I'm always perplexed by the numbers I see on estimates of the age of the universe and the age of our solar system. Somehow, I don't see it adding up. Here's my logic, plese point out the flaw: 1- Current estimate of the age of the universe : 13.73 billion years give or take. (when I was in high school, it used to be 15.4). 2- Current estimate of the age of the sun: 4.57 billion years. 3- Current estimate of the life expectancy of an average star like the sun: 11 billion years. Let's just say 10 billion years. Now to explain the heavy materials found on earth, that aren't formed in the sun, i.e. those that came before the sun was formed, the usual assumption is to say that another star/stars previously left that stuff behind before going supernova. Add a little more stuff from the galactic dust and here you go, you have titanium on earth. The problem is that for other stars to have been able to leave that stuff behind, they would have had to go through their complete life cycle, and then the material would have accumulated long enough to form our system. So, subtract 4.57 from 13.73, and that leaves 9.6 or so billion years for a star to form, expel titanium out and for the remaining cloud to accrete into becoming our solar system. You could say, that's fine, that's just enough time, but for heavy elements, I thought these could not form on a first generation star, because there are no intermediate elements to fuse from. So it doesn't add up. Can someone clarify ?