Star age Measurements

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 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.

You make it sound like a circular argument, but it isn't. Star ages were
established by analysis of the HR diagrams of star clusters. It was found
in the 1950s that globular star clusters, for example, were of order 10
billion years old. By then the age of the Earth had been fairly well
established at about 4-4.5 billion years. The problem at the time was that
Hubble expansion was indicating a cosmological age of around 5-8 billion
years. It was far more difficult to make meaningful estimates of distances
of far away galaxies back then so it was accepted that the figures for
cosmological age were probably wrong, but it turned out that fixing this
would take many years of serious effort and require new technology.


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.

Indeed, the theory of stellar evolution came up with the tools during the
1950s and these were greatly improved from around 1960 with the advent of
large-enough amounts of computer power.


Please advice.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Thanks Mike

You make it sound like a circular argument, but it isn't.

Do you mean that the current star age measurement doesn't depend on the big bang theory?
If so, then a star age should not be measured based on its metallicities composition.
Therefore, how do we currently estimate a star age?

The age of the Earth had been fairly well established at about 4-4.5 billion years.

I assume that the Science has estimated this age by measuring the solid ground and rocks at the Earth. in this case a fundamental assumption was taken - that the Earth was a rocky star from day one. Never the less, if the Earth was born as a hot star with mixing boiled matter of melting Lava and hot Gas, then by definition, there might be a sever error in this age estimation.
Hence, for example - if it took the Earth 5 Billion year to cool down the surface and set the first solid rocks and ground, than by definition its age is 5 + 4.5 Billion years.
Do you agree?

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 18/05/2013 8:24 PM, David Levy wrote:
Thanks Mike

You make it sound like a circular argument, but it isn't.
Do you mean that the current star age measurement doesn't depend on the
big bang theory?

Well, it does, but only indirectly. Everything in the Universe depends
on the BBT, but simply as a means to set the upper age limits. If for
example an object is found to be older than the BBT's estimate of the
age of the Universe, then there must be something wrong with the
estimate of the age of the object. Most objects have comfortably fit
under the age of the Universe, with a few being estimated to be older
based on the upper range of its error bars, but the lower range still
within, that's all.

If so, then a star age should not be measured based on its metallicities
composition.
Therefore, how do we currently estimate a star age?

That's been explained to you in my other message to you. The
metallicities are basically some interesting factoids that differentiate
between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation stars, that's all. As an estimate
of star ages, they aren't all that useful.

The age of the Earth had been fairly well established at about 4-4.5
billion years.
I assume that the Science has estimated this age by measuring the solid
ground and rocks at the Earth. in this case a fundamental assumption was
taken - that the Earth was a rocky star from day one. Never the less, if
the Earth was born as a hot star with mixing boiled matter of melting
Lava and hot Gas, then by definition, there might be a sever error in
this age estimation.
Hence, for example - if it took the Earth 5 Billion year to cool down
the surface and set the first solid rocks and ground, than by definition
its age is 5 + 4.5 Billion years.
Do you agree?

Um, why are you calling the Earth, a star?

Yousuf Khan

David Levy wrote:
Thanks Mike

You make it sound like a circular argument, but it isn't.
Do you mean that the current star age measurement doesn't depend on
the big bang theory?

Not really. Star ages are determined mainly by comparing observations of
their position in the HR diagram (luminosity and temperature, essentially)
with carefully worked-out theoretical calculations of the evolution of a
star. The details of the calculations depend on the composition of the star
or star cluster (more usually), but this is a second order effect.

If so, then a star age should not be measured based on its
metallicities composition.
Therefore, how do we currently estimate a star age?

By detailed calculations of models of stars based on our knowledge of
physics or nuclear reactions, such as cross-sections, and also on our
detailed knowledge of the theory of behaviour of gases under extreme
conditions, for example degeneracy of stellar cores under extreme conditions
of temperature and pressure.

These calculations are compared with the HR diagrams of star clusters, and
the main evidence for the age of a cluster is found from the position of the
turn-off from the main sequence.

There is a general trend for the oldest stars (Population II) to have much
lower metal abundances than more recent stars (Population I) because metal
abundances started out as zero and stellar evolution gradually recycled
elements formed in stars back into the material that formed subsequent
generations. But composition also depends on where in the Galaxy a star
forms.


