Astronomers found an ancient star older then the universe?

Take that Religion!
Of course it could just be the "Light of God" so maybe i should say Take that Science?

Scientists have discovered an "impossible" star which appears to be older than the universe.

The mysterious star Methuselah appears to be between 14 and 15 billion years old - a bit of an issue considering the universe itself is known to have come into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

Oddly enough, Methuselah is even located inside our own galaxy - about 190 light years away.

And even after using new information about the star's distance from us, its brightness and its structure, scientists are unable to place an estimate of its age much below 14.5 billion years - still older than the universe.

refreshingnews99.blogspot.com...
So...my question is how can it be that damn close?

You dont give a citation for this article, but if you're referring to the piece in the Huffington Post, then all the answers to the questions can be found by:

a. reading the whole article, not just the headline, and
b. reading the original source material.

Has answers on both the age, and why it is close to us.

reply to post by Thorneblood


It's close because its moving fast and just passing through our galaxy.

Follow Alfa1's link.

So...my question is how can it be that damn close?

Not really that odd. It might be in our galaxy but it is still 190.1 light years away. Which is pretty damn far. Science is blurry in its infancy and as it develops it gets tighter and tighter, in focus and less blurry.

"But look, science is stupid and wrong and religion is WINZ"

Previous research had estimated that the Milky Way galaxy's so-called "Methuselah star" is up to 16 billion years old. That's a problem, since most researchers agree that the Big Bang that created the universe occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.

Meh...

"Put all of those ingredients together, and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," study lead author Howard Bond, of Pennsylvania State University and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said in a statement. [Gallery: The Methuselah Star Revealed]

The uncertainty Bond refers to is plus or minus 800 million years, which means the star could actually be 13.7 billion years old — younger than the universe as it's currently understood, though just barely.

So they are wrong, but they never claimed to be right. They are trying to get an accurate timeline of how old the star is, but admit up front they are off nearly a billion years.

That's no small margin of uncertainty.

In the future, they will develop more focus, and even come up with a clearer DOB. Doesn't really mean we are going to find out the Universe is a couple thousand years old tomorrow, or that it's 100 trillion years old. (Well...100 Trillion could work sort of, IF... ugh never mind.)

Moral of the story, this is interesting, but not that really.

Originally posted by alfa1
b. reading the original source material.

Space.com is hardly the original source, as it's just a space and science media site, and they are infamous for not linking to their sources.

Here are the original sources:
hubblesite.org...
www.nasa.gov...

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.

Its weird star and possibly first star after the Big Bang that is still alive, But, due its unique nature, its impossible to find its true age. Its simply too rare star class so getting the age isn't very easy. Its second generation star. It has more metals than it should have. There is uncertainty of almost 1 billion years in its age.

a bit of an issue considering the universe itself is known to have come into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

If there is one thing that is truly KNOWN, it is the fact this quoted statement is a bunch of crapola...anyone who believes they KNOW the age of the universe is a complete idiot.

Not really impossible. It just heaps more evidence onto the Mayans that they knew their
astronomy. They had the age of the universe pegged at just over 16 billion years.

Now, how did they guess that without all the fancy computers and such??

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
Not really impossible. It just heaps more evidence onto the Mayans that they knew their
astronomy. They had the age of the universe pegged at just over 16 billion years.

Now, how did they guess that without all the fancy computers and such??

Or 24 trillion years, depending on where you look.

If only they'd had fancy compuyters to play tetris with... they'd probably have become "I dunno, so.. God!" people and not the be all and end all of everything ancient and cosmic.

reply to post by Thorneblood


Uhhhhhhhhhh. . . .

methinks the problem lies . . .

in the High Priests of the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM

Assuming that they uhhhh

KNOW IT ALL.

The more authentic, wiser Christians I know

are WELL AWARE

that we ALL "see through the glass darkly."

. . . see things in a cloudy mirror.

I have a hypothesis that coming months will see many more . . . paradoxes that are SCIENTIFICALLY inexplicable.

Man is about to be humbled as never before . . . by his own ignorance and perversities . . . and by

"Nature."

. . . and, imho, most of all by God Himself.

However, it will be interesting to see the convoluted mental gymnastics that "scientists" proffer as explanations for such paradoxes.

I don't think scientists nor constipated Western Christians handle paradoxes very well.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
Take that Religion!
Of course it could just be the "Light of God" so maybe i should say Take that Science?

Scientists have discovered an "impossible" star which appears to be older than the universe.

The mysterious star Methuselah appears to be between 14 and 15 billion years old - a bit of an issue considering the universe itself is known to have come into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

Oddly enough, Methuselah is even located inside our own galaxy - about 190 light years away.

And even after using new information about the star's distance from us, its brightness and its structure, scientists are unable to place an estimate of its age much below 14.5 billion years - still older than the universe.

So...my question is how can it be that damn close?

