"We have found that this is the oldest known star with a well-determined age," said Howard Bond of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa., and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md. The star could be as old as 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 0.8 billion years), which at first glance would make it older than the universe's calculated age of about 13.8 billion years, an obvious dilemma. But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance." source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/hd140283.html makes you wonder about..... time. How can something be older than existence? A time traveling star?
Jai guru deva om https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN9n1bAahg4"]The Beatles - Across The Universe - YouTube Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup They slither while they pass They slip away across the universe Pools of sorrow waves of joy are drifting through my open mind Possessing and caressing me... Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes They call me on and on across the universe Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box they tumble blindly as they make their way across the universe... Sounds of laughter shades of life are ringing through my open ears inciting and inviting me Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns It calls me on and on across the universe...
Pretty interesting, seeing how the stars age has continously been reduced since it's discovery, it says more to me about how our equipment to date such stuff is still far from precise.
Nailed it. Either the estimate of the star's age is off, or the estimate of the universe's age is off. Existence transcends this universe. And you can only travel through time in one direction, it's been pretty well established.
Since we know absolutely nothing about the universe, except that we know nothing about the universe, which by default means we know something about the universe unless you do not count nothing as something, the guessing of the age of stars and the universe, whether it is through science or religion, is mildly entertaining yet vastly interesting.
"Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."
14.5 billion +/- 0.8 by is (13.7 - 15.3) which is not older than the universe at 13.8by. Incedentally, here's a astronomy team discussing that the universe is itself a collapsed 4d star, forming our 3d universe which appears to expand from our observation. This solves several problems with the big bang theory. http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 Hawking talked about the possibility in Black Holes and Baby universes.
There no such thing as 4 physical dimensions. A "hyper-dimensional 4D star" is sensationalist fantasy science. In scientific theory, anything considered for over a period of time is 4D but in any one instant of time things can only be 3 physical dimensions. What we call the universe is really and more correctly known as the observable universe or known universe. Science is not static, it is dynamic and constantly evolving as a knowledge base. Most scientists agree that time and space are infinite. Space, time and energy, all the ingredients for matter, all existed before our known universe. Stars, galaxies, and known universes are finite but re-occur infinitely. Before our universe there was another universe. A billion trillion light years away from our universe in any direction, there are most likely other universes...
M-theory and superstring theory both rely on many unperceived spatial universes (10 and 11) and dismissing it as fantasy science isn't prudent.
older then the universe, might not always be, but for now is, something of a self contradiction. as age, measured by redshift, is, as far as i am aware of, the only measure of the age of the universe, we have. anything older then the age of the universe, thus becomes, the new, age of the universe itself, rather then 'older then'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roger-highfield/10239254/Astronomic-news-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all.html
proven facts are mythical beasts. current scientific consensus has string theory on a par with everything else. which is precisely as close to any such thing as a proven fact as anything gets.
