Star Found To Be Nearly As Old As The Universe

Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way assumed its final spiral shape, a star slightly smaller than the Sun blazed into life in our galaxy, formed from the newly scattered remains of the first stars in the universe.

Employing techniques similar to those used to date archaeological remains here on Earth, scientists have learned that a metal-poor star in our Milky Way called HE 1523 is 13.2 billion years old-just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old.


SOURCE:
Space.com

I am flabbergasted by this, I mean I knew stars had long lives, measured in billions of years,
but this star is over 13billion years old, only half a billion years younger than the Universe itself.

Finds like these are very interesting to me, and only add to our current scientific knowledge and understanding of the Universe.


Comments, Opinions?

wow...thats very cool.
I love astronomy and astrophysics
Cheers

Dosnt that blow a hole in the current big bang theory ?
I thought it took a long time for matter to cool down and start collecting into globs.

Originally posted by R3KR
Does'nt that blow a hole in the current big bang theory ?
I thought it took a long time for matter to cool down and start collecting into globs.

Well, I would'nt say that, the earliest stars, that is the stars that formed before this one,
were quite different than current day stars in some aspects, this star however formed
from the remnants of those earlier stars, at a period where the Universe was pretty cool.

Being dumbfounded by something such as this shows that we have a presumptive, pretentious academia.

There are so many ways that this story has little real relevence.

First, consider that we are mired in compounded ignorance (we are unaware of how much we don't know) when it comes to what we know about the space between here and there. Time distortions, space wrinkles...who the heck is going to seriously state that any of our presumptions about red shift are true?

Second, when it comes to red shift, i have a confusion. If the light source emits more red spectrum light than another object that is literally right next to it, how does the red shift account for this? Further, how can we know what the travelling of that far distance does to the lightwaves. "Near Perfect Vacuum" is further presumptiveness. We can guess what lies between here and there, but that is all it is.

The most ridiculous of this is that there is a presumption that a star being "metal poor" indicates its advanced age. What if our model of star formation is wrong? What if the accretion theory is incorrect? There are very convincing theories that state that the Sun is not even a "Nuclear Furnace", but rather a glow discharge from an electrical pinch in Birkeland strands (see: thunderbolts.info... )

What effect would Birkeland strands have on the light travelling?

It takes further guesses and leaps to get the metals needed to prove how this star could be so old, yet "probably not the oldest". If our Galaxy is so old, and the universe so young, what about all the other Galaxies? Where did they come from? I mean, it seems almost as though all of infinity is fully populated already if you look at the Hubble Deep Field.

I would say until we can see the edge of the Universe or something that looks like a thinning of star/galaxy population, we don't have a clue about the universe's origins or anything else other than guessing based on a few measly measurements of vast infinity.

And these guys have a hard time believing in God?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Another far from new science news story.

The "Age Paradox" has troubled astronomers/cosmologists for years and years. Some stars actually appear to be older than the universe.

[edit on 5/11/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Another far from new science news story.

The "Age Paradox" has troubled astronomers/cosmologists for years and years. Some stars actually appear to be older than the universe.

[edit on 5/11/2007 by djohnsto77]

Jeesh, don't shoot the messenger.

I just reporting what I think is interesting, not my fault the science-news sites are presenting
it as new.

[edit on 5/11/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Jeesh, don't shoot the messenger.

I just reporting what I think is interesting, not my fault the science-news sites are presenting
it as new.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound nasty to you. I don't blame you, I'm just wondering why these things are being published as "new"...

I'm curious about something. Isn't a star just the light of what was once a gigantic explosion? An explosion massive enough to be seen by us at a great distance? I always loved astronomy and looking "UP" but its so darn confusing...lol. I mean light travels at what, about 299,000 meters per second. So how is it if stars are only light and no longer "solid" forms...that they last so long. I mean if the BIG DIPPER is just light from past explosions why hasn't the dipper just faded away as time goes on and the tailo end of that light reaches us...instead they stay constant.

Anyone that can enlighten me..please do...

It reminds me of a favorite quote from Mr. Lear.

