Talk:HE 0437-5439

Citations?
Are more citations needed? Added a few Fact tags. Would assume these would be simple enough to add references for... Mgmirkin 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source supporting the LMC black hole theory. I don't do this often enough to remember how to add the citation to the article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128113256.htm Bridgewater (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redshift?
Anyone have redshift data for this object (z=?.?? value)? If so, feel free to add & cite. Mgmirkin 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Age
Marked age both in infobox and text is incorrect, it should be 100 mln years. In text there is reference for older proposals. NASA says that "the star would have to be at least 100 million years old to have travelled that distance from the galactic core". Confusion appears when it is explained how the blue star which is usually lives 20-30 mln years could pass so much distance - it is unordinary blue star. --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the sources suggest that it is 100 million years old. They only suggest that it would take roughly 100 million (+- 17 mil ) years to travel from the galactic center to its present location at it's velocity. However, two of the sources give explanations for how it could be 20 - 30 mln years old despite this. It could have formed from the merger of two smaller stars along its voyage, or it could actually originate in the Large Magellanic Cloud flung by an intermediate mass black hole. 01as (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent Ages
It says in the info-box that the star is 25 million years old, in the first paragraph that it is around 30 million years old, and in the second paragraph that it is at most 20 million years old. Obviously all 3 can't be true. The most recent source cited for it's age, "A Galactic Origin For HE 0437–5439, The Hypervelocity Star Near The Large Magellanic Cloud", repeatedly says it appears to be around 20 Million years old, so I'd go with that. Alternatively we could say it's age is 20 - 30 million years to reflect the apparent uncertainty. Regardless I think the the age should be consistent throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01as (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)