Jump to content

Star older than universe


Bmpbmp1975

Recommended Posts

As it says in the page you linked to "Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star may or may not conflict with the calculated age of the Universe".

And "... if the assumptions of stellar evolution are correct in the report ...".

And "... Theories exist allowing for an older age of the universe than conventionally accepted ..."

 

(I bet you are hoping it's close, and about to go "pop", so you can be worried something will kill us all. Are you trying to start a doomsday cult?)

Edited by pzkpfw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

how can this star be older than the universe? Also being that old how does it still exist surely it should be dying in not very long?

It obviously isn't. Any appearance that it might be is (as they say) due to measurement error:

Quote

Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star may or may not conflict with the calculated age of the Universe as determined by the final 2015 Planck Satellite results of 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.[1][15]

 

7 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also it’s only 200 lights years away from earth so closer than betelguese?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283
 

how can this star be older than the universe? Also being that old how does it still exist surely it should be dying in not very long?

also it’s only 200 lights years away from earth so closer than betelguese?

 

!

Moderator Note

This is the second time in a short span that you have done this: insinuate a claim, but not provided sufficient evidence in the thread to support it.

It is not enough to just provide a link. Rule 2.7 states that people have to be able to participate without clicking any links That puts the onus on you to provide a quote from the article that provides a basis for the discussion. In this case, the passage that claims that this star is older than the universe. You imply that the article says this, in no uncertain terms, but it doesn't. That kind of argument style isn't acceptable. Do better.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2020 at 3:58 AM, Bmpbmp1975 said:

No I was asking how could it be older than the universe and how at it’s age it is still a star 

The estimated age for the star of 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. The calculated age of the Universe as determined by the final 2015 Planck Satellite results being 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years, it does not conflict, since e.g. an age of 13.8 billion years for the star would not make it an outlier in terms of its measured age. Though admittedly somewhat up in years. 

I thought that early stars and galaxies were supposed to have very short lifespans. So I kind of share the surprise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.