RE: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
* * *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 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 >
Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > are not known with a great deal of imprecision double negative Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene 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
RE: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
-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 ...?
Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> 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
Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > I'm mentioning this bit of cosmology as "on topic" simply because it shows > how tenuous is "expert consensus" on the most important things in our > Universe. We as an advanced society are far from having a complete knowledge > of physics, contrary to belief in the Ivory Towers of academia. > > This star's age is a real embarrassment for any putative Standard Model of > Cosmology :-) and with implications for the Standard Model for Physics. > Called the Methuselah star, aka HD 140283 - this object is actually in our > galaxy, which makes it even more problematic since it close to home. > > 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. > Indeed, If it is really that old it should be billions of light years away from our own galaxy according to standard cosmology. > The revision downward was a cop-out since the original estimate is based on > techniques used for everything else. In fact, the star could be at least two > billion years older than the Universe as a whole if most of our prior > assumptions are correct. > > http://www.space.com/20114-oldest-star-hubble-telescope-images.html > > Now ... here is the interesting part if the age measurement techniques were > to be correct. > > Say our Universe expands and collapses - on long very cycles. > > Can a "seed star" born at the end of the previous cycle, somehow survive the > collapse and carry forward anything relevant (i.e. 'information') between > cycles? > > This has definite implications going all the way to theology, no? A cyclic universe with no ulitmate beginning is a challenge for theology. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Methuselah star
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:36:50 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Say our Universe expands and collapses - on long very cycles. > >Can a "seed star" born at the end of the previous cycle, somehow survive the >collapse and carry forward anything relevant (i.e. 'information') between >cycles? Why not ask Mills? He posits a recycling universe. > >This has definite implications going all the way to theology, no? > >Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
