UM-Bot Posted August 10, 2019 #1 Share Posted August 10, 2019 Known as the 'Methuselah star' due to its extreme age, this nearby stellar body may predate the Big Bang. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/329605/mysterious-star-is-older-than-the-universe 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manni Posted August 10, 2019 #2 Share Posted August 10, 2019 Humans admitting a miscalculation is bigger than the universe itself. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Just An Opinion Posted August 10, 2019 #3 Share Posted August 10, 2019 It's hard to imagine how something could be older than the universe if you are thinking with modern rationalism that everything in existence is made with matter from this dimension alone. When you consider this dimension to be a box full of matter, you then realize that there are there are things outside the box. The matter within it simply happens to make up most of the things in our universe but that doesn't mean that matter was always inside that box. Things may come and go without you being able to explain it. Only perceive that they entered or that they disappeared. Perhaps after everything else condensed in another dimension and gained a weight so great that it exploded into this one, that star was the last thing to enter the dimensional rift before it closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ell Posted August 10, 2019 #4 Share Posted August 10, 2019 I refuse to believe that that star is very old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted August 10, 2019 #5 Share Posted August 10, 2019 The news.com.au article itself, the linked source of this thread, admits that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, with a margin of uncertainty of 800 million years, either way. The mysterious Methuselah star, at a supposed age of 14. 5 billion years, sits neatly within that margin. 13.8 billion plus 800 million makes 14.6 billion. It seems far more reasonable, and much simpler to simply suppose that the true age of the universe is near the top end of the estimated range, rather than propose intrusion of a star from another universe, or that the 'big bang' theory is invalidated. 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingAngel Posted August 10, 2019 #6 Share Posted August 10, 2019 Maybe a black hole "eats" it and transfer through a wormhole from another dimension. The multi verse theory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted August 10, 2019 #7 Share Posted August 10, 2019 18 minutes ago, bison said: The news.com.au article itself, the linked source of this thread, admits that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, with a margin of uncertainty of 800 million years, either way. The mysterious Methuselah star, at a supposed age of 14. 5 billion years, sits neatly within that margin. 13.8 billion plus 800 million makes 14.6 billion. It seems far more reasonable, and much simpler to simply suppose that the true age of the universe is near the top end of the estimated range, rather than propose intrusion of a star from another universe, or that the 'big bang' theory is invalidated. Or the obvious that the star is newer. Maybe two newer stars collided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllPossible Posted August 10, 2019 #8 Share Posted August 10, 2019 That's weird. 200 light years away but that old. Maybe it's not that old it just ages bad 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllPossible Posted August 10, 2019 #9 Share Posted August 10, 2019 2 hours ago, FlyingAngel said: Maybe a black hole "eats" it and transfer through a wormhole from another dimension. The multi verse theory Ok now you're just getting "carried away" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBarnes Posted August 10, 2019 #10 Share Posted August 10, 2019 Now...I do NOT pretend to be much of a scientist. But just trying to use Occam's Razor as best I can.... Occam's razor definition is - "a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities". What if it somehow, someway, somewhere just sort of 'got here'. In my home today there are things much older than my home itself. If there does exist some sort of mechanism to bring things in and out of a universe in pretty much the same way that things can be brought in and out of my home, then this is no mystery. We just do not know the mechanism yet. Since my understanding of quantum physics is that pretty much anything can happen anywhere, anyhow, for any reason at the quantum level as long as we are observing it then a star older than the universe popping up 200 million light years away is no different than two electrons influencing each other with no apparent connection and no immediate physical relationship over great distances.It would then be just a bigger version of quantum craziness. I don't pretend to understand this but if the rules of the standard physical universe do not apply anyway in the quantum universe could this be a mega version of quantum physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 10, 2019 #11 Share Posted August 10, 2019 4 hours ago, FlyingAngel said: Maybe a black hole "eats" it and transfer through a wormhole from another dimension. The multi verse theory A singularity isn't a actual "hole". It's a super dense object that sucks up other matter and spits out hot matter when it's over full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ell Posted August 10, 2019 #12 Share Posted August 10, 2019 It has only 0.780 or 0.805 solar mass, so it is a slow burner. It also is a high-velocity star, so my guess is that it is a runaway star. I suspect that this star used to be a Jupiter mass planet. When its parent star went supernova, it dumped some of its gas layers upon the planet and the shockwave ignited nuclear fusion, and gave it a high impulse. Ever since the heavy elements in its gas layers have been dropping down to its center. That is why it has scarcely any heavy elements in its outer layer. Conclusion: It is a very young star and it formed and ignited in an exceptional way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gumball Posted August 10, 2019 #13 Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) How can this not just be an example of science making a mistake? Either way someone's calculations are wrong. Science is not infallible. It's slightly amusing reading some of the comments on here involving some pretty wild theories instead of just saying "we got it wrong". I'm expecting a few rage comments from this but............ Edited August 10, 2019 by mesuma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted August 11, 2019 #14 Share Posted August 11, 2019 This shows how wrong science can get since many of its observations are based on suppositions and observational guessestimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartAZ Posted August 11, 2019 #15 Share Posted August 11, 2019 Or maybe all their estimates are just baloney. For a very long time one group of astronomers could prove that the universe was not older than 13 billion years, while another group could prove that it was not younger than 19 billion years, and neither group could find anything wrong with the other group's proof. Of course both proofs were based on the assumption that the universe had a definite starting point, and that astronomers had enough data and reliable enough methods to calculate that point. Bottom line: scientists would rather be wrong than uncertain. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 12, 2019 #16 Share Posted August 12, 2019 1 hour ago, SmartAZ said: Or maybe all their estimates are just baloney. For a very long time one group of astronomers could prove that the universe was not older than 13 billion years, while another group could prove that it was not younger than 19 billion years, and neither group could find anything wrong with the other group's proof. Of course both proofs were based on the assumption that the universe had a definite starting point, and that astronomers had enough data and reliable enough methods to calculate that point. Bottom line: scientists would rather be wrong than uncertain. Have you proven Saturn was up Earth's butt yet and caused the Biblical flood? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom1200 Posted August 16, 2019 #17 Share Posted August 16, 2019 On 8/12/2019 at 1:51 AM, Piney said: Have you proven Saturn was up Earth's butt yet and caused the Biblical flood? Now, now, Piney. No one ever thought that was Saturn. It was actually Venus. It had a identity crisis 3000 years ago, started drinking heavily and went off-orbit for a while. Caused all sorts of nonsense on Earth including nuking Atlantis and shooting the dinosaurs. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted August 16, 2019 #18 Share Posted August 16, 2019 On 8/10/2019 at 8:24 AM, bison said: The news.com.au article itself, the linked source of this thread, admits that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, with a margin of uncertainty of 800 million years, either way. The mysterious Methuselah star, at a supposed age of 14. 5 billion years, sits neatly within that margin. 13.8 billion plus 800 million makes 14.6 billion. It seems far more reasonable, and much simpler to simply suppose that the true age of the universe is near the top end of the estimated range, rather than propose intrusion of a star from another universe, or that the 'big bang' theory is invalidated. Like many mainstream media, it appears that news.com.au can sometimes be rather careless about its facts. Actually, the age of the universe is known to a precision of about 12 million years. It is the age of the Methuselah star itself that has an uncertainty factor of 800 million years. This still, of course, allows the star to have had its origin within the age of the universe as it is currently known-- ~13.8 billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartAZ Posted August 19, 2019 #19 Share Posted August 19, 2019 (edited) On 8/11/2019 at 5:51 PM, Piney said: Have you proven Saturn was up Earth's butt yet and caused the Biblical flood? I don't know what you are talking about. ETA: I think I know what you are talking about, but I don't need to prove anything to someone who muddles the subject so badly. Edited August 19, 2019 by SmartAZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingAngel Posted September 7, 2019 #20 Share Posted September 7, 2019 On 8/11/2019 at 1:16 AM, mesuma said: How can this not just be an example of science making a mistake? Either way someone's calculations are wrong. Science is not infallible. It's slightly amusing reading some of the comments on here involving some pretty wild theories instead of just saying "we got it wrong". I'm expecting a few rage comments from this but............ Yeah, it could be wrong. Having theories isn't too bad either. Imaginations lead us to another approach of interpreting life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper 6 Posted September 7, 2019 #21 Share Posted September 7, 2019 On 8/10/2019 at 8:02 PM, UM-Bot said: Known as the 'Methuselah star' due to its extreme age, this nearby stellar body may predate the Big Bang. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/329605/mysterious-star-is-older-than-the-universe The link that started this thread was vastly short on data, it also made conclusions that were not based upon fact. While the Universe is estimated to be 13.5 Billion years old that number is plus or minus 800,000 years according to NASA which could make the Universe 14.3 billion years old. The Methuselah Star is 14.5 Billion years old plus or minus 0.8 Billion years by NASAs calculations. Which places the age of Universe and the age of the Methuselah Star within the estimated time frame of the Big Bang. So this Star while not older than the Universe may actually be one of the first Stars created after the Big Bang. Below is a link to the NASA calculations. This is a very good read if you are interested, it will answer most of the questions other members have asked above. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/hd140283.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now