this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
90 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
38 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Probably the stars that are older than the universe.
IIRC, they're too big to have formed in one of the ways we know and then continuously lost matter at the the rate they should have.
So one or more of the assumptions about how they could have formed or how they lost matter over time is wrong, right?
Nope. Older than the universe. Can't weasel your way out of this one science boy
Or we have the age of the universe wrong.