At the speed of c, I would assume everything is ‘local’ since at c time has no real meaning. I’ll have to go through the link carefully and think about it.
I had a French boss about 25 yrs ago who, when I questioned his logic, looked at me and said ‘Any fool can ask a 1000 questions a wise man couldn’t answer’.
I had a French boss about 25 yrs ago who, when I questioned his logic, looked at me and said ‘Any fool can ask a 1000 questions a wise man couldn’t answer’.
That link is wide-ranging and I simply quoted the section of it that I thought shareable. I too will have to study the link more carefully
Before consulting the link, I was going to give the following explanation which had immediately sprung to my mind:
Distant galaxies are not actually moving away from us, it is the spacetime between them and us that is expanding.
Since spacetime is immaterial it is not bound by special relativity and it can expand at any rate it likes, even faster than light.
Works well enough for little old me!
Last edited:
How does a star that formed just a few hundred million yrs after the BB appear just 200 LY away, apparently older than the Milky Way?
Methuselah: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283
Methuselah: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283
I see I've written elsewhere about the false notion of a galaxy's mass approaching infinity.
Although it's impossible for matter to move through space in a local inertial reference frame faster than the speed of light, it is possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching.
A speed of light expansion of the universe wouldn't have any effect on the matter that makes up the galaxies. The mass of the matter does not become infinite in the sense that matter approaching the speed of light in an inertial reference frame does.
I must have copied it from somewhere, but it was around 5 years ago!
I shall have to investigate the Methuselah Star at a later time!
Don't hold your breath for an answer!
Here is a list of the oldest known stars. Seems all of them are older than the Milky Way, which is estimated at between 9 and 11 billion years. It’s not possible to look at individual stars in other galaxies, but one would expect the situation to be no different. These stars are all c. 0.8 times the mass of the sun so will have much longer lifespans. However, the questions remains, how did a galaxy seemingly form around these objects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_stars
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_stars
Last edited:
No Nova tonight, again...
I do however have a picture of HD 140283, The Methuselah Star, rapidly moving and estimated at 190 Ly and, curiously, 12 Bn years old: and as bright as 5 Sols:
https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html
A regular guest in Neil DeGras Tyson's channel is Cosmologist Janna Levin. Neil likes "Starry Night" by Vincent, and so does Janna, here in the Museum of Modern Art in New York:
I was curious what the constellation is:
I see Venus and Moon in Leo, and Vincent was usually good at accuracy with stars, as in Starry Night over the Rhone which is Ursa Major.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starry_Night
But everyone says it was painted in June. Leo rises in the morning in September/October. Artistic license?
I do however have a picture of HD 140283, The Methuselah Star, rapidly moving and estimated at 190 Ly and, curiously, 12 Bn years old: and as bright as 5 Sols:
https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html
A regular guest in Neil DeGras Tyson's channel is Cosmologist Janna Levin. Neil likes "Starry Night" by Vincent, and so does Janna, here in the Museum of Modern Art in New York:
I was curious what the constellation is:
I see Venus and Moon in Leo, and Vincent was usually good at accuracy with stars, as in Starry Night over the Rhone which is Ursa Major.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starry_Night
But everyone says it was painted in June. Leo rises in the morning in September/October. Artistic license?
MIT researchers have discovered three of the oldest stars in the universe, and they are located in the Milky Way's "halo" - the cloud of stars that surrounds the main galactic disc.
Spectral analysis of the stars has revealed low abundances of strontium, barium, and other elements such as iron, compared to the Sun. This hints that they originally formed 12 to 13 billion years ago, the time when the very first galaxies were forming.
The team believes that each star once belonged to its own small, primitive galaxy that was later absorbed by the larger but still growing Milky Way. Today, the three stars are all that are left of their respective galaxies.
The team leader says these oldest stars should definitely be there, given what is known of galaxy formation, and we now have a new way to find them.
Additionally, all three stars have been shown to be rotating in the opposite direction relative to most of the stars in the main disc of the galaxy - a sure sign that they were captured and thrown in the wrong way.
I have edited the information contained within this source, dated May 14, 2024:
https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-researchers-discover-universes-oldest-stars-in-galactic-backyard-0514
The "halo stars" are thought to have formed around 12 to 13 billion years ago.
I read that the proto-Milky Way galaxy is thought to have formed around 12 to 13 billion years ago.
So they are pretty much contemporary to each other.
The universe was of uniform density before matter started to coalesce.
It's now being said that the whole galaxy forming process started with clumps of dark matter which pulled in more dark matter, and so on until eventually the clumps of dark matter pulled in normal matter which collected in dense pockets and formed the first stars. Phew, that was a mouthfull!
The initial clumps of dark matter, along with their collections of stars, eventually merged to form the proto-Milky Way galaxy.
Read more here: https://www.livescience.com/how-did-the-milky-way-form#:~:text=The initial clumps of dark matter, along with,proto-Milky Way sometime around 12 billion years ago.
There's too much to summarise, but the information contained in the following link about the Globular Clusters hosted by the Milky Way is very interesting as they contain the oldest stars in the galaxy: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/star-clusters
I read that the proto-Milky Way galaxy is thought to have formed around 12 to 13 billion years ago.
So they are pretty much contemporary to each other.
The universe was of uniform density before matter started to coalesce.
It's now being said that the whole galaxy forming process started with clumps of dark matter which pulled in more dark matter, and so on until eventually the clumps of dark matter pulled in normal matter which collected in dense pockets and formed the first stars. Phew, that was a mouthfull!
The initial clumps of dark matter, along with their collections of stars, eventually merged to form the proto-Milky Way galaxy.
Read more here: https://www.livescience.com/how-did-the-milky-way-form#:~:text=The initial clumps of dark matter, along with,proto-Milky Way sometime around 12 billion years ago.
There's too much to summarise, but the information contained in the following link about the Globular Clusters hosted by the Milky Way is very interesting as they contain the oldest stars in the galaxy: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/star-clusters
