how is it possible for star hd140283 to be older than the universe?


Someone said i am always wrong hello im asking questions to learn stuff so i wont be wrong those that don’t like my questions shouldn’t use this board if they don’t like giving answers 

6 Answers

  • 2 months ago

    The age of the universe is a man made BEST Guess and the real universe just maybe larger than anyone guess at...


  • Bob
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    It isn't older than the universe, its estimated age is within the error range of the age of the universe.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    The Iain M. Banks novel "Excession" deals precisely with this situation.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    For the same reason my girth challenged Aunt Matilda looks older than dirt, but is actually middle aged. She drinks like a fish, and eats everything on her plate- including the dish. She's fat, when she falls she splats. But that about 42 going on 85.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    It isn't the Universe is 13.8 billion years?old. HD 140283 is 13.2 billion years old. 13.8 > i3.2 

    Those numbers to the right of the decimal point are important. Do not ignore them. Your facts are wrong and uncoordinated. 

    You are always wrong,vic. All you post is spam.

  • 2 months ago

    Obviously, that star is part of the universe.  Just as obviously, it is NOT older than the universe.  It's not like we can look at a birth certificate, we have calculated the age from various measurements. The result is a range, not a single number. The age of the star is 13.26 to 15.26 billion years.

    The age of the universe is figured to be 13.778 to 13.820 billion years. Notice that is is plenty of room in those numbers, for the star to be YOUNGER than the universe.

    Also, maybe we should use wider ranges. We're only 99.5% sure about the published ranges, so perhaps reality is in that extra 0.5%.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.