First Stars Formed Relatively Fast : Othor Games

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:37 am

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/07/first-stars-formed-fast.html

I wish the article was clearer as to how fast.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:44 pm

What exactly do you want us to discuss here...? You didn't even say anything.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:18 pm

What exactly do you want us to discuss here...? You didn't even say anything.

Fist of the North Star.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:48 pm

This thread has a lot of structure.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:25 am

All of rmctagg's threads follow this format, and you're choosing now to complain? Lowbrows. :rolleyes:

Its quite simple really. Hydrogen atoms took less time to form than we previously thought. These atoms formed the first stars, which leads to galactic formations and the existing model of the universe.

This opens up questions as to whether our model of the universe's timescale and layout is inaccurate.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:16 pm

This opens up questions as to whether our model of the universe's timescale and layout is inaccurate.

If I know anything about factors and astro-physics, which I don't, I'd say its messed up. We just get to see how bad scientists got it wrong.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:10 pm

All of rmctagg's threads follow this format, and you're choosing now to complain? Lowbrows. :rolleyes:

Its quite simple really. Hydrogen atoms took less time to form than we previously thought. These atoms formed the first stars, which leads to galactic formations and the existing model of the universe.

This opens up questions as to whether our model of the universe's timescale and layout is inaccurate.

That's what I was getting at. This does raise questions about our current understanding of the universe.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:16 pm

That's what I was getting at. This does raise questions about our current understanding of the universe.

I don't think it invalidates any current ideas about when and how the universe formed -- as if anybody thought they knew that to a certainty, anyway. But it does give us a much more precise time range for an important process, and maybe some models inconsistent with that time range will have to be revised.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:02 pm

My friend said to me the other day "the Sun isn't a star". To which I responded "yes it is."
After a brief schooling, he said "but it's like, a special star." So I said "the only thing special about the Sun is that it is here, and not over there."

This had me thinking for a while about how we all like to - for lack of a better word - exaggerate, for better or for nothing.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:18 am

I believe most of them had worked hard in the theatre and music halls before becoming big

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:11 pm

Not trying to bring in a debate, but not everyone believes in the whole Big Bang thing.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:31 am

Not trying to bring in a debate, but not everyone believes in the whole Big Bang thing.

I'm aware of that.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:47 pm

It's like when you join the forums, that first star can come pretty fast, but it'll take forever to get to Archpatriarch.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:47 am

It's like when you join the forums, that first star can come pretty fast, but it'll take forever to get to Archpatriarch.

That's a good way to put it.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:21 pm

It's like when you join the forums, that first star can come pretty fast, but it'll take forever to get to Archpatriarch.

Took a Month for some other guy to get it.

But that was when The 60 second rule didn't exist

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:56 am

We just get to see how bad scientists got it wrong.

:rolleyes:

Not trying to bring in a debate, but not everyone believes in the whole Big Bang thing.

:rolleyes:

Do we really need a science bashing thread in here?

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:42 am

:rolleyes:

Wow, I should preface all further statements with "this comment is not restricted to the realm of young earth creationism"

Scientiks got the timescale wrong, thats what we just heard in all of the article.

This opens up questions as to whether our model of the universe's timescale and layout is inaccurate.

If I know anything about factors and astro-physics, which I don't, I'd say its messed up. We just get to see how bad scientists got it wrong.

...in terms of how much the time factor was miscalculated.

High-five preconceptions. No hard feelings, but best to just drop that on the onset of the post and actually say something.

» Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:27 pm

Closed for religious talk. We are not going to use these forums to dispute the rightness or wrongness of any religious belief, or whether any science is or is not contrary to any religious belief. Since members have not observed that longstanding forum rule, we cannot have this thread.