How we know stars life times

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:
We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years.

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:





On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. *The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years.

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. *There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. *Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Give it millions of years to observe the stars before extrapolating
lifespans in a universe that is 44 billion years old.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Jan 27, 12:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. *The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years.

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. *There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. *Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Give it millions of years to observe the stars before extrapolating
lifespans in a universe that is 44 billion years old.

Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't say they were always right, because there seems to be lots of
astrophysics and metallicity variables. However, the fusion process
is at least somewhat understood, especially since some of our nukes
are at least partly fusion for extra kick.

Essentially, doubling the mass of a given star cuts it’s life before
turning into a WD, NS or BH by at least 1:4 (25%).

In other words, a 10 Ms progenitor star probably isn’t going to last
but 1% as long as our sun. Our sun started off at perhaps 2.01e30 kg
as of 5e9 years ago, and we got another 6~7e9 years to go before that
red giant phase gets the best of us, and implodes down into a WD that
isn’t going to have enough gravity to hold onto whatever is left of
its planets.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 28, 3:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:23*pm, "
wrote:





On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. *The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years.

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. *There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. *Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Give it millions of years to observe the stars before extrapolating
lifespans in a universe that is 44 billion years old.

Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't say they were always right, because there seems to be lots of
astrophysics and metallicity variables. *However, the fusion process
is at least somewhat understood, especially since some of our nukes
are at least partly fusion for extra kick.

Essentially, doubling the mass of a given star cuts it’s life before
turning into a WD, NS or BH by at least 1:4 (25%).

In other words, a 10 Ms progenitor star probably isn’t going to last
but 1% as long as our sun. *Our sun started off at perhaps 2.01e30 kg
as of 5e9 years ago, and we got another 6~7e9 years to go before that
red giant phase gets the best of us, and implodes down into a WD that
isn’t going to have enough gravity to hold onto whatever is left of
its planets.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am saying we can't even know much but a very little data on the
astronomical. Astronomy and science are so young.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Jan 28, 9:46*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 27, 12:23*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. *The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years.

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. *There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. *Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Give it millions of years to observe the stars before extrapolating
lifespans in a universe that is 44 billion years old.

Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't say they were always right, because there seems to be lots of
astrophysics and metallicity variables. *However, the fusion process
is at least somewhat understood, especially since some of our nukes
are at least partly fusion for extra kick.

Essentially, doubling the mass of a given star cuts it’s life before
turning into a WD, NS or BH by at least 1:4 (25%).

In other words, a 10 Ms progenitor star probably isn’t going to last
but 1% as long as our sun. *Our sun started off at perhaps 2.01e30 kg
as of 5e9 years ago, and we got another 6~7e9 years to go before that
red giant phase gets the best of us, and implodes down into a WD that
isn’t going to have enough gravity to hold onto whatever is left of
its planets.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am saying we can't even know much but a very little data on the
astronomical. Astronomy and science are so young.

Mitchell Raemsch

No argument there.

Most complex species of life on Earth is a good thousand fold older
and better adapted than us humans.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 29, 1:50*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:46*pm, "
wrote:





On Jan 28, 3:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:23*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 26, 8:56*pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 26, 5:51*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:22*pm, "
wrote:

We don't. We have extrapolated for something that will take millions
of years of scientific observation of so many stars. Objectivity to
time span comes only by more time with more stars observed.

Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize

Really big and nasty stars haven't lasted very long, so there's a
direct correlation that computes fairly well. *Red dwarfs (1e30 kg or
less) should last nearly forever.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

The age of the universe is far older than it would be based on light
speed expansion. Universal space expansion has always been slower than
light therefore the light year distance age for it is wrong.
13.7 billion years is far too young.

The universe instead is far older. It is 44 billion years *of less
than light speed expansion. This is the hypersphere universe expanding
and it is closed.

Mitchell Raemsch

I totally agree. *The universe is perhaps at least twice 13.7e9 old,
or even older than your deductive speculation of 44 billion years..

The maximum universe recession away from any given point could be as
limited as 0.5 c, unless we're going at 0.5c in the exact opposite
direction. *There's also too much mass and subsequent gravity for this
expansion to continue indefinitely unless the outer aether is made of
antimatter.

However, once the outer antimatter of aether starts to react with the
ordinary matter of our universe, it'll only take another radii worth
of billions of years before kissing our butts is the only option. *Of
course, long before then our sun will have become a WD, and otherwise
dealing with the doom and gloom of the GA and encountering the
Andromeda galaxy isn't exactly offering good outcomes.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Give it millions of years to observe the stars before extrapolating
lifespans in a universe that is 44 billion years old.

Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't say they were always right, because there seems to be lots of
astrophysics and metallicity variables. *However, the fusion process
is at least somewhat understood, especially since some of our nukes
are at least partly fusion for extra kick.

Essentially, doubling the mass of a given star cuts it’s life before
turning into a WD, NS or BH by at least 1:4 (25%).

In other words, a 10 Ms progenitor star probably isn’t going to last
but 1% as long as our sun. *Our sun started off at perhaps 2.01e30 kg
as of 5e9 years ago, and we got another 6~7e9 years to go before that
red giant phase gets the best of us, and implodes down into a WD that
isn’t going to have enough gravity to hold onto whatever is left of
its planets.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am saying we can't even know much but a very little data on the
astronomical. Astronomy and science are so young.

Mitchell Raemsch

No argument there.

Most complex species of life on Earth is a good thousand fold older
and better adapted than us humans.

I think we will be proven just as adaptive.

Mitchell Raemsch


*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -