It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Astronomers found an ancient star older then the universe?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Basically what they do is try to factor in the basic perceived relative velocity and trajectory of celestial body's and work back to there point of origin, cross referenced with the echo of the big bang and try to come up with as accurate a figure as they can, this then becomes accepted as it is the best guess so it taken as fact by the majority yet there are a few spanners such as this star and theory's such multiple big bang's have been proposed to accommodate these discrepancy's , Just don't tell the atheists as they believe all this stuff is irrefutable and proven beyond any shadow of a doubt but then so do some theists.

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:32 PM
This should challenge many assumptions about the local universe.

A great of what is put out there as science is made upon a great many assumptions.

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Thorneblood

I wonder....did that star become super bright some 2,000 years ago and three wise men followed?

I bet it did....

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by ItDepends

Most of what you have had to say is off topic. This is an interesting thread, the persons who have commented instead of criticised have made it interesting.

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Thorneblood
So NASA is all about Satan?

Well it IS all there but for the T.

edit on 11-8-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:22 PM
5 Easy Ways to Spot a B.S. News Story on the Internet

edit on 11-8-2013 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 08:24 PM
Oh my heavens!
Its the great star Kolob where GOD lives!
I read about it in my Doctrine and Covenants book....that Joseph Smith was right!
dum dum dum dum dum

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 09:16 PM
its just that it is ridiculous to say the universe is only 14 billion years old. try 150 trillion

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by biggmoneyme

13.77 billion years. its 96 billion light years across.

The best estimate of the age of the universe as of 2013 is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years[2] but due to the expansion of space humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.8 billion light-years distance.[3] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[4] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.[5][6]

edit on 11-8-2013 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by boncho

Curious that this star is 190 LY away in our galaxy , when our galaxy's diameter is 100k-120k light years.. I must have missed something.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by biggmoneyme

13.77 billion years. its 96 billion light years across.

And when you get to the boundary of the universe, what is beyond? I hope they find an older star; like a 17-18 billion year old one. That is possible, and then I guess they'll have to go back to the drawing board on the age of the universe.

If they can confirm and figure out that it is indeed the 14.5-15 billion years old then maybe the star came from another, older universe. Time and space are such paradoxical and mysterious concepts. I've always been curious about that line from Wagner's play Parsifal;

"You see, my son, here time turns into space..." (space-time anyone?) Or the fact that when you look at the stars at night you are literally looking into the past and it is possible that we look at stars in the sky that no longer ever exist and may have exploded already millions of years ago.

Anyways without straying to far afield here, great thread & thanks for sharing. Reminiscent of the recent stories about the particle allegedly traveling faster than the speed of light at CERN (I think) which I also found fascinating.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:45 AM
EVERY one you must derail this post!
do what ever to get the mods to stop it.
they want to stop it any way.

you can Not let the people know that science
is just made up by stupid children who think they know it all.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:47 AM
I like it how the majority of people here haven't read the actual article, and are just happy with posting random musings or anti-science rants.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:18 AM

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by boncho

Curious that this star is 190 LY away in our galaxy , when our galaxy's diameter is 100k-120k light years.. I must have missed something.

Why is it curious?

he Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy some 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter

Because it's so close? (relatively speaking)... Given that it's believed to have been swept up during the collision of another galaxy, who knows where it came from to begin with...

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Thorneblood
Take that Religion!
Of course it could just be the "Light of God"

What an immature way to open a thread..

Science has no clue how old the universe is. We dont know where it started, we have no center.. Science hasnt gotten us further then the next planet. And you claim this star is older then the universe?

Humanity must be pretty advanced to make such claims huh
Watch out extraterrestrials, we are bigger and smarter then YOU! Because 'science' said so. .

How can you put an age on a star, when we have only been 'scientifically' observing them for a couple hundred years? We throw numbers like "billions" and "millions" around as if our science is ancient. Makes no sense.

Lets make bold assumption about the ENTIRE creation of the universe, because we look at stars through glass lens

Our science is not as advanced as you think, we as a species are not that advanced either. We have space agencies around the world with hand fulls of men/women working - while everyone else is slave to the system. Doesnt sound like an advanced species, just really wealthy agencies and handfuls of scientists.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by wildespace

Hubble data and improved theoretical calculations were used to recalculate the star's age and lower the estimate to 14.5 billion years, within a measurement uncertainty of plus or minus 800 million years. This places the star within a comfortable range to be younger than the universe.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting that out of a possible 13.8 billion year age of our universe, the very bottom 100 million years of their "uncertainty" is able to lie in a range that they would be willing to call "comfortable?"

*Shrug* I don't think I'd feel too "comfortable" with that assessment. Does it seem more plausible that they might not be as accurate as they think they are?


posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:32 AM
Modern science is all about speculations, they change their mind every 5 years. We need new Tesla.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by totallackey

Says the internet expert with zero credientials who gets his "facts" from youtube videos. Yeah, I totally believe you over guys and gals who spend their entire lives studying the physics of the universe.

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:16 AM
One other *big* problem here is that according to classical astronomical theories, the first stars were massive, burned bright, and... lived young. No more than several hundred million years. They would have been (according to cherished models) composed of hydrogen and helium, because all heavier elements come from the nuclear furnaces of the cores of stars, or from supernovae. This one should not have any iron at all, but the source indicates it has an unusual iron-to-oxygen ratio. Many things about this story are interesting =)
edit on 12-8-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by Son of Will

Exactly right and the point being that for the stars spectral profile to show such a ratio of heavy elements (though the star itself would have converted the hydrogen through fusion into heavier element's over time) may add credence to a feint possibility that it may be a remnant of something before the known theorized big bang, i,e. Though the very fact it may have originally been pure hydrogen and been a relatively small star at the beginning just after the big bang could also explain it's longevity as it would have not had a core of heavy elements to begin with and unlike the younger stars would therefore live longer before accumulating sufficient heavy elements to begin it's expansion as it is now beginning to do, another method to check it's age would be to look at the spectral ration of elements if we knew the exact rate of fusion conversion and work back to a nearly pure hydrogen ratio to get a functional age.

edit on 12-8-2013 by LABTECH767 because: Ratio not Ration stupid auto correct

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in