HVAC wrote:

On 2/12/2015 12:29 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
The processes that lead to the formation of stars, and the formation of
planets, take a lot of time, in total a lot more than just 2.8 billion
years.

As a result, given that the universe is "only" about 13.8 billion years
old, there cannot be planets that are 11 billion years old.

I disagree. If you have ANY evidence for this, present it.

I already did. However, apparently you did not read my entire posting:
There is evidence now that there are planets that old because a star
(Kepler-444) has been discovered that is supposed to be that old (because of
area of space in which it was found), and there are 5 planets orbiting that
star. So the statement above needs to be revised by 200 million years to
2.5 billion years, give or take an eon ;-)

It still does not allow for planets that are 4 billion years older than
their star.

Please do not crosspost without Followup-To; avoid crossposting across
top- level hierarchies, certainly across alt.ALL and sci.physics (there
is sci.astronomy). F'up2 sci.physics set.

Don't EVER tell me what to do asshole.

I did not tell you; I asked you.

I'll hit you with so many lefts, you'll beg me for a right.

Fascinating.

As for sci.astronomy, it actually is sci.astro; actually sci.astro.ALL,
comprising an entire hierarchy of astronomy newsgroups. F'up2 there.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.