Methuselah Star Older than the universe itself.

Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Fine, I would rather talk about Pot and titties, but you guys would rather have Science,
Trust me Don't ever become the Science Guy Cuse nobody will let you talk about boobies anymore :giggle8:

Boobies are important you know,, Anyway, This Is the Methuselah Star,

tQem8ASYJprKt7k82ejVB2cO1zMLpZi-ZANDW-oeN8g.jpg


It is 14,5 billion years old,

Time Or the concept of time is being reexamined, This Is a render of the Methuselah Star, What is so important about this Star, Well, This Star is called the Methuselah star because of how old it is, it is 14.5 billion years old, For those in the know, The universe is 13.8 billion years old, Yes, This Star is literally older than the Universe itself.

Star that’s older than the universe

The age of our universe is determined by the cosmic microwave background, this is the gamma radiation that the Big bang gave off when it exploded Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

ilc_9yr_moll4096.png


So, How is this Star older than The universe itself? Well, we just don't know. Many scientists believe they have the answer, Some believe, Logically, That the star must have simply already been there when the big bang went off, others believe that time and gravity are quantumly entangled, and because of this, the Star has simply aged or "entropies faster" than the rest of the cosmos, Either way, This Star experiences Time in ways the rest of the universe does not, It's legitimately older than existence itself, Maybe someday we will understand how such a curious thing could possibly exist, Until that time, it hangs in the night sky as a reminder that some things will always be beyond our understanding.

SP.
 
Thomas R. Morrison

Thomas R. Morrison

Meh
All we know for sure is that the star is at least 13.2 billion years old:

"His team calculates that the star is 13.9 billion years old, give or take 700 million years. Taking into account that experimental error, the age does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 billion years.

The star's age is therefore at least 13.2 billion years — which was the estimated age of another known Methuselah2 — and possibly older. Its age is known with considerably better confidence than that of the previous Methuselah, says Bond."

Nearby star is almost as old as the Universe
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Thomas R. Morrison said:
All we know for sure is that the star is at least 13.2 billion years old:

"His team calculates that the star is 13.9 billion years old, give or take 700 million years. Taking into account that experimental error, the age does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 billion years.

The star's age is therefore at least 13.2 billion years — which was the estimated age of another known Methuselah2 — and possibly older. Its age is known with considerably better confidence than that of the previous Methuselah, says Bond."

Nearby star is almost as old as the Universe
Click to expand...
There is another Methuselah Star!!? You have amazed me many times, But this time you blew my mind brother :D
 
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
I think the universe is far older than is known now, but we will discover and realize as time passes and technology improves...

...
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
nivek said:
I think the universe is far older than is known now, but we will discover and realize as time passes and technology improves...

...
Click to expand...
I usually don't go outside of empirical study, However, If I can go completely off the books for a moment, I have a theory that our big bang wasn't the only big bang, And there could be more, there could be infinitely more Bing bang events. TO complicate that when you have so much accelerated mass like that, then time itself is a relative thing, Meaning, there could literally have been countless Big bang events occurring and reoccurring countless times throughout endless eons of eternity. people think time is just one thing one dimension we experience, But what if, There are many different "times" all happening at once? You know what,?

I like going off the books lol
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Of course, I've been thinking about this all morning, Time Dilation, What if, These Methuselah stars aren't expanding at the Hubble constant? What if for whatever reason some stars aren't expanding at the same rate as we observe in the rest of the cosmos? The time dilation of a slower expansion rate would cause a star to age faster than the rest of the accelerated universe? I mean, That is how time dilation works right? the faster an object is accelerated the slower time passes for that object? So then These slower-moving objects that aren't expanding as fast as the rest of the cosmos would age more rapidly would they not? Idk, It's just a thought.
 
Toroid

Toroid

Founding Member
Maybe it's not a star, but a gate to another realm. Over the years it appears they've been slowly extending the age of the universe. According to a timeline put out by Billy Meier the universe is 46 trillion years old and our sun is a trillion. Wikipedia says HD 140283 is 200 light years away in the Libra constellation, Space.com says it's 190 light years away and I found a video that states it's 200 million light years away.

HD 140283 - Wikipedia
Strange 'Methuselah' Star Looks Older Than the Universe | Space

The Future Of Mankind - A Billy Meier Wiki - Event Timeline
46,000,000,000,000 years ago Birth of this universe, the DERN universe
Click to expand...

