0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wouldn't that be fun? 
“It would if we also knew that these stars were primordial first stars, which they are not,” Miniati says. In reply, Catala maintains that there are no telescopes on Earth or in orbit that are sensible enough to see the first stars, which are by now several billions of light years away. Nor, he adds, are such telescopes planned for the near future.Catala also admits that there's a chance these magnetic fields are not primordial, but emphasizes that “This [the find] is completely in agreement with the fossil field theory,” and that the field “could indeed be primordial.” At the very least, the new discovery points out the fact that stellar dynamo mechanisms are not responsible for these magnetic fields, as others suggested in the past.
Second, we have confirmed that the oldest stars in our own galaxy are between 12 and 13 billion years old. Though Pickrell (cf. n. 5) notes that these "were probably not among the universe's very first stars," they would have formed no more than a billion years after the cosmos itself began to form. Though this only proves an age for our galaxy, not necessarily the universe, the result of 14 billion years perfectly matches the most recent calculation of the projected start-point for the universe's observed expansion.
That is indeed a weighty argument. Do you have any links for it?
Hmm i thing i notice from all our member.... Gravition and time will be not there when there is no magnetic field...