-----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 ...?
