* * *METHUSELAH Stars maybe trans-universe Einstein-Rosen bridge passaged WANDERING Stars* * * *Stars can Einstein-Rosen 'jump' from one Universe through Aexospace/Hyperspace to another 'older' or younger universe. . . hense the 'arrival' of stars 'older' than our home-space-time-normal bubble universe via Einstein-Rosen passage/SPOOKY ACTION @ A DISTANCE through AexoDarkSpace should 'not' be considered particularly 'odd.' Stars are fundamentally 'white-hole-cored' and thus 'tailed' into AexoSpace and so the 'Solar Centre core-eye' is thus an ingress AexoDark Plasmaed Axial-flow circulatingTORUS; SHELLED by the thermo-nuclear fusion shell we normally characterize in stars construction. But the very same 'Casimir' cavity-shell effect that we ascribe to PROTON-singularity-ATOM-electro valent axial flow 'shells' IS functional in stars as SUPER-PROTONS. THUS every 'star/solar white hole' is potentially it's own STARGATE/Einstein-Rosen Bridge portal to ANYWHERE-ANYWHEN and to adjacent and/or maximally-displaced 'other' bubble universe(s). MAYBE SOME stars are 'wandering and/or habitually' TRANSIT STARS for as yet some undefined characteristic more than other merely non-transit stars. . . or maybe this is a routine phase of any-star potentially. OR MAYBE @ the GALACTIC-HUB SUPER SINGULARITY a star can EINSTEIN-STEIN ROSEN bridge 'launched' as it were to 'other' AexoSpacial' coordinates INSTANTLY which could be a VIRTUAL-INFINITY-ETERNITY away whether relatively Backward OR Forward in 'Time.' The virtually instantaneous Spooky Action @ a Distance TRANSIT-INTERVAL of such 'wanderers' would amount to VIRTUAL-NO-DISTANCE/ VIRTUAL-NO-TIME insta-speeds. . . likely BACKWARD & FORWARD in TIME in this case is virtually 'meaningless' as @ AexoSpace Speed-Density hyperfluidic/hypergravionic SUPERSPEEDS 'Time' as it were is NOT OPERATIVE but is ONLY RELEVENT in the much lower-speed-densities(Space Time-Normal Relativity) of bubble universe(s) such as our own. . . Universes are born-bigbanged @ the threshhold-lowered speed-density Einstein-Rosen-eyes of Gyro-Toroidal/AexoSpace Maelstrom-TORUS formation which is a routine and myriad event of AexoDarkSpace fractalating current hyperdynamics within said adjacent-parallel-parent Aexospace/HyperSpace.
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:04:29 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star > From: hveeder...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> 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 >
