would be one of the most significant finds in modern astronomy. Without any empirical evidence of a population III star, no one can claim that all metals except lithium were created in stars. And how old is the milky way? Another question is star birth rate verses star death rate. The last supernova observed in our galaxy was 147 years ago, yet the birth rate of stars in our galaxy is estimated to be about 1 new star a year. In a galaxy that is as old as the universe a equilibrium should now exist between star births and deaths. Just a thought. Edited by zaius137, : Removed my statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 153 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
The last supernova observed in our galaxy was 147 years ago This should have been in 1867, but the last directly observed supernova that I know about was Kepler's supernova in 1604, 410 years ago. Can you tell me more about SN 1867, such as who observed it and which constellation it was in?I'll try to discuss your other points in another post; it's late, and I ought to be asleep.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
primarily binary star systems and yet smaller Primarily. Not exclusively. And exclusively is what you need to establish. Were they all less than 10 solar masses? Why would that be? Stars we find today are also primarily smaller than the sun. But then there is Eta Carinae. As for dominating the most distant stars, population III stars would not dominate the most distant visible stars. And to confirm population III requires spectroscopic information. The big easily visible ones are all gone. Who knows how many tiny population stars that are close to 13billion years old there might be. Are you going to address this or pretend that it has not been said. Also, new stars can be formed at any distance. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Avoiding population III stars altogether Just for fun. Age of the universe = 13.7 billion years Dark age of the universe = 400 million years
Until around 400 million years after the Big Bang, the Universe was a very dark place. There were no stars, and there were no galaxies. Scientists would like to unravel the story of exactly what happened after the Big Bang. The James Webb Space Telescope will pierce this veil of mystery and reveal the story of the formation of the first stars and galaxies in the Universe. Early Universe - Webb/NASA 13.7 billion years - 400 million years = 13.3 billion years (first stars) minimum age of HD140283 = 14.3 billion years - 800 million years = 13.5 billion years 13.3 billion years (first stars) is less than the minimum age of HD 140283 (13.5) billion years. HD 140283 is older than the universe. Any earlier estimates for star formation are based on dark matter. Dark matter is a ad-hoc concoction to balance the equation of state for BB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3434 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: You are correct... I am sorry my friend, I mixed up that date. The actual date was: The last directly observed supernova in the Milky Way was Kepler's Star of 1604 (SN 1604) Supernova - Wikipedia 410 years ago I stand corrected. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024