Possible young sun?

[sticky1]

I was watching the Horizon last night, (31st March) and it said at the end that one of the stars in the sky could be a young sun (ours)

Is this possible?

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by sticky1

I was watching the Horizon last night, (31st March) and it said at the end that one of the stars in the sky could be a young sun (ours)

Is this possible?

Your question is not clear. Do you mean you were watching the television program "Horizon" and they said that one of the stars in our sky could be our own (but younger) Sun?

[carlos_dfc]

I saw the prog in question...

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

Do you mean you were watching the television program "Horizon" and they said that one of the stars in our sky could be our own (but younger) Sun?

Yep that's it.
They said that if the Universe is a 4-dimensional 'doughnut' shape, then looking out into space, your line of sight would eventually double back, and you could maybe see our solar system from behind yourself..... and at such a distance, that you are seeing it as it was billions of years ago.

A few problems with that line of thought though...
First of all - we don't yet know exactly how many spatial dimensions the Universe consists of (Likely to be either the 3 we recognise - or many more - unlikely to be 4) - and we also don't know whether it is doughnut shaped or not....

IF - and that's a mighty BIG 'IF' - both of those factors co-operate with the theory...
Then other problems come in to play.....
EVERY star you can see in the sky, is inside our galaxy (which is 'only' 100-odd thousand light-years across) - it's impossible to pick out individual stars in other galaxies - well, observatory-class telescopes can to some extent, but only in the very nearest of (relatively) local galaxies.
To see 4 or 5 billion years into the past (when our Sun was young), you would have to look at galaxies 4 or 5 billion light-years away, which can only be seen as a fuzzy blob, in even the biggest telescopes.
The 'Hubble' telescope can see this far (the Ultra-deep field photo goes back almost to the Big-Bang) but positive identification at those distances is impossible. Even if the theory was correct (which is highly unlikely)

[badgerwatcher]

If the universe is a coiled double helix, which is a possibility as it is a shape favoured in nature, then all the stars in the sky may be our own sun at various ages, and we may be on our own in the universe after all.

[Vectisbirder]

I don't *do* mathematics, my brain just can't operate on that level of logic, and when you get into the hard-core pure or applied mathematics then that's when I need to take a nice lie down in a cool darkened room. At school no matter how often I was taught long division I *still* couldn't do it and still can't!

It is an astronomical truth that the further back you can see in space the further back you are seeing in time. You are seeing things as they were 'then' not as they are 'now'.

Not too convinced about the 'doughnut' though.

[badgerwatcher]

I like my helix theory. It's neat.

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by badgerwatcher

I like my helix theory. It's neat.

I like it too. It runs parallel with a certain notion of mine that perhaps we are all the same person. You get a go at being everybody.

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by Vectisbirder

It is an astronomical truth that the further back you can see in space the further back you are seeing in time. You are seeing things as they were 'then' not as they are 'now'.

Not too convinced about the 'doughnut' though.

I would disagree that this is the "truth". It merely fits in with some current scientific opinion and may well be proved someday as being totally wrong.

Scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all, but a Theory. It is a hypothesis that something is the way it is because of x,y,z. If you can back this hypothesis up with observations, it can be quite a good theory. If your theory can predict an outcome and this is later confirmed by observation, it can be a stonking theory.
However, a theory is only meant to be "true" until a better theory comes along or it is disproved. It is not and has never meant to be The Truth.

[sticky1]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

I would disagree that this is the "truth". It merely fits in with some current scientific opinion and may well be proved someday as being totally wrong.

Scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all, but a Theory. It is a hypothesis that something is the way it is because of x,y,z. If you can back this hypothesis up with observations, it can be quite a good theory. If your theory can predict an outcome and this is later confirmed by observation, it can be a stonking theory.
However, a theory is only meant to be "true" until a better theory comes along or it is disproved. It is not and has never meant to be The Truth.

It is good though to think that it is possible, and what better hypothosis do they have at the moment? The only way to find out that the theories wrong is by testing the theory.

But until they have proved it, it's the best they have to understand it. Good luck to them to prove it worng.

[Vectisbirder]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

I would disagree that this is the "truth". It merely fits in with some current scientific opinion and may well be proved someday as being totally wrong.

Telescopes, including the HST, have identified galaxies at the edge of the observable universe and these are all 'young' galaxies, because their light has taken so long to cross the expanse of the universe that we are seeing them as they were then, not now. If we see a galaxy 12 billion light years away then we are seeing it as it was 12 billion years ago and not as it would look now. Therefore it IS a truth as it has been directly observed.
On the other hand, the 'doughnut' theory, 'string' theory, etc, are just that, theories or even merely hypotheses.

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

It runs parallel with a certain notion of mine that perhaps we are all the same person. You get a go at being everybody.

That just seems outlandish to me.

If it's the case how come the human race are a bunch, by and large, of such selfish so-and-sos?

[badgerwatcher]

To add the time dimension, just for fun, I think my folded double helix is pulsing too.

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by Vectisbirder

Telescopes, including the HST, have identified galaxies at the edge of the observable universe and these are all 'young' galaxies, because their light has taken so long to cross the expanse of the universe that we are seeing them as they were then, not now. If we see a galaxy 12 billion light years away then we are seeing it as it was 12 billion years ago and not as it would look now. Therefore it IS a truth as it has been directly observed.
On the other hand, the 'doughnut' theory, 'string' theory, etc, are just that, theories or even merely hypotheses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit
It runs parallel with a certain notion of mine that perhaps we are all the same person. You get a go at being everybody.


That just seems outlandish to me.

If it's the case how come the human race are a bunch, by and large, of such selfish so-and-sos?

Well, if we are all the same person, how is it possible to be anything other than selfish?

[Picidae]

Originally Posted by sticky1

I was watching the Horizon last night, (31st March) and it said at the end that one of the stars in the sky could be a young sun (ours)

Is this possible?

Was it past midnight at the time?

[SheffieldPete]

I think it was more a thought experiment than a literal "if you look hard enough you may see it" type comment.

[sticky1]

Originally Posted by Picidae

Was it past midnight at the time?

Do you mean the programme?