The age of the Earth had been fairly well established at about 4-4.5
billion years.
I assume that the Science has estimated this age by measuring the
solid ground and rocks at the Earth. in this case a fundamental
assumption was taken - that the Earth was a rocky star from day one.


I do not understand why you think this, not do I understand why you call the
Earth a star.

The age of the Earth is assumed to be the same as the age of the solar
system itself, which has been accurately determined from the consistent
upper age limit of meteorites. This is also consistent with the age of the
Sun itself as deduced from evolutionary models and the structure of the
interior deduced from analysis of solar vibrations (helioseismology). For
example, this shows that the core of the Sun has a reduced hydrogen content
consistent within about +/-1% of the age fround from meteorites.

Surface rocks on the Earth itself have ages ranging up to around 4 billion
years (or perhaps a bit more). This limit merely tells us the last time
these rocks were melted. It is unlikely that older rocks can be found
because this was the time of the "Late Heavy Bombardment" when most of the
craters on the Moon formed, and the Earth was also heavily bombarded.

Never the less, if the Earth was born as a hot star with mixing
boiled matter of melting Lava and hot Gas, then by definition, there
might be a sever error in this age estimation.

You assert this, but without any evidence at all.

Hence, for example - if it took the Earth 5 Billion year to cool down
the surface and set the first solid rocks and ground, than by
definition its age is 5 + 4.5 Billion years.
Do you agree?

No, assuming I am understanding what you are saying. The cooling of the
Earth did not take 5 billion years to form solid rocks. All the evidence
available shows that the Earth's surface cooled enough to form solid rock
(or oceans with crustal rock floors) pretty quickly once the early heavy
bombardments by planetesimals and asteroids ceased.

I suggest that you stop speculating and read a basic text book on astronomy
first. You will find far more detailed explanations of stellar evolution
and the history of the solar system there.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On May 19, 9:40*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

I suggest that you stop speculating and read a basic text book on astronomy
first. *You will find far more detailed explanations of stellar evolution
and the history of the solar system there.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Ah Mike,you haven't been keeping up with the latest news have
you ?.Stellar evolutionary processes have become far more interesting
lately and one of the few bright spots.no pun intended, amid the chaos
of empirical assertions is that stellar evolution may not be a simple
and single process from beginning to end and especially supernova
events.

There were no textbooks a decade ago describing the possibility that
supernova are a transition phase which give rise to solar systems
rather than the demise of a star but you could read about it in an
unmoderated Usenet forum and recently it has made its way into wider
circulation even in a vague way but containing the kernel of an idea
about a star surviving a supernova event.

That the progenitor star creates the nebula from which the elements of
a solar system are formed is tempting -

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...010/02/461.jpg

oriel36 wrote:
On May 19, 9:40 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

I suggest that you stop speculating and read a basic text book on
astronomy first. You will find far more detailed explanations of
stellar evolution and the history of the solar system there.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Ah Mike,you haven't been keeping up with the latest news have
you ?.Stellar evolutionary processes have become far more interesting
lately and one of the few bright spots.no pun intended, amid the chaos
of empirical assertions is that stellar evolution may not be a simple
and single process from beginning to end and especially supernova
events.

99.99% (or more) of stars do not undergo a supernova explosion, as they are
not massive enough.


There were no textbooks a decade ago describing the possibility that
supernova are a transition phase which give rise to solar systems
rather than the demise of a star but you could read about it in an
unmoderated Usenet forum and recently it has made its way into wider
circulation even in a vague way but containing the kernel of an idea
about a star surviving a supernova event.

That the progenitor star creates the nebula from which the elements of
a solar system are formed is tempting -

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...010/02/461.jpg

Can you provide a reference that includes papers in refereed research
literature? Usenet forums are not the most likely place where new and
exciting research will be published first.

The idea that a supernova explosion can trigger the collapse of a nearby
interstellar cloud and star formation has been around for a long time, and
some of the evidence is found in the isotopic make up of the solar system
itself. I'm not familiar with the website mentioned and I would rather not
go there in case it is a malware injection site. Just being cautious, of
course.