In the Law of One material it states:
The Law of One Search Results for ‘the first thing’
13.5 ▶ Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.
Click to expand...

The 200 million light year comment is at 1:00.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CorS1pwI09E

This diagram is from the First Source CD-ROM. It appears the Grand Universe was constructed like an electric motor between the outer ring of anti-matter and baryonic matter and the inner large gravity bodies. There's a text description of the diagram on the CD.
Structure%2Bof%2BGrand%2BPhysical%2BUniverse.png
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Toroid said:
Maybe it's not a star, but a gate to another realm. Over the years it appears they've been slowly extending the age of the universe. According to a timeline put out by Billy Meier the universe is 46 trillion years old and our sun is a trillion. Wikipedia says HD 140283 is 200 light years away in the Libra constellation, Space.com says it's 190 light years away and I found a video that states it's 200 million light years away.

HD 140283 - Wikipedia
Strange 'Methuselah' Star Looks Older Than the Universe | Space

The Future Of Mankind - A Billy Meier Wiki - Event Timeline


In the Law of One material it states:
The Law of One Search Results for ‘the first thing’


The 200 million light year comment is at 1:00.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CorS1pwI09E

This diagram is from the First Source CD-ROM. It appears the Grand Universe was constructed like an electric motor between the outer ring of anti-matter and baryonic matter and the inner large gravity bodies. There's a text description of the diagram on the CD.
Structure%2Bof%2BGrand%2BPhysical%2BUniverse.png
Click to expand...


The grand physical universe you say? I like that term much better than multiverse, Just this morning I was in a knockdown drag-out scientific , I guess the proper term would be war, With Tate, About the universe and How the Term is loosely defined, And the Concept of a multiverse is equally flawed because, even if there was a multiverse, Wouldn't the Term Uni Verse still adequately cover the whole spectrum? I mean, Uni and multi, All that is an away to distinguish one or many, But, That's simply down to how a person sees an object isn't it? as one thing or multiple things?

I assert that Even if there were a billion multiverses, It's all one Universe. Because the human mind wants to group all that information into one unified thing to see one bigger picture, right? so Some call it the OmniVerse, But That's such an In moms basement playing dungeons and dragons term. I feel, That If we discovered Other universes or proved the "Multiverse" Someone would just come along with a unified theory about how all those universes are part of a larger structure, That's why I feel the term universe needs to be redefined to suit its original need. Either way, I do rather like this Grand Physical universe concept though.
 
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Toroid said:
Maybe it's not a star, but a gate to another realm.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, would a gateway to another realm exist because of a massive source of energy like a star that could punch through barriers between realms or would a gateway exist in the weakest part of the universe where barriers between realms may collapse?...

...
 
Toroid

Toroid

Founding Member
nivek said:
Hypothetically speaking, would a gateway to another realm exist because of a massive source of energy like a star that could punch through barriers between realms or would a gateway exist in the weakest part of the universe where barriers between realms may collapse?...

...
Click to expand...
I'm unable to answer that because I dropped out of the Galactic University. I spent too much time consuming ale and plutonian nyborg. There's info saying there's an energy source or gateway in the center of stars and they're all linked. A ship enters a star by matching its frequency and pops out of another star. I believe the sun goes to the center star in Orion's belt and/or Sirius.
 
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Toroid said:
I'm unable to answer that because I dropped out of the Galactic University. I spent too much time consuming ale and plutonian nyborg. There's info saying there's an energy source or gateway in the center of stars and they're all linked. A ship enters a star by matching its frequency and pops out of another star. I believe the sun goes to the center star in Orion's belt and/or Sirius.
Click to expand...

Maybe these type stars are at weak points in the universe and they are strategically placed at those points to break through the weak barriers and gain access to another realm...(still hypothetically speaking)

...
 
Thomas R. Morrison

Thomas R. Morrison

Meh
nivek said:
I think the universe is far older than is known now, but we will discover and realize as time passes and technology improves...
...
Click to expand...
Actually I remember when they were dialing in the age of the cosmos, and the estimates were closer to about 15B years or so. Maybe they will ultimately find a reason to increase the age estimate again, but I dunno man - they have a few different lines of empirical study that all converge on the contemporary estimate of about 13.77B years, so I'm not expecting any ground-breaking changes in the age estimate.

