On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder > >>> Astronomers refined the star's age down to about 14.5 billion years > (which >>> is still older than the universe), from the original data showing 16 > billion >>> years old. In either event it is way older then the Milky Way - yet there > it >>> is - not too far away cosmologically speaking. > > I wrote: >> Indeed, If it is really that old it should be billions of light years >> away from our own galaxy according >> to standard cosmology. > > Hold on, what am I saying? This is wrong, because a star within our > galaxy can be older than our galaxy, since stars formed before > galaxies. So Jones, a star as old as the universe is not a problem for > standard cosmology. > > > Harry, > > Although some stars formed before some galaxies, it is a bit misleading to > generalize that "stars formed before galaxies" in a local context to the > degree that one is a subset of the other. And in any event ... IF this star > formed in another galaxy, as seems likely - then one might ask - where are > the millions of other stars of that older galaxy? (the one which is older > than ours, and in which the Methuselah star could have been a part of). > It is a not a terrible stretch to say that out galaxy merged with an older > galaxy and this star is the only "known" survivor ... since it is not out of > the question, if and when we catalog all stars in ours, there may be dozens > or hundreds of Methuselah's out there that came from that other galaxy. > > Where is Heinlein when we need him ...?
Jones, accroding to this http://www.universetoday.com/21822/age-of-the-milky-way/ the age of the milky way is estimated to be 13.4 +/- 0.8 billion years (2004) Since the ages of the universe, the milkyway and the Methuselah star are not known with a great deal of imprecision many scenarios remain possible. Harry
