Methuselah an apt name. What is your guess as to where the discrepancy lies? I was actually reading about this this morning on space.com and of course, there were a number of religious people commenting that this proves that science doesn't know what it's talking about... I like that science is often turned on it's head by things like this and even last years neutrino study. Science is willing to follow the data, the facts and see where it leads. Certainty is a scary thing. People that know and are certain of things scare the crap out of me. They are the ones that burn books and put people in camps. I digress. So, what do you think will come of the Metathuealah paradox?
Well, I'm actually going to write a full post on this (I'm trying for today - but no promise). In short, as I eluded in the article, I put it in the same category as the "faster-than-light" neutrino. We know that this star has an interesting and unique history (it originated in a primitive dwarf galaxy and has since been ejected and is making a very fast pass into the Milky Way). As a result of its speed and history our current methods for dating the star may simply not be up to the task of determining its age. In 2000 we thought the star was 16 billion years old - now we think it is 14.5 billion years old. With more data and better techniques its age could be brought down further. From the nature of the star itself it could be a relic of one of the first stars born. Or maybe I'm wrong and we start finding a bunch of other stars of this age - and then we have to reconsider everything. But that is less likely. EDIT: