Question About 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.

Restatements are not arguments. There was plenty of time. 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. 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.

Point 2 is confirmed by seeing the (β ) decay chain 56Ni → 56Co → 56FeSN 1987A - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Much of the "light curve," or graph of luminosity as a function of time, after the explosion of a Type II Supernova such as SN 1987A is dominated by radioactive decay processes. The radioactive decay of 56Ni through 56Co to 56Fe produces high-energy photons that dominate the energy output of the ejecta at intermediate (several weeks) to late times (several months).[17] The peak of the light curve was caused by the decay of 56Ni to 56Co (half life 6 days) while the later light curve of SN 1987A in particular fit very closely with the 77.3 day half-life of 56Co decaying to 56Fe.

---

The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements. So you agree with the 13.7980.037 billion years, currently accepted age? And you may not be considering aspects of string theory and the 'brane model ...Enjoy.

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:

---

Stellar-mass black holes are born with a bang. They form when a very massive star (at least 25 times heavier than our Sun) runs out of nuclear fuel. The star then explodes as a supernova. What remains is a black hole, usually only a few times heavier than our Sun since the explosion has blown much of the stellar material away.

---

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. Amusing.

7If 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.

quote:

---

Population III stars were not only smaller than believed, they actually formed in binary systems, that is, pairs of stars that orbit a common center, say the results of a new simulation.

---

Thank-you for this interesting reference.

quote:

---

Very old Population III stars were made essentially of hydrogen and helium. As the stars aged and exploded as supernovae, other elements were formed and these "metals" began showing up in newer stars.

​

"What we have here," said O'Shea, "is a fundamental disconnect between observations and theory, because these really massive stars would have produced a different set of metal abundances than what we see in old stars in our galaxy. If a lot of the Population III stars end up being in binary systems, then overall they would be less massive and so when they inevitably died, the metals they produced would be in much better agreement with what we see observationally."

---

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:

---

Previous high-resolution cosmological simulations predicted that the first stars to appear in the early universe were very massive and formed in isolation. Here, we discuss a cosmological simulation in which the central 50 M⊙ (where M⊙ is the mass of the Sun) clump , with one fragment collapsing to densities of grams per cubic centimeter. The second fragment, at a distance of ~800 astronomical units, is also optically thick to its own cooling radiation from molecular hydrogen lines but is still able to cool via collision-induced emission. The two dense peaks will continue to accrete from the surrounding cold gas reservoir over a period of years and will likely form a binary star system.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Avoiding population III stars altogetherJust for fun.Age of the universe = 13.7 billion yearsDark age of the universe = 400 million years 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 years13.3 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are correct...I am sorry my friend, I mixed up that date. The actual date was: 410 years ago I stand corrected.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.