"I don't care about the depths of your ignorance." That about sums it up. They sometimes have to confirm our worst fears by showing us that they are just hoping that the next paradigm shift happens after they are retired and comfortably tucked away in their graves. Then they don't have to lose all funding and grants for being such an avid supporter of "bad science".

It is obvious to most that science is propping up old dead theories, complete with pennies on the eyes, for the simple need to exploit for various types of gain.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound nasty to you. I don't blame you, I'm just wondering why these things are being published as "new"...

Nah, no worries, I was kidding.

As to why they are, well perhaps they proved something, and therefore are counting it as new,
or maybe it's new in that most people have never heard of it.

Could just be a slow news day to.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
I'm curious about something. Isn't a star just the light of what was once a gigantic explosion?
Anyone that can enlighten me..please do...

Im not sure what you mean, but I assumed that stars are just like the sun.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
I'm curious about something. Isn't a star just the light of what was once a gigantic explosion? An explosion massive enough to be seen by us at a great distance? I always loved astronomy and looking "UP" but its so darn confusing...lol. I mean light travels at what, about 299,000 meters per second. So how is it if stars are only light and no longer "solid" forms...that they last so long. I mean if the BIG DIPPER is just light from past explosions why hasn't the dipper just faded away as time goes on and the tailo end of that light reaches us...instead they stay constant.

Anyone that can enlighten me..please do...

Ummm, i don't think that is right.

Here is the pop science point of view:

en.wikipedia.org...

Might i add that plasma (which is described in this link) is nothing more than elecrified fields of more freely flowing electrons. Sounds more like a glow discharge than nuclear furnace to me.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
Isn't a star just the light of what was once a gigantic explosion? An explosion massive enough to be seen by us at a great distance?

No, a star is in essence a gigantic thermo-nuclear fusion explosion that is so massive that it's
own gravity prevents it from being just a big explosion.

So how is it if stars are only light and no longer "solid" forms...that they last so long.

A star is not made of light, it produces a vast amount of it though, as well as other radiation.

Stars are made of different things, Hydrogen, Helium, various metals and many other elements,
though it does depend in each class of star, and beyond that there are minor differences
between each star in a class as well.

I mean if the BIG DIPPER is just light from past explosions why hasn't the dipper just faded away as time goes on and the tailo end of that light reaches us...instead they stay constant.

The big dipper is comprised of stars in various parts of the galaxy, that from our spatial
position can be seen as a basic dotted line of a shape.

Stars continuously produce lights throughout there lifetime, which is measured in billions of years.

ok thanks lori...I am your typical astronomer wannabe...lol..don't really know anything about space...but find it AMAZING to break out the tele and look at planets and stars. Its just amazing the vastness and variety of things you can see....we are nothing more than a grain of sand on one GIGANTIC beach

I'm just curious, how exactly do we know how old the universe is? I really don't think we have a damn clue and the only thing we could possibly have is a theory.

So how do they say this star is as old as the universe? And really, how do they come to the conclusion that the universe is 13 billion whatever years old?

I really do want to know...

Good stuff iori.

I don't think that some people understand the significance of having an older star in our galaxy, which is younger. This means it was captured by the Milky Way or the galaxy formed around it later. Very cool.

I am also curious about Globular Clusters because not only are they older than our galaxy, they are actually little satellite galaxies of their own. I think they are interesting because the stars remain in a group close together without drifting apart or collapsing in on them selves. No one is sure how they hold their shape.

As pumba would say, I belive stars are "big balls of gas burning billions of miles away". well... plasma actually.

Just throwing in a comment and saying that it is a cool little article.

Old star indeed: And interesting that it within our own galaxy.

It is an often curious thought to think of stars as possibly not being there. The light we see from the sun is eight minutes old...the light we see from some stars is millions of years old.

How many of those tiny specs of white are actually still around? How many have burned off years ago and are simply throwing their history to us?

Thanks for the neat article iori.

I should've paid more attention as to which forum this was in. I thought it was gonna be about either Mickey Rooney or Zsa Zsa Gabor.