Star age Measurements

On 17/05/2013 6:44 PM, David Levy wrote:
I would like to get your advice with regards to the Star age
Measurements.

This is critical element for any theory. This is a key element for
confirming the Big bang theory. Therefore, I was quite surprise to find
that this key measurement is actually based on the Big Bang theory.

Based on Wiki it is stated:

"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of
its age. When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang
theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through
primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and
only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements.
Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such
as our Sun."

So the science is measuring the star age based on the fundamental Idea
of the Big bang.
With the results of the star age they are coming back and reconfirm the
Big bang theory.

This only works for roughly comparing & categorizing really old stars
(mainly first and second generation) vs. modern ones (third generation).
The earliest generation stars were hydrogen monsters, converting a lot
of hydrogen into heavier stuff, and blowing up really quickly. They were
the earliest supernovas, and they created and polluted the galaxies with
all of the heavy elements above helium all of the way upto uranium.
They're all dead by now.

All later generations of stars had little bits of the first generation
stars' grit embedded inside them. The second generation right after the
first generation had some of this grit in them, but not much. There
should still be a few second generation stars left in the galaxy. Then
the third generation had even more of this grit than the second
generation. However, this is not a linear relationship, you don't have
successive generations of stars getting grittier and grittier. In fact,
all current generation stars are considered 3rd generation, whether they
were born 5 billion years ago, or yesterday. That's because 3rd gen
stars are mostly indistinguishable in terms of metallicity. The galaxies
aren't getting more metallic, so you need other methods to distinguish
one 3rd generation star from another.

This might be radicals and contradicts a basic common sense.
I assume that without the big bang theory, the Science could develop
some other method for Star age measurements.

They have, metallicity is hardly the only way to determine the age of a
star, they also use its mass, its temperature, brightness, etc. As I
said, all stars are 3rd generation now, so metallicity is not the only
way to determine a star's age, nor even the best way.

For example, we know that the Sun is 4.5 Gyears old. It's a yellow star
in the main sequence of a certain mass, and a certain temperature and
brightness. When it was first born, it was still yellow, but it produced
about 30% less heat than it does now, and also a little bit dimmer. It
grows in heat roughly 10% per billion years, while in the main sequence.
It'll be at its brightest of the main sequence in about another 5
billion years, when it will be about 50% brighter than today, just
before it enters the red giant phase. So there's lots of ways to tell a
star's age.

Yousuf Khan

On 17/05/2013 6:44 PM, David Levy wrote:
So the science is measuring the star age based on the fundamental Idea
of the Big bang.

Not true, as others have written. In any case, the Big Bang is now
so well supported by so many lines of evidence that using it as a
constraint on star ages is justified.

With the results of the star age they are coming back and reconfirm the
Big bang theory.

Star ages, where they can be measured independently, are consistent
with Big Bang theory, but they are not considered significant
evidence in favor of the Big Bang.

The Steady State model, referred to in a later post, is utterly
dead. The distant universe looks completely different from the local
universe, contrary to the basic Steady State prediction. I suppose
the Big Bang model could turn out to be wrong (though whatever
replaces it will have to look a lot like the Big Bang through the
last 10 or so Gyr), but Steady State is out.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
[Metallicity] only works for roughly comparing & categorizing really old stars
(mainly first and second generation) vs. modern ones (third generation).

All basically correct but perhaps in need of some clarification.
With few exceptions, there is no mechanism for destroying metals once
created. Therefore, on average, metallicity increases with time. In
the Milky Way, there are no young stars with low metallicity because
the gas out of which stars form has long since been "polluted" with
metals. However, location matters, and young stars formed in the
Galactic outskirts can have lower metallicity than old stars formed
nearer the center.

As Yousuf Khan wrote:
[age-metallicity] is not a linear relationship, you don't have
successive generations of stars getting grittier and grittier.

Basically right, but there aren't strict generations; stars are
forming all the time in the Milky Way.

The galaxies aren't getting more metallic,

Metallicity in individual galaxies is increasing with time but at
different rates in different galaxies.

metallicity is hardly the only way to determine the age of a star,

As (I think) Mike and Martin wrote, metallicity is not a measure of
stellar age except in the crudest approximation. In fact, measuring
ages for individual stars is extremely difficult. Measuring ages for
star clusters is somewhat easier, though. The key is to determine
the mass of the most massive main sequence stars in the cluster, then
use stellar evolution theory to determine the main sequence lifetime
for stars at that mass. Because more massive stars have left the
main sequence, that gives the age of the cluster.

