2006-10-21 07:19:52 · 14 answers · asked by mark 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
You have some good answers, but they are not quite current with astronomical findings.
It was reported in "Nature" that an old star approximately 14 billion years old was identified that would be a "first generation" star. It is approximately the same age as the universe... so it dates close to the big bang but not before. (link below)
It can be recognized as a first generation star by the dearth of heavy elements present in it's emission spectrum... those elements are formed in stars, so this one formed before that had started happening.
I'm a strong believer in references for answers like this and add them even when I personally know the subject cold... because you don't know that. ;-)
Aloha
2006-10-21 07:36:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some interesting answers. Maybe you see the "truth" in all of them. Remember, science does not claim to give the "Truth" but to be the best, most reliable, way we have to get closer to the "Truth" by increasing and correcting our knowledge. There are all sorts of estimates and calculations that have been done on the subject of the Age of the Universe. Older science has a lot of "answers" that have been corrected (i.e. were wrong). But it is NOT scientific to say that THE answer "is" this or "is" that. DIfferent scientists have different answers. Some are popular and some are not. There are fads in science just like there are in hair styles. Probably the best way to find out what "science thinks" is to find out what of some of the Nobel prize winners (better yet those in the National Academy of Science) have to say. Most, but not all of them understand the care that must be taken when proclaiming "what we know". As to the answers which say that we can't know because we weren't there - the same answer can be used for something that happened 150 years ago - or even yesterday if you think it is possible that a tree was made with rings that didn't grow. Then you and I could have been made with memories of a yesterday that didn't happen. The most exciting part of science is when we find a contradiction - who knows where it will lead! (Unless its in something we did, then its a big whoops! (major embarassment). So science is all about understanding the world, especially things (when we can find them) that don't add up.
2006-10-21 15:37:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Current estimate for the age of the universe is 12 to 15 billion (although it can range to 20 billion years according to some sources) years, not 8.
As for the age of a star being 14 billion years, can you present your source?
2006-10-21 14:26:53 · answer #3 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are misinformed. The oldest stars are those in globular clusters and are around 10-12 billion years old. The latest evidence says the universe as a hole is about 13.7 billion years old. For a while, there seemed to be a discrepancy between the estimated age of the universe and the age of stars in globular clusters, but this was resolved when better data was accumulated on the cosmic background radiation, which records the state of the early universe.
2006-10-21 14:24:28 · answer #4 · answered by mathematician 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I think you have your info wrong, the most current estimate for the age of the universe is about 13-15 billion years. The earliest stars wouldn't have formed until a few millions to billions of years later
Check your source.
EDIT
TORI C
Evolution has nothing at all to do with Cosmology...this confusion is typical with fundies who just blindly repeat things they read on "Dr Dino"..it shows you have no understanding at all of the 2 concepts. Your ignorance is on display.
Darwins "death bed retraction" is an old fundie myth that has been passed around for years. Even "Answers in Genesis" accepts that it is not true. Of course, you guys are used to believing in myths, so I guess it's not surprising.
2006-10-21 14:28:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hi. The current estimated age of the universe is about 13.6 billion years or so. Globular clusters, the oldest star formations we are aware of, are younger than this.
2006-10-21 14:23:17 · answer #6 · answered by Cirric 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
scientists are going by approximations. Using light years to figure the age of a star or planet. No one knows the exact age anything in space actually is unless it was built by man. No one was around when our universe was forming.
2006-10-21 14:29:42 · answer #7 · answered by miamac49616 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Are you sure its universe and not solar system capped at 8 billion?
2006-10-21 14:22:20 · answer #8 · answered by Epiphany 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Build a time machine. Go back to the first days of creation, just after trees are made. Cut down the tree. It's mature, full grown, yet just made. How many rings does it have? Wait until Adam is made, bring your doctor friend with to examine him. He was just created, how old do you think the doctor will say he is? That why the differences in time. Things were created with apparent age.
2006-10-21 14:32:42 · answer #9 · answered by oklatom 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
'They' told you the age of the stars and then 'they' told you the age of the universe?
You didn't happen to check their IDs to see who 'they' were, did you?
2006-10-21 14:22:02 · answer #10 · answered by Stuart 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