It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

We’ve found the oldest star in the known universe – and it’s right on our galactic doorstep

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by taoistguy
 


Why not "The Tao"?




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Sorry to be pedantic, but it's not the oldest star in the (known) universe, it's the oldest (known) star in the (known) universe.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

thoiter
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Sorry to be pedantic, but it's not the oldest star in the (known) universe, it's the oldest (known) star in the (known) universe.


It is not even that...

People who broke news apparently had no idea that oldest stat is a bit older then universe. (but there is also that margin of error)


A team of astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has taken an important step closer to finding the birth certificate of a star that’s been around for a very long time.

"We have found that this is the oldest known star with a well-determined age," said Howard Bond of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa., and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md.

The star could be as old as 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 0.8 billion years), which at first glance would make it older than the universe's calculated age of about 13.8 billion years, an obvious dilemma.

But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance."

The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age — as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay.

This "Methuselah star," cataloged as HD 140283, has been known about for more than a century because of its fast motion across the sky. The high rate of motion is evidence that the star is simply a visitor to our stellar neighborhood. Its orbit carries it down through the plane of our galaxy from the ancient halo of stars that encircle the Milky Way, and will eventually slingshot back to the galactic halo.

This conclusion was bolstered by the 1950s astronomers who were able to measure a deficiency of heavier elements in the star as compared to other stars in our galactic neighborhood. The halo stars are among the first inhabitants of our galaxy and collectively represent an older population from the stars, like our sun, that formed later in the disk. This means that the star formed at a very early time before the universe was largely "polluted" with heavier elements forged inside stars through nucleosynthesis. (The Methuselah star has an anemic 1/250th as much of the heavy element content of our sun and other stars in our solar neighborhood.)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
With this new ancient star that has been found within our known galaxy being so young? My question is this if this star is older than our known galaxy and this conflict of different ages between them
could it have been possible that the so called " BIG BANG " theory only explain part of this event? That a much larger picture is missing out of the cosmic equation? Granted there is a lot things we can't explain through the present technology at hand any theoretical physics
cannot truly answer the mystery of the Multiverse our known universe!
seems to me more questions arise with the answers we are trying to understand !



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Oldest star in the known Universe a close neighbor?


Otherwise known as KOLOB...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

abeverage
Oldest star in the known Universe a close neighbor?


Otherwise known as KOLOB...


Read carefully as the Earth was supposed to have been formed over a period of 6,000 years and this oldest star is 6,000 light years away. I find coincidences like that interesting to say the least. Perhaps that is where the Prometheans live and the 6,000 years is how far away they traveled when they started life on Earth...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Mickey Rooney is the oldest known star in the universe.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by 1n3MANarmy
 


Now I'm confused. Is SMSS J031300.362670839.3 a star, or the remains of a star, now a black hole?



The "primordial star" is referring to the star that the discoverers think preceded and led to the formation of SMSSwhatchimacallit. Its parent star if you will. :-)

And, as it is 6,000 light years away, it is entirely possible that it no longer exists, but would take 6,000 years for the event to reach us. :-) This goes along with the wonderful clarifications offered above to the misconceptions about "seeing back in time" when gazing into the heavens, be it thru telescopes or with your own eyes. You are simply receiving the information of what that far away region of space was like from however long it took the light to reach this world. But if you think about that literal location and how it exists *today*, it could be completely different - a brand new "grand baby" star could have formed near to the one you are just now seeing - just now seeing due to the vast distances the light took to travel here. But that new star as it exists at this very moment is much much younger than even our sun - but it will take another 6,000 years for the light it is now shining to get here. Thus, further away does not mean older than our sun, and is important to keep time-distance travelled completely separate from current age and conditions! :-)

And to the Pedantic Poster - I completely agree- it often frustrates me (and confuses many others!) when discoveries, theories, etc are presented as indisputable FACT when certain things absolutely should be prefaced with a "known" as you suggest. Another qualifying statement that should preface (or conclude) just about every science brief and article is "As it is currently understood..." since pretty much everything in science could be completely overturned with one new discovery. Perhaps, some will argue that is understood by each and every true scientist, but I feel some of them tend to forget this, and articles such as the one in the OP are not directed to scientists but to the lay "ignorant masses" and thus such qualifiers would be immensely helpful in conveying a more accurate report.

As for the name, I'll suggest "Wr'Alda" which is often translated as "The Ancient One" from the Oera Linda Book. An alternative to the Judaeo Christian only terms. :-)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Space God? Star just for making my mind flip.. I've never considered the big bang to be omnipotent to any extent. Especially not in the way you worded it.

Star.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

abeverage

abeverage
Oldest star in the known Universe a close neighbor?
Otherwise known as KOLOB...

Read carefully as the Earth was supposed to have been formed over a period of 6,000 years and this oldest star is 6,000 light years away. I find coincidences like that interesting to say the least. Perhaps that is where the Prometheans live and the 6,000 years is how far away they traveled when they started life on Earth...


The oldest star in the universe? Maybe, maybe not
phys.org...