None of this has anything to do with my reply, though.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

In article ,
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

snip

That the progenitor star creates the nebula from which the elements of
a solar system are formed is tempting -

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...010/02/461.jpg

Can you provide a reference that includes papers in refereed research
literature? Usenet forums are not the most likely place where new and
exciting research will be published first.

The idea that a supernova explosion can trigger the collapse of a nearby
interstellar cloud and star formation has been around for a long time, and
some of the evidence is found in the isotopic make up of the solar system
itself. I'm not familiar with the website mentioned and I would rather not
go there in case it is a malware injection site. Just being cautious, of
course.

You've almost certainly seen it befo a close-up of Eta Carinae, the
Homunculus Nebula, showing the lobes of gas reminiscent of a p-orbital,
probably expanding debris from the star's XIX-century outburst.

This should be a safe version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EtaCarinae.jpg

The main problem with Oriel's hypothesis AFAICT is that a cloud like
that around Eta Car is a short-lived phenomenon: in a few millennia it
will look more like the Bubble or the Veil, a sphere whose interior has
been 'swept clean', its surface a thin film of glowing shreds. (Assuming
there isn't another outburst in the meantime -- it looks like this star
is going to 'put up a fight'.) As you say, the collision of the
shock-front with the surrounding clouds of the Keyhole Nebula might
trigger star formation in any regions that get 'compacted', but no
nova-remnant-type cloud will itself be a likely protoplanetary nebula.

--
Odysseus

On May 20, 2:45*am, Odysseus wrote:
In article ,
*"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

snip

That the progenitor star creates the nebula from which the elements of
a solar system are formed is tempting -

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...010/02/461.jpg

Can you provide a reference that includes papers in refereed research
literature? *Usenet forums are not the most likely place where new and
exciting research will be published first.

The idea that a supernova explosion can trigger the collapse of a nearby
interstellar cloud and star formation has been around for a long time, and
some of the evidence is found in the isotopic make up of the solar system
itself. *I'm not familiar with the website mentioned and I would rather not
go there in case it is a malware injection site. *Just being cautious, of
course.

You've almost certainly seen it befo a close-up of Eta Carinae, the
Homunculus Nebula, showing the lobes of gas reminiscent of a p-orbital,
probably expanding debris from the star's XIX-century outburst.

This should be a safe version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EtaCarinae.jpg

The main problem with Oriel's hypothesis AFAICT is that a cloud like
that around Eta Car is a short-lived phenomenon: in a few millennia it
will look more like the Bubble or the Veil, a sphere whose interior has
been 'swept clean', its surface a thin film of glowing shreds.

The image was meant to convey that nebula form around stars prior to a
supernova event as a rough guide to the central idea that certain
stars going supernova create a solar system after the event rather
than the usual idea of the demise of a star.It is a radical idea
however the stellar evolutionary process of supernova has a more
defined geometry to it that I was working on years before it was
actually observed -

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astron...es/sn1987a.jpg

I have a single copyright from 1990 where there are two external
rings and a smaller intersecting ring surrounding a Supernova star
whereas the first time anyone seen those images was in 1994 and I was
just as surprised as anyone else to see them.

Anyone can make an assertion that certain supernova events may be the
beginning of a solar system rather than the death of a star but as
always,it is the journey to the conclusion that matters rather than
the conclusion itself and there is not a single individual alive I
would care to explain that natural evolutionary processes,up to and
including stellar evolution,have a specific geometry attached and the
fact is I started to develop this view over 23 years ago.





As you say, the collision of the
shock-front with the surrounding clouds of the Keyhole Nebula might
trigger star formation in any regions that get 'compacted', but no
nova-remnant-type cloud will itself be a likely protoplanetary nebula.

--
Odysseus


Suit yourself,it is easier for me to handle the elements in our own
solar system as arising from our own Sun from a different phase in its
life cycle while maintaining a rough distance to the nearest stars in
our galactic orbital circuit as it is neater and less unstable than
trying to look elsewhere for solar system elements and gets
researchers out of a horrific chicken/egg dilemma of what came first -
the star or the galaxy ?.