Astronomers found an ancient star older then the universe?

reply to post by ItDepends

....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.

Where did you see me ask for links or substantiating documentation for comments or replies? I merely pointed out your hypocrisy. Save your spin for the political threads.

Majority opinion does not make anything factual. I do not believe this statement requires any supporting links or documentation in order for it to be considered a statement of truth.

This is all very interesting, but has naught affiliation with religion outside of the subjective perception some may choose to handle this information with.

That being said, this star is not necessarily older than the universe, as we do not know for certain how old the universe or even this star is.
We have only a rudimentary understanding of our universe. Even how we measure the age of stars is called Stellar age estimation. There are several varied methods of doing this but as the name implies, they are only estimations. The age of this star has only been obtained though our understanding of how we gather information from other stars.

The variables which shall undoubtedly be researched further should make for interesting find, but until then, any further speculation is exactly that; speculation.

reply to post by Thorneblood


Very cool. Thanks for the post.

You shouldn't HAVE to qualify the current estimate of the age of the universe. The 13.8 billion year estimate is pretty much common knowledge. Im not saying science is nessecarily correct, but the theory is common knowledge. Some people just like to argue and knit pick.

This is interesting, but I think they will refine their numbers further to make it fit into the current theory. For better or worse.

Silly me for going to sleep, i guess.

And wow, i didn't offer the source link. My bad. It was the Huffington Post one that stops about halfway through the actual article offered on Space.com

Anyway, that sort of answers my question.

Thanks, i think.

Must be Kolob...

reply to post by Thorneblood


I personally do not see how this effects religion as the light could just as easily be interpreted as the light of reason but here is a NASA page on that star, they believe it to originate in the Halo of stars that forms a loose sphere around the galaxy and to be in the first stage of expansion before it becomes a red giant.
www.nasa.gov...
Good find and just ask yourself what if however unlikely one of these ancient stars had once hosted a solar system with a habitable world that gave rise to intelligent life which continued to evolve and could you tell the difference if they long ago left behind there physical form to become something energy based or even super dimensional between them and a spirit, Just hypothesizing for you on that one.
S+F even if I disagree on the religion argument.

I did say that it could be the "Light of God".

Originally posted by wildespace

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.

"improved theoretical calculations"

"plus or minus 800 million years"

...right.

More Vague is hardly possible.

- i say, they want to get peoples attention to "Star" - as in "Fallen One".

since that is what nasa is all about.

regards,

So NASA is all about Satan?

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

If this star is older than the reported age of the universe, the universe must be far older. A new theory is that the universe is actually not expanding. If so, the universe could have existed forever? Many bubbles in a vast cosmic soup.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
So NASA is all about Satan?

*grin*
..is that a trick question Thorne ?

you know
sometimes i wonder
..what is requiring móre Blind Belief -
- the Utterly Vague concepts about like how nasa declares this as 'science' who ' found a star'
... or belief in a personal God

..but apart from that,
nasa has worked hard 60 years to let humanity Stare in an enless, cold, unpersonal universe
under the flag of Apollo - the Abyss -
so théy know 'whom' they serve : but they tell the péople it is all "science"

yes - "science, falsely so called"
it is Pure Mysticism, a modern kind of Divination.

dont take it Personal Thorne, it aint an attack on yóu
regards

reply to post by Lone12


LOL @ Take it personal!

Is this like the Santa is Satan thing? Have we reached the point where no word in the English language can include any combination of of the letters A, N, T, and S without it eventually earning a link to Satan?

Frankly, if Satan is the God of Nasa then they need to switch faiths. I would expect any sufficiently advanced space based organization that was worshipping the Prince of Darkness would have put colonies on Europa by this point.

..we make a bet over a bottle of wine please ?

- the next "discovery" which nasa will "present",
in two weeks time max,
will be about "a falling, blue lighted star"

since this theme is Next on the metaphysical agenda

a Blue star.. falling "in the direction of Earth "... "but dont worry - it is 800 million miles away"
[ more or less *grin*]

because all they do, is produce Rituals
okkult Rituals - to Spell the consciousness of man

... please let me know where to send the bottle.... in the unimaginable case i loose the bet

kind regards

reply to post by Lone12




Are you trying to make a bet with me that the Perseid Meteor shower is going to happen in the next two weeks and be referenced at least once in that time by the news, or the coming comet, or the large asteroid that apparently spawned the fireball in Russia earlier this year?

A "falling" "blue lighted" star could be anything.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by Lone12

 

Are you trying to make a bet with me that the Perseid Meteor shower is going to happen in the next two weeks and be referenced at least once in that time by the news?

i m glad you take it so sportive

no love
its so, so predictable... once you know where to look

the blue kachina has to come
- that is not a literal star, neither a 'comet', but a Consciousness - according to the Nónraped Maya story
= a Dimension
which will have to ignite
by the Blue Ray
ruled by a Star - a fallen one.

now
the Rituals consist of "trying to make mimicks of the réal future events,
so that they will have happened already on earth - conform the As above So below concept -
and the fallen ones will Not have to Undergo the Judgments which are decréed upon them "

...does that make sense ?

' chernobyl' was their fabricated Playout - ahead of Time, from 'wormwood'
the gulf oil spill the Playout, ahead of time, from 'water poisoning'
the 'chile mine accident' was co-fabricated by nasa , as playout of "coming up from the underworld"
etc

Nasa told everyone, 3 years ago, to watch the explosion by the bombing of this moon, Luna
- to get peoples Attention onto the false moon

etc

same they need now : to let people be attentive [ that is: that their soul agrées]
with "some " blue falling star, " anywhere" in their "14 billion lightyears Fake "

hope i made sense

"....and the Morningstars [ =angels] cheered, when He created the universe and earth "

now compare nasa -

" nasa finds star older then this universe"

.. i leave it now Thorne.

If it is a second generation star, then the material that formed this star came from stars before its birth. That time must be added to it.

reply to post by Lone12


I thought the star Sirius was the Blue Kachina the Hopi spoke of?

I don't know how they can date the universe, we have no reference. All their evidence is speculative, three thousand years of observation cannot be used to judge a base point, we also do not know for sure if decay outside our little bubble of the suns is the same as it is in the heliosphere. We do not even know for sure that time as we know it exists outside our solar system. I will be interested to see what happens to their theories when the satellite gets way outside our heliosphere and away from the gravitational influence the sun emits. I suppose they will force the evidence to coincide with consensus of the time.