Double Nought Spy said:
Seems like an excessively parsimonious reality that would only allow one big bang. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
The shocking part to me, is that there's a universe in the first place - frankly it blows my mind that anything exists at all. And the on-going difficulty in resolving the baryogenesis problem only deepens the mystery. I can get my head more or less around most of physics and theoretical physics, but I can't help but feel that the very existence of the universe can only be described as miraculous.

Shadowprophet said:
Of course, I've been thinking about this all morning, Time Dilation, What if, These Methuselah stars aren't expanding at the Hubble constant? What if for whatever reason some stars aren't expanding at the same rate as we observe in the rest of the cosmos? The time dilation of a slower expansion rate would cause a star to age faster than the rest of the accelerated universe? I mean, That is how time dilation works right? the faster an object is accelerated the slower time passes for that object? So then These slower-moving objects that aren't expanding as fast as the rest of the cosmos would age more rapidly would they not? Idk, It's just a thought.
Click to expand...
Whoa...hold up there, Tex. The Hubble constant only appears at intergalactic distances. If it applies to stellar scales at all, it' so minute that it's undetectable. And this statement makes no sense at all: "The time dilation of a slower expansion rate." Time dilation applies to large velocity differentials, and to gravitational fields - just those two factors.

But I have often wondered how they apply time dilation to the early universe. I mean, time appears to stop at the event horizon of a black hole (to a distant observer). The early universe was vastly more dense than any known black hole. So A.) how did it expand at all against that enormous gravitational field, and B.) wouldn't the subjective rate of time in the early superdense universe be experienced as a much longer time than would be apparent to an observer removed from the event by many billions of years as we are? Perhaps what seems like 10e^-33 second to us, would've seemed like billions of years to an observer deep within that monstrous gravitational field. In fact I'm not at all sure what "space" and "time" even mean, when you're talking about a gravitational field unimaginably more intense than the field within the event horizon of a galactic black hole. Theorists say that time and space reverse roles in that region, but that doesn't help much, and we still don't understand how an object that dense could expand in the first place.
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Thomas R. Morrison said:
Actually I remember when they were dialing in the age of the cosmos, and the estimates were closer to about 15B years or so. Maybe they will ultimately find a reason to increase the age estimate again, but I dunno man - they have a few different lines of empirical study that all converge on the contemporary estimate of about 13.77B years, so I'm not expecting any ground-breaking changes in the age estimate.


The shocking part to me, is that there's a universe in the first place - frankly it blows my mind that anything exists at all. And the on-going difficulty in resolving the baryogenesis problem only deepens the mystery. I can get my head more or less around most of physics and theoretical physics, but I can't help but feel that the very existence of the universe can only be described as miraculous.


Whoa...hold up there, Tex. The Hubble constant only appears at intergalactic distances. If it applies to stellar scales at all, it' so minute that it's undetectable. And this statement makes no sense at all: "The time dilation of a slower expansion rate." Time dilation applies to large velocity differentials, and to gravitational fields - just those two factors.

But I have often wondered how they apply time dilation to the early universe. I mean, time appears to stop at the event horizon of a black hole (to a distant observer). The early universe was vastly more dense than any known black hole. So A.) how did it expand at all against that enormous gravitational field, and B.) wouldn't the subjective rate of time in the early superdense universe be experienced as a much longer time than would be apparent to an observer removed from the event by many billions of years as we are? Perhaps what seems like 10e^-33 second to us, would've seemed like billions of years to an observer deep within that monstrous gravitational field. In fact I'm not at all sure what "space" and "time" even mean, when you're talking about a gravitational field unimaginably more intense than the field within the event horizon of a galactic black hole. Theorists say that time and space reverse roles in that region, but that doesn't help much, and we still don't understand how an object that dense could expand in the first place.
Click to expand...

So time dilation isn't something that's always in effect to accelerated objects? My assumption was, Any differences in acceleration whatsoever would have some effect on time dilation, So the time dilation event is not a constant effect? It's like an event or phenomenon that occurs? My thing is this, If we need such vast accelerations and gravity to observe time dilation, then why is it something we must account for with satellites for GPS to function? My assumption was Time dilation is an event that occurs in relation to any two objects moving at different velocities, The reason I say this is because I can't comprehend us needing to compensate for time dilation with Gps satellites If they didn't need that compensation? My thinking was, Minute changes over half a billion years would be a pretty vast change.


