> As I understand it, the most recent work on the Hubble Constant leads
> to a 12 Ba cosmos. This is less than the ages of the oldest stars.
Cosmology isn't my field, so sometimes I'm a little out-of-date. After
the recent Hubble results were announced, I asked my wife about this.
(Cosmology *is* her field.) She tells me that in the last few years,
stellar physicists have improved their models and measurements. The
current best number for the oldest stars is now 12 billion years.
The recent measurement of Hubble's constant gives an age of the universe
of 12 billion if you assume a cosmological constant of zero. But recent
best measurements give a non-zero value. Plug in the best measured value
for the cosmological constant, combined with the latest Hubble's constant
measurement, you get an age of the universe of 13.5 billion years.
Cosmological constant just a "fudge factor" you say? Methinks it should
sue you for libel. :-)
I agree with you that we have gaps in our knowledge regarding calibrating
"molecular clocks" over billions of years and regarding microscopic
pre-Cambrian fossils. But then, we already knew that before the Wang et.
al. paper was published.
Paradigm shifts are fine to watch for, but I'm not holding my breath
anticipating rockets bumping into a solid firmament anytime soon.
Loren Haarsma