Big Bang Theory Wrong? Star Older Than Universe Discovered

best measurement of the age of the universe 13.799±0.021 billion

this is a 0.15% accuracy measurement, ie, it is very good and should expect to be wildly different.

The age of this star is 14.46 ± 0.8 billion, ie a 5.5% measurement

SO anyone who has even a basic understanding of statistics and uncertainties will tell you... the age of the star is a weaker measurement by more than an order of magnitude on its uncertainty. There is absolutely no contention at all on the age of the universe or the cmb based measurement. To suggest there is is to fundamentally not to understand stats or science.

All this measurement really says is that this star is extremely old. The fact that the star is on the subgiant branch at an advanced evolutionary age, is a high velocity object not part of a local cluster or group is also a tell that the straight measurement of metallically converted to age will come with difficulties and to a degree, not a huge number of cross checks and reference points like you can do with say a globular cluster.

It is a very interesting object regardless, but by no means does this in any way at all disprove the big bang, or tell you anything about the model. All it tells you is that... a star, produced when the universe was young, was of low mass, slow burn, and is now reaching the end of life... it gives you a look at the metallically of the early universe and isn't some sort of model killer that 'Astronomers hate'

a reply to: Gothmog

Dumb because 0+0 does not equal Everything

You asked for a reason like you can’t figure out basic issues of nonsense

I'm not sure why this star is suddenly spawning threads (there are at least two similar threads about this in the past couple of days) because the apparent age of this star has been known for several years now.

That is, this is an old story. There were stories about this star back in the news back in 2013 and its possible age conflict wit the age of the universe. My guess is it that some news outlet decided to recycle this old story.

But there is nothing that mysterious about this. If someone digs a little deeper, they would see that the star is not necessarily older that the universe, but formed someone soon after the big bang. That is to say, this is not an "impossible star". The age of this star, named HD 140283 or the "Methuselah Star", has some uncertainty attached to it of +/- 800,000 years. Taking that uncertainty into account, it falls within the estimated age of the universe:

Uncertainties in the stellar parameters and chemical composition, especially the oxygen content, now contribute more to the error budget for the age of HD 140283 than does its distance, increasing the total uncertainty to about ±0.8 Gyr. Within the errors, the age of HD 140283 does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 ± 0.06 Gyr, based on the microwave background and Hubble constant, but it must have formed soon after the big bang.

Source: HD 140283: A Star in the Solar Neighborhood that Formed Shortly After the Big Bang

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Gothmog

Dumb because 0+0 does not equal Everything

You asked for a reason like you can’t figure out basic issues of nonsense

What ?
Mind expanding on just what was meant ?
You ok ?