As far as the time dilation of a slower expansion rate, I know I'm theoretical but I need to be able to have fun with these theories, So I ask, What proof is there that everything expands at this same acceleration? I ask for two reasons, Reason One, I am not convinced that it does, Reason two, If it does, Then Maybe I will get some reading material out of this.
 
Last edited:
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Thomas R. Morrison said:
Actually I remember when they were dialing in the age of the cosmos, and the estimates were closer to about 15B years or so. Maybe they will ultimately find a reason to increase the age estimate again, but I dunno man - they have a few different lines of empirical study that all converge on the contemporary estimate of about 13.77B years, so I'm not expecting any ground-breaking changes in the age estimate.


The shocking part to me, is that there's a universe in the first place - frankly it blows my mind that anything exists at all. And the on-going difficulty in resolving the baryogenesis problem only deepens the mystery. I can get my head more or less around most of physics and theoretical physics, but I can't help but feel that the very existence of the universe can only be described as miraculous.


Whoa...hold up there, Tex. The Hubble constant only appears at intergalactic distances. If it applies to stellar scales at all, it' so minute that it's undetectable. And this statement makes no sense at all: "The time dilation of a slower expansion rate." Time dilation applies to large velocity differentials, and to gravitational fields - just those two factors.

But I have often wondered how they apply time dilation to the early universe. I mean, time appears to stop at the event horizon of a black hole (to a distant observer). The early universe was vastly more dense than any known black hole. So A.) how did it expand at all against that enormous gravitational field, and B.) wouldn't the subjective rate of time in the early superdense universe be experienced as a much longer time than would be apparent to an observer removed from the event by many billions of years as we are? Perhaps what seems like 10e^-33 second to us, would've seemed like billions of years to an observer deep within that monstrous gravitational field. In fact I'm not at all sure what "space" and "time" even mean, when you're talking about a gravitational field unimaginably more intense than the field within the event horizon of a galactic black hole. Theorists say that time and space reverse roles in that region, but that doesn't help much, and we still don't understand how an object that dense could expand in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I've considered, What if the actual size of matter is expanding, I've thought, If matter is expanding, How would we know? If it was happening slowly over billions of years. I mean really though? How would we know? Matter is energy, right? So Why couldn't it expand in size? What I am saying is, How do we know for certain, That all matter in the universe isn't expanding slowly, and what a Planck distance was a hundred years ago could be much larger today than it was then, because if everything was expanding uniformly, How would we even detect this? Gravitational time dilation vs velocity time dilation Also, Velocity dilation and Gravitational dilation seem to almost be different concepts.
 
Last edited:
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Now I know before you even say it, It's density, Not expansion, But, What if till this very day, Matter is still "poofing up" from when it was so condensed?
 
Shadowprophet

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I get that the Hubble constant isn't affected on the galactic level, and if it was it would be without a doubt inconsequential, I see what you are meaning with this statement. I think It was a flip flop with words on my side that caused the confusion, What I was actually intending with the statement was, What if this Methuselah star is a rouge star, Something that's traveling space in a way that isn't uniform with the spin of our galaxy. Or the Hubble constant for that matter. I forget sometimes, That if no one else will, You will understand what I am saying when it comes to these things, So, I need to be very careful not to mislabel a concept as I'm conveying it. So I will phrase it in this way, I phrase it this way because I don't know if it's possible. But, Could a Star, Be a Rouge star that is not native to this galaxy? Like, straight up a rouge star from another galaxy?
 
Thomas R. Morrison

Thomas R. Morrison

Meh
Toroid said:
Thread bump. :Thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Wikipedia offers a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy:

"Because HD 140283 is neither on the main sequence nor a red giant, its early position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram has been interpreted with its data and theoretical models of stellar evolution based on quantum mechanics and the observations of processes in millions of stars to infer its old age. For field stars (as opposed to stars in clusters) it is rare to know a star's luminosity, surface temperature and composition precisely enough to get a well-constrained value for their age; because of their relative scarcity, this is even rarer for a Population II star like HD 140283. A study published in 2013 used the Fine Guidance Sensors of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to measure a precise parallax (and therefore distance and luminosity) for the star, and employ this information to estimate an age for the star of 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star may or may not conflict with the calculated age of the Universe as determined by the final 2015 Planck Satellite results of 13.799 ± 0.021 billion."
HD 140283 - Wikipedia

So there's a wide enough uncertainty in the estimates to account for this illusory paradox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top