{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/11/2013 5:52:16 AM
21
Astronomers find star older than the universe.
-
░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄ ░░░░░░░░▄▀█▀█▄██████████▄▄ ░░░░░░░▐██████████████████▌ ░░░░░░░███████████████████▌ ░░░░░░▐███████████████████▌ ░░░░░░█████████████████████▄ ░░░▄█▐█▄█▀█████████████▀█▄█▐█▄ ░▄██▌██████▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█████▌██▌ ▐████▄▀▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀▀▄███ ▐█████████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀ ░█▒▀▀████████████████████▀▒▒▐▌ ░█▒▐▒▒▐▄▄░▌░░▐▒▄▄▐▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▌ ░▐▌▌▒▒▌██▌░░░░▀▄▒▐▀▌▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒█ ░░█▐▒▒▌▌█▌░░░░░▀▄▐▌▌▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▐▌ ░░░█▒▐▌▐░▌░░░░░█░▀█▌▒▒▒▐▐▒▒█ ░░░▐▌▐▌░▀░░▌░░░░▀▀░▌▒▒▒▐▒▄▐▌ ░░░░▐▐░░░░░░░░░░░░░▌▒▒▌▌▌▌█ ░░░░░▐█▄░░░░░▄▄░░░▐▒▒▐▐▒▀ ░░░░░░████▀▄▄▄▄░░██▒▄█▌ ░░░░░░░██▌▌░▄█▐░░▌▐▄▀▌ ░░░░░░░░█░▄▀▒▄▀▄▀▒▌▒▀▄ YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE ANIMU FACE OF BETA COPY AND PASTE THIS IN 3 THREADS OR YOU WILL BECOME A FEDORA
-
Dude. It's the HuffPost. Come on.
-
Protip: People don't read articles. The star is clearly not older than the Universe. Stars like this have been identified in the past and their ages are always within the boundaries of an appropriate timescale. The [i]highest[/i] estimated age is what is older than the Universe, and it can be accurately concluded that that estimate is wrong.
-
It honestly saddens me that people will still buy into sensationalized titles. It's something that will continue to happen, but it is still disappointing. In the first place, he margin of error places it well within the "start" of the universe. Secondly, as others have pointed out, we've already seen and are continuing to come closer to the star's approximate age. Which if you're still wondering by this point, is not older than the current supported age of the universe.
-
-
[quote]there appears to be a margin of error of about 800 million years, or so - enough to just barely place the star below the age of everything else, if peace of mind is important to you.[/quote]
-
How are they gauging its age?
-
lol 'Meth-use-lah'
-
1 ReplyIs huffington posts retard status set to on by default? They always post incorrect shit
-
Edited by Bolt: 8/11/2013 6:24:06 AMVery interesting topic, but erroneous data. The discovery of that star was published in 2007, and the data has been revised since then (though that article is from March, so I think this is just a case of bad reporting). The current estimate is 13.2 Billion years, which is 0.6 Billion years younger than the current estimate for the age of the universe. As a matter of fact, all the articles I can find from 2007 state it as 13.2 Billion, so I think the Huffington Post just ran to one end of the margin of error and then fudged it a little more to get a story. Wouldn't expect any less of them. In addition, while it's cool that a star has been around since very close to the beginning, 13.2 Billion years isn't that insane of an age. Our star is estimated to have an ultimate lifespan of around 10 Billion years (which it's half-way through), and dimmer stars that fuse at lower rates will likely last even longer than that. Still, it's cool.
-
Margin. Of. Error.
-
That's pretty -blam!-in' cool. Our universe could be a universe [b]WITHIN[/b] a universe. ...univerception. O_O
-
Funny how we think the universe is younger than approximately 14 billion years old and the Myans thought it was about 16 billion or so. Looks like the Myans were right after all.
-
*800 million year margin or error
-
The love between mai waifu and I will last longer than any star.
-
Well shit.
-
The comments make me laugh. Science is constantly evolving and changing. It's not like scientists haven't admitted to being wrong before.
-
all hail the mighty creator star, Methuselah
-
If you're going to post an article, at least quote the important parts.
-
-