The age of stars

To understand the age of stars, we have to understand how they are formed, and how they evolve, and while a star is much simpler than a bumblebee, accounting for the complexities of physics, the uncertainties in the conditions in the early Universe, and may other factors, precise dating is fraught with difficulties.

This latest discovery, of SMSS J031300.36-670839.3, may be the oldest star we know in the universe, but given the uncertainties involved, maybe it isn't.

In fact, the Nature paper announcing this new star goes into exquisite detail on how the observations were made and how the abundance of chemicals was measured, and then argues conclusively that the material from which the star was made must have existed in the very early Universe. But it's highly important to note that the one thing the authors do not comment on is the actual age of the star.


One Hundred First Stars : Protostellar Evolution and the Final Masses
arxiv.org...

A single low-energy, iron-poor supernova as the source of metals in the star SMSS J031300.36−670839.3
www.nature.com...

If anyone is interested in what is actually being presented as opposed to the presentation from news outlets looking to make a buck.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NewtonDKC
 


As for the name, I'll suggest "Wr'Alda" which is often translated as "The Ancient One" from the Oera Linda Book. An alternative to the Judaeo Christian only terms. :-)


Thanks much for your explanation.
I do kinda like "Wr'Alda" - "The Ancient One," but it's still Judeo-Christian, albeit in parody.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Korg Trinity
If it were possible to age all the known stars in the universe.... which I might add it isn't... We could trace the location of the big bang event.


The Big Bang did not happen in one place, it occurred everywhere simultaneously. The Big Bang was not matter exploding into empty space, the big bang was space itself expanding along with matter.


Now that was the silliest thing I've heard all day!

According to the standard model following the singularity there was a period of expansion.... which means that the centre of the expansion extrapolated backwards would be the place the singularity was....

If all of space-time is expanding outward.. there is a place that all space-time is expanding from.... think of it as a point of axis. At that spot space-time itself would behave very strangly indeed. According to my calculations the axis point would be very much like a black hole but not because mass is causing a gravity well, but because all of space-time is expanding except for this one location.

It is point where dark energy has no infuence.

Do you follow?

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Bedlam

Korg Trinity
This doesn't make any sense!!

When you look at the universe the greater the distance you look the further back in time you look...


This is true with respect to what you're seeing in a telescope. It doesn't mean the youngest stars are closest to us. That wouldn't make sense, if you think about it a while.


The edges of our known universe are where the first stars formed...... so that's where the oldest stars should be....

And the youngest stars would be located closest to the origin point of expansion.

This is due to the way space-time expands in all directions from the point of origin.

Do you see?

Korg.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Korg Trinity
If it were possible to age all the known stars in the universe.... which I might add it isn't... We could trace the location of the big bang event.

The Big Bang created everything ... including space. That's why you'll hear evidence of the Big Bang is everywhere, hence no specific location for its occurrence.

Not my theory, just repeating what I learned.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It expanded everywhere at once. There are no edges.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Snarl

Korg Trinity
If it were possible to age all the known stars in the universe.... which I might add it isn't... We could trace the location of the big bang event.

The Big Bang created everything ... including space. That's why you'll hear evidence of the Big Bang is everywhere, hence no specific location for its occurrence.

Not my theory, just repeating what I learned.


According to the standard model immidiatly prior to the big bang was an infinite point of energy called a singularity... due to quantum fluctuations this singularity expanded in all directions..... in other words a sphere of energy.... at the centre of the sphere was the location of the singularity.... after a few billion years the sphere expanded to it's current size.... yes still there is a centre point.... a point of origin.

I'm suprised others cannot visualise this...

Korg.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Bedlam
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It expanded everywhere at once. There are no edges.

Yes it expanded everywhere at once and still is... from a point of origin......

And if you think the universe has no edges you maybe right... but infinite or not... it did have a point of origin.... and thus that point is within our known universe....


edit on 14-2-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

abeverage

abeverage
Oldest star in the known Universe a close neighbor?
Otherwise known as KOLOB...

Read carefully as the Earth was supposed to have been formed over a period of 6,000 years and this oldest star is 6,000 light years away. I find coincidences like that interesting to say the least. Perhaps that is where the Prometheans live and the 6,000 years is how far away they traveled when they started life on Earth...

Interesting correlation and a good read. I've never understood why my mind is drawn to such things.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Korg Trinity

Bedlam
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It expanded everywhere at once. There are no edges.

Yes it expanded everywhere at once and still is... from a point of origin......

And if you think the universe has no edges you maybe right... but infinite or not... it did have a point of origin.... and thus that point is within our known universe....

You're thinking three dimensionally. What would the universe look like from outside?

A better question might be: Why can't we see the edges of space?
edit on 1422014 by Snarl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Korg Trinity
.... after a few billion years the sphere expanded to it's current size.
Korg.


That's wrong, too. The inflationary period was over in a fraction of a billionth of a second. By 10E-32 seconds post Bang that was over with. So even if you postulate a "center point" (and there's not one), there would be bupkes for difference in ages between any two points.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join