Universe's first stars bulk up in new simulation

Read more:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14435?DCMP=youtube

A new simulation shows the most complete picture of early star formation to date.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• simulation
• Big
• Bang
• first
• stars
• universe
• new
• scientist
• newscientist

[MaskedWisdom]

Lol, funny dude, people here can't understand sarcasm.

[HugoArtemisRune]

And afterwards he needed a day off. So much for omnipitence! I dont even get Sundays off.. Wish I were a deity.

[stmk0]

@Jaeqo Imagine how it's toilet feels.

[stmk0]

@Paulginz "Life" is a side effect of entropy. Never forget that.

[Paulginz]

@TheHomelessCripple It's hard but not unimaginable to get positive proof of abiogenesis: creating life in vitro using only chemicals which form without life and possibly simulating young earth conditions.

"synthetic" viruses have been made, but by copying pre-existing DNA.

Plenty of complex organic compounds have been made etc. There's still a long way to go of course.

Basic logic tells us that unless life has always existed, abiogenesis must have happened. The real question is "how?".

[TheHomelessCripple]

@Paulginz

Yes, SOME theories are largely untested, but it's hard to test string theory when it operates at a distance of less than one planck length, a scale smaller than anything that can possibly be observed today.

Or abiogenesis which left absolutely no clues, as basic proteins & bacteria don't fossilize.

[Jaeqo]

science can be so full of shit sometimes.....

[Paulginz]

"We can prove that they're universal. Looking through telescopes, we can see that the same laws of physics apply to distant objects as they do here."

Ehm, the same laws apply if you assume that there's loads of invisible unidentified mass and invisible "stuff" that causes space-time to expand.

I think most people were expecting better than that. (I oversimplify, but that's the situation no?)

Also, good luck with observing the laws of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

[Paulginz]

Seriously, you shouldn't get so defensive.

I was just pointing out the obvious (yes, abiogenesis is young and full of competing hypothesis... that's why I chose it as a perfect example of not yet sufficiently reliable science)

I'm not some anti-science econut/religious fundamentalist.

But if we forget who posted it,

- "But this FAITH in our current understanding of [science] is foolishness as it always has been." -

is a defendable statement since without skepticism there can be no science.

[Paulginz]

Scientism: Blind faith in science, in it's laws, in it's ability to explain everything.

A position that no real scientist would ever hold.

The definition varies a lot, but to me it's essentially the uncritical "Some guy in a lab coat said it so it must be true" approach that unfortunately many non-scientists have.

TOE attempts in QM do count. It's fed out in the media as theories, not hypothesis.

Occam's razor still applies against counterintuitive theories, even if they're expected nowadays.

[DracoReincarnated]

Scientific understanding is a long way from being complete or fool-proof.

UNQUOTE

I know that. There's still a lot more we don't know.

Even big corrections might happen

UNQUOTE

Good. Then we'll know more than we did last year.