Astronomers have found the “oldest stars ever”, but how do they know these stars are old? That’s the returning question about astronomy. And there never is a scientific answer.
“The newly identified stars reported in the journal Nature, date back to almost 13.6 billion years, just 200 million years after the birth of the universe.” These numbers sound really exact, like the astronomers really know how to calculate them. But how do they know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? And how do they know that 200 million years later these stars were formed? It’s not like anyone was there to write it down or take photos and it’s way to far to do any research. So it sounds like these numbers are just chosen based on wishful thinking and the needs of the astronomers.
“The stars we’re looking at would have formed only a couple of million years after the very first stars began to shine,” Only a couple of million years. Again, that’s very exact, but what does mrs. Howes base this on? Did she take samples that she compared with samples from other stars? Or course not, for these stars are assumed to be at very, very large distances away from us. Astronomers always show a remarkably lack of facts and an awful lot of wishful thinking.
“These stars live very close to the centre of the galaxy and have probably been there for almost the entire age of the universe.” The centre of the galaxy? So on the other side of the galaxy is another universe the size of what we have at our side. Interesting. I would like to know how they know this. But I actually agree that these stars have probably been there for the entire age of the universe. Just like all other stars. We just disagree about origin and age of these stars.
“about 25,000 light-years away.” If you know that one light-year is 9 460 730 472 580 km you will the absurdity of these statements. “Because these stars have been around for so long they retain the information in their atmospheres about what the universe was like when it formed,” And how will you get that information? Mrs. Howes, do you know how far 25,000 light-years is? It’s really time to get a bit serious.
“So, by discovering these stars we can work out details about what elements were around in the early universe.” Wait a moment. You think you know what stars at 25,000 light-years distance are made of? You would need more than basic psychic abilities to know this. You would need intergalactic abilities and sorry, you are limited to this earth. “It will tell us how the very first stars formed and most crucially how they died, which will give us an idea of their size and the time scales involved.” And now you dive so deep into fairy tale land, that it becomes pathetic. You cannot possibly be serious. But I suppose you are, for else you wouldn’t publish this in an official magazine.
“very ancient chemical compositions.” And how do you know what kind of chemical elements there are at stars that far away? Have you ever considered the possibility that they are made of substances unknown to us here on earth? Oops. “The Big Bang gave rise to a universe filled only with hydrogen, helium, and trace levels of lithium.” And now we are entering the stage of religious beliefs. You cannot possibly be a scientist and believe in the Big Bang. These two just don’t go together. So it’s not strange that from here the article is just filled with wild stories, that are based on nothing.
The truth is that our brains are limited to earth and we cannot possibly imagine or understand what happens outside our solar system. That means that astronomy is almost completely based on dreams, fantasies, believes and fiction. Passing this off as science makes for a very pathetic story.