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

:LMAO!! You say take that religion. This has nothing to do with religion, it's all about Science. What you describe is impossible. Theories on how the universe even originated are still being debated, and now this terribly non-plausible statement.

Really?, Really? before you post such a statement you should have some supporting documentation from reliable sources, scientists, who demand a rigid process to test such an outrageous fantasy. Sorry, no star or flag from me. Poorly written, poorly supported and simply ridiculous!! Have a nice day.

Note: and to be clear there is an accepted concept called Obserable Universe (what we can see with our technology. That is:

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]

reply to post by ItDepends

MODS, this is exactly the type of thread that needs to be closed or moved to the Jokes category. No references, no sources, nothing. These are the type of posts that irritate so many of us serious ATSers who try to present topics of interest, but with legitimate sources, credible references. This is just such a ridiculous thread that I am really mystified. Maybe as a benefit of doubt the OP really wanted to start a reputable discussion....but please this is something not deserving to be in Space Exploration. Thank you!

reply to post by ItDepends

. Poorly written, poorly supported and simply ridiculous!!

So...where does this substantially large portion of external text originate?

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]

If you are demanding the OP provide appropriately sourced material, then you should be willing to do the same.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by ItDepends

 

. Poorly written, poorly supported and simply ridiculous!!

So...where does this substantially large portion of external text originate?

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]

If you are demanding the OP provide appropriately sourced material, then you should be willing to do the same.

Sure, fair enough, source
There you go....so what are your thoughts on this apparent ridiculous allegation?

reply to post by ItDepends


Space.com are carrying this story, as are NASA.

WildeSpace has the original link from the Hubble site itself.

Originally posted by totallackey

a bit of an issue considering the universe itself is known to have come into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

If there is one thing that is truly KNOWN, it is the fact this quoted statement is a bunch of crapola...anyone who believes they KNOW the age of the universe is a complete idiot.

....and since you want links, substantiating documentation for ones comments/replies. Do you have any respectable, scientist or peer group consensus that states that the acceptable known knowledge of the universe is different than 13.8 billion years ago are idiots??

Don't get me wrong..I fully understand your point in question, but always nice to see where you have sources, respectable of course, that leads you to state people are idiots based upon the majority consensus of any credible scientist that disagrees with the age of the universe? Thank you for your pending response.

reply to post by Thorneblood


Thanks for bringing this to my attention .. i did not know about this and is indeed very interesting .. as for the knowitalls who thinks this thread is beneath you how about moving on?

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by ItDepends

 

Space.com are carrying this story, as are NASA.

WildeSpace has the original link from the Hubble site itself.

True! I did do the research and NASA using the Hubble Telescope is stating that the star in question, is the oldest observable celestial object to be known to exist. They do dance around the allegation that it is older than the Universe and state that it is now compatible with the same time period as to when the birth of the Universe began.
here is that Soursce from NASA via Hubble of Oldest Star

From the same source;

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...he 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."Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

This Methuselah star has seen many changes over its long life. It was likely born in a primeval dwarf galaxy. The dwarf galaxy eventually was gravitationally shredded and sucked in by the emerging Milky Way over 12 billion years ago.

So basically, this is a test of our ability to really date the age of celestial bodies and in this case, it has been a moving target, which has been reset to state the star fits within the age of the universe, NOT older than the Universe. Before we make incredible statements, we need incredible supporting documentation....which is lacking in this case. That's all I am saying!!

Originally posted by Ta1ntedJustice
reply to post by Thorneblood

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention .. i did not know about this and is indeed very interesting .. as for the knowitalls who thinks this thread is beneath you how about moving on?

Done! Moving on...I've provided my sources and the changing viewpoints....but i did so before rushing and publishing a thread that is not valid. C YA!

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Thorneblood

 

Uhhhhhhhhhh. . . .

methinks the problem lies . . .

in the High Priests of the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM

Assuming that they uhhhh

KNOW IT ALL.

The more authentic, wiser Christians I know

are WELL AWARE

that we ALL "see through the glass darkly."

. . . see things in a cloudy mirror.

I have a hypothesis that coming months will see many more . . . paradoxes that are SCIENTIFICALLY inexplicable.

Man is about to be humbled as never before . . . by his own ignorance and perversities . . . and by

"Nature."

. . . and, imho, most of all by God Himself.

However, it will be interesting to see the convoluted mental gymnastics that "scientists" proffer as explanations for such paradoxes.

I don't think scientists nor constipated Western Christians handle paradoxes very well.

Me thinks you are prejudiced by your "own ignorance and perversities". If you have something intelligent to say, then stop with your senseless riddles in most of your responses, here and elsewhere. If you 'KNOW" something then state it, stop with your "hypothesis that coming months will see many more . . . paradoxes that are SCIENTIFICALLY inexplicable." WTH does that even mean??? Geezzz what has ATS come too???