New Star found that is older than the Universe (Well, sort of)

[Jredbaron96]

Strange 'Methuselah' Star Looks Older Than the Universe | Hubble Telescope | Space.com

The oldest known star appears to be older than the universe itself, but a new study is helping to clear up this seeming paradox.
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.
Now a team of astronomers has derived a new, less nonsensical age for the Methuselah star, incorporating information about its distance, brightness, composition and structure.

It's worth noting that there is a margin of error of about 800 million years-enough to potentially place it back inside the previous timescale. Researchers have added that the longer they study it the more likely they are to the age to be younger than originally thought.

Even if it is on the young end, that's still a pretty old star. And 160 million light years outside of our galaxy. It must be lonely out there.

 

[Fisher]

Random first blush reactions:

1) once again those who know everything as facts that contradict religion will deny that their facts are always changing;

2) kind of neat; and

3) that thing must get a lot of junk mail from the AARP

 

[calamity]

Random first blush reactions:

1) once again those who know everything as facts that contradict religion will deny that their facts are always changing;

2) kind of neat; and

3) that thing must get a lot of junk mail from the AARP

I'm wondering if the time shift experienced by objects traveling at high speeds has anything to do with the difficulty in measuring something's age.

 

[Fisher]

I'm wondering if the time shift experienced by objects traveling at high speeds has anything to do with the difficulty in measuring something's age.

I don't know. Maybe. There was a debate awhile back about whether light was only energy and I contended that it was dual-natured while others took the position that its lack of mass made it just energy. I have even read stories of them being able to bring light to a complete stand still briefly. There is far more we don't know than we know, and what many claim to be known and true seems to always be changing. A lot of what we "know" is done through mathematical progression/regression based on the assumption that the math will reveal truth when it very well may not since the rules of math do not necessarily correspond with reality. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

 

[the_recruit]

1) once again those who know everything as facts that contradict religion will deny that their facts are always changing;

:roll: Any scientist will tell you that our understanding of the natural world can and does change in light of new evidence and observations. That's a silly accusation that only serves to ignite some stupid Science vs Religion fight.

 

[Fisher]

:roll: Any scientist will tell you that our understanding of the natural world can and does change in light of new evidence and observations. That's a silly accusation that only serves to ignite some stupid Science vs Religion fight.

No it serves to reiterate that science is as much about faith as it is facts :2wave:

 

[ZapFinch42]

A lot of what we "know" is done through mathematical progression/regression based on the assumption that the math will reveal truth when it very well may not since the rules of math do not necessarily correspond with reality.

What the Funk and Wagnalls are you taking about? The rules of Mathematics literally are the rules of the universe. There are no other rules, unless of course you are trying to bring in some sort of supernatural realm in to play here. But even then the math has never had a hole in it that would require some sort of leap in logic (ie faith) to complete it. If you are referring to the times when mathematical proofs are proven to be incorrect, that is simply a result of us making a mistake the fault isn't in the math itself.

I am so confused by that statement...

 

[ZapFinch42]

No it serves to reiterate that science is as much about faith as it is facts :2wave:

....no...:roll:

science is the antithesis of faith. By its very definition, if you take a piece of information on faith it is not science.

 

[humbolt]

....no...:roll:

science is the antithesis of faith. By its very definition, if you take a piece of information on faith it is not science.

Well, I have faith that science will sort it all out - eventually. Could take a little while yet. I don't think I'll be able to hang around for it.

 

[the_recruit]

No it serves to reiterate that science is as much about faith as it is facts :2wave:

Here you go again. "Science is no better than religion". You're carrying on with this stupid Religion vs Science war. Stop it. It's the most boring debate in the world.