Star older than universe

[Bmpbmp1975]

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?

 

[pzkpfw]

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 February 14, 2020 by pzkpfw

[Bmpbmp1975]

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

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

how can this star be older than the universe?

It can't be. That should be obvious if you are even remotely aware of what the "universe" is.

[Strange]

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

 

[taeto]

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.  

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, taeto said:

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

I guess that is why it is newsworthy! 

[Dissily Mordentroge]

On 2/14/2020 at 2:44 PM, zapatos said:

--- - - - - - - - - if you are even remotely aware of what the "universe" is.

Why does that reduce me to a fit of the giggles? 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Dissily Mordentroge said:

Why does that reduce me to a fit of the giggles? 

youre stoned??? 🖖