[...]
>>From the 6/9/96 AP wire:
>____________________________________________________
>
>NEW YORK (AP) =97 Astronomers have reported seeing stars that are=
seemingly
>older than the universe=20
>itself =97 a nonsensical notion that suggests that one of the fundamental
>assumptions used to calculate the=20
>age of the cosmos is flawed
>
>The scientists calculated stars in a certain galaxy to be 1 billion to 1.5
>billion years older than the universe=20
>itself, said researcher James Dunlop.
>
>Of course, it=92s impossible for the universe to be younger than any of its
>stars [well, duh! - CW]. The=20
>discrepancy represents yet another challenge to the standard theory of the
>universe.
>_______________________________________________________
>
>Or, maybe the speed of light has changed ;-)
>
I've never quite understood what all the hubub is about on this
age business. The first time I read about cosmology and learned
that we have models capable of estimating the age of the Universe
I thought wow! And when I learned that several methods of estimating
the age of the Universe agree to within an order of magnitude I
thought wow wow wow!!!. So we have one estimate giving an age 20 or
30% higher than another. So what? I make my living getting experimental
data and trying to develop models to fit it. I just returned from a
meeting in which a fellow presented some results where his model
over-predicted his data by a factor of 2 in some cases. No one
was jumping up and down prophesying the end of continuum mechanics.
We just suggested that he improve his model a little :-).
>Chuck the non-YEC
I think you mis-spelled YECHHHH ;-)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Brian Harper | "People of that kind are academics, scholars,
Associate Professor | and that is the nastiest kind of man I know."
Applied Mechanics | -- Blaise Pascal
Ohio State University | =20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D