This is one of those things where some would say scientists dropped the ball. I would say there is an exception which I'll get to at the end of this comment. But first off, how do we really know when the first star formed? We'd have to know which star that was I would think. It makes logical sense that stars had to start somewhere based on our current understanding of the Universe.<br /><br />Now for the caveat:<br /><br />The excerpt "For many millions of years after our universe first formed no stars existed, and then there was one. That primordial star was likely a massive blazing behemoth that burned brighter and faster than any star around today". <br /><br />The above details the logic in a first star.<br /><br />The excerpt below says pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell:<br /><br />"A new computer model now suggests that it also formed much earlier than previously thought."<br /><br />Astronomers are merely stating that a computer model suggests...<br /><br />Its important to keep in mind that a decade from now, this computer model will most likely be replaced by another...and decades later another and so on.<br /><br />It will also help to better understand the computer model by looking at the reference cited here:<br /><br />"The model is detailed in an upcoming issue of the Monthly Notices for the Royal Astronomical Society."<br /><br />This is one of those examples of how science works as best as the scientists doing the research can do but we will probably never know the answer to the question of the first star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram