Star Found, from before the Big Bang

The big bang theory is false. It's also a theory that a temple priest came up with, so no surprise there. It's also no surprise that galaxies mimic biotic reproductive systems. Leads one to believe that the universe itself is eternal.

it is possible that this is the first star to form of its type. it could also be when light travel you know 10 billion years maybe it drags out some making this object actually younger then it would appear, we see something similar with radio wave the father out they go the more stretched out they get

Great hub. I'm very interested in the universe and how life began and this article gives me a lot of information. Thx.

Interesting. I voted. Thanks for sharing.

Rafken, interesting, but your title is misleading. "Before the Big Bang?" It looks like 0.75 billion years after, not before!

Now, bear with me. I might pick on this one a bit, but I love your stuff.

You state, "It has always been thought that low mass stars were only formed by thermonuclear and supernova explosions." This is also misleading. All stars are formed by thermonuclear explosions. That's what distinguishes stars from planets and brown dwarfs. To state that small stars are only formed by thermonuclear explosions implies something special about this relationship that doesn't exist.

The other problem with the sentence involves the cause-and-effect sense you give for supernova explosions and low mass stars. Yes, supernovae are involved in the cycle of metal-rich stellar birth, but, as I understand it, the problem with this star is that the current theory states that small stars cannot form from clouds of nearly pure hydrogen and helium. The more direct and meaningful relationship is between heavily metalized stellar clouds and groups of small stars, of which this small star was not a member.

The remainder of that paragraph (#5) is also troubled. You seem to imply that heavy elements occurred early in the universe, but that has nothing to do with the formation of this star that does not have much in the way of heavy elements. The problem with the star is the lack of heavy elements and the "impossibility" by current models for such a star to have accreted in the first place.

I don't fully understand the mechanics of cloud collapse and stellar accretion, but I've read in one book on astrophysics that part of the scenario involves absorption by various elements in the cloud of radiation as the center of the cloud warms up from the pressurization derived from gravitational collapse. Different elements have different absorption spectra. If you can find out why a "plain vanilla" (hydrogen-helium) cloud would not collapse into a sub-solar mass star, and why a metal-rich cloud would, that would be most interesting.

Other than this, I loved the hub. As always, your article is wonderfully thought-provoking. This merely points out that science has been startled before by discoveries they didn't anticipate. Thanks for continuing to push the envelope.

Rated up and interesting ...

Sooner or later someone discovers something that turns the scientific world on its head. How amazing that a this star has done that very thing.

The thing about science is that no proven theory can ever be thought of as being set in concrete.

The universe is not the result of a big bang. Pure energy waves "fluxed" and formed carbon matter. Isotopes of carbon ignited to form stars and the matter that was spat out of that process cooled to form planets, asteroids, dust, etc.

As soon as we think we have the Universe figured out, here comes new information. Who knew Pluto would no longer be an official planet? Now it's classified as a dwarf planet. It just goes to show you that knowledge is infinite. Probably everything I learned in school during the 20th century will probably be disproved in the 21st. And, I'm having a difficult time keeping up with computers and technology. At least we'll never get bored at this rate. Great hub! Very interesting and very well written!