For ages of individual stars, you have to know quite a lot of
detailed information. State of the art is the Sun's age via
helioseismology, but that sort of detail isn't available for many
stars. There are rough indicators such as photospheric lithium
abundance (which decreases with age but reaches zero pretty quickly)
and chromospheric activity, but these are mainly relative indicators
for stars that are otherwise similar.

all stars are 3rd generation now, so metallicity is not the only
way to determine a star's age, nor even the best way.

Basically true for most stars. Some stars are "2nd generation"
(referred to as Population II, but the populations go the opposite
way to generations). Pop II stars have lower metallicity than "3rd
generation" (Pop I) stars, but as I wrote above, there is no direct
relation between metallicity and age for either population.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On May 22, 8:54*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
On 17/05/2013 6:44 PM, David Levy wrote:
So the science is measuring the star age based on the fundamental Idea
of the Big bang.

Not true, as others have written. *In any case, the Big Bang is now
so well supported by so many lines of evidence that using it as a
constraint on star ages is justified.


'Big bang' is so logically corrupt that it requires a dysfunctional
mind to ignore the internal inconsistencies or rather,the acceptance
of logical consistency.

Because the idea of past is bumped up to present observations as an
evolutionary timeline it means that the oldest galaxies being the
furthest in a smaller Universe will generate, by logical consistency,
the perception that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in a larger
Universe.I wouldn't know what to make of people who propose such a
structure but that is exactly what the wider view looks like.







Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On May 17, 5:44*am, David Levy
wrote:
I would like to get your advice with regards to the Star age
Measurements.

This is critical element for any theory. This is a key element for
confirming the Big bang theory. Therefore, I was quite surprise to find
that this key measurement is actually based on the Big Bang theory.

Based on Wiki it is stated:

"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of
its age. When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang
theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through
primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and
only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements.
Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such
as our Sun."

So the science is measuring the star age based on the fundamental Idea
of the Big bang.
With the results of the star age they are coming back and reconfirm the
Big bang theory.

This might be radicals and contradicts a basic common sense.
I assume that without the big bang theory, the Science could develop
some other method for Star age measurements.

Please advice.

--
David Levy

Mainstream science and even its physics is highly dependent upon the
Big Bang, even though there's nothing objectively supporting the BB.
In other words, we get to make do with our mainstream of circular
logic instead of objective proof of anything that truly matters.

Original BB stars of perhaps at least 1000+ solar mass(2+e33 kg) and
supposedly comprised of only hydrogen that lasted at best a few years,
is where that initial hydrogen fusion process created helium and
eventually every other known element of metallicity. So, newer stars
are those of considerably lower mass (under 10 SM), as well as having
a much higher helium content and/or hosting those heavier elements of
metals as well as their having created numerous planets that by now
should far outnumber all the stars (including brown dwarfs that are
actually large gas giants with perhaps a hundred moons each)
combined. Some of us would speculate there's at least a thousandfold
as many planets as stars, and the vast majority of them planets got
created a billion years before our solar system even formed.

The rate of hydrogen fusion consumption can be used to estimate the
given age and/or lifespan of stars, although helium fusion driven
stars are entirely another issue.

Dear Brad Guth:

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:06:45 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
....
Mainstream science and even its physics is highly
dependent upon the Big Bang, even though there's
nothing objectively supporting the BB.

Say what?

In other words, we get to make do with our
mainstream of circular logic instead of objective
proof of anything that truly matters.

We can use actual data to get us back to a few hundred million years of the CMBR. And this data without "assuming" a Big Bang, points to a much smaller Universe at that time.

Beyond this CMBR curtain, Science does not do "proof", you know this, yet you continue posturing. We have theory where we have data, and cosmology (including the Big Bang) is largely "extrapolation" at best.

Does lying include what you think "truly matters"? Please do not continue to present Science arriving at any sort of proof, or failing because it *never* can do this. Only Religion, Philosophy, and Law have proofs.

David A. Smith