Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Second Thought, Polaris Really Does Seem 434 Light Years Away

Posted by timothy on from the shaggy-dog-story dept.

sciencehabit writes with this excerpt from Science Magazine "Last November, astronomer David Turner made headlines by claiming that one of the sky's best known objects—the North Star, Polaris—was actually 111 light-years closer than thought. If true, the finding might have forced researchers to rethink how they calculate distances in the cosmos as well as what they know about some aspects of stellar physics. But a new study argues that distance measurements of the familiar star made some 2 decades ago by the European Space Agency's venerable Hipparcos satellite are still spot on."

75 comments

  1. Ooops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like another mixup between metric and imperial measurement systems. /jk

  2. Alas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...eleventy-one light years is far too short a distance to travel among such excellent and admirable stellar phenomena.

    1. Re:Alas... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Just be glad that the Dark Lord Saturn hasn't found you yet. And don't put his ring on, it's too heavy a burden for you (on the order of 10^19 kg).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Only one way to be sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start 3D printing a really long string and when we "private space" our way there (for vacations and exploring and what not), just spool out the string and measure it. I mean, physics is just something we can reinvent as we please, and surely we'll find new particles and stuff to totally make this possible, right?

    Right?

  4. The most important question... by sabri · · Score: 0

    Do they have a Stargate?

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:The most important question... by witherstaff · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      We'll never know. The network that made Stargates decided to stop making Science Fiction and instead just shows wrestling and whatever else constitutes sy fy.

    2. Re:The most important question... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      As far as I know Polaris doesn't have any planets, so probably not.

    3. Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      that pissed me off so much, universe was actually getting quite good....Someone needs to invest in a real scifi network that only show...oh i dunno....science fiction?

      A good starting lineup would be stargate, a star wars tv series, A reboot of firefly, and some good old fashioned early 90's anime....

    4. Re:The most important question... by arth1 · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to invest in a real scifi network that only show...oh i dunno....science fiction?

      A good starting lineup would be stargate, a star wars tv series, A reboot of firefly, and some good old fashioned early 90's anime....

      Buffy in Space never belonged on SciFi - it should have been on a premium channel, so they could have shown all the sex they and the audience wanted.
      There are TV channels for anime too, at least where I live.

      That said, The Channel Formerly Known as SciFi has fallen far indeed. It used to be my starting channel on the TV. Now I prefer the fscking Travel Channel and the mangled rerun channel (a.k.a. BBC America).

    5. Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Learning Channel and Musi TeleVision used to be about something else before executives trained in the way of soap operas (Terrible dorama-do .) they now give us How Fat is Sassy Honey Boo Boo and Look at these Joisey Doofusses.

    6. Re:The most important question... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude if you wat Science Fiction, check out the History channel. Every single show is about aliens in one way or another.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:The most important question... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      People are getting disappointed with science fiction. We are already in the BTTF future, and there is no flying cars, we are finally getting a hint on how hard is to get out of our solar system, much more to get to another star, and the most accurate sci-fi predictions are dystopias like 1984 or disaster films.

      At least Syfy is not as bad as History Channel, they got Continuum after all.

    8. Re:The most important question... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      SG-1 was on Showtime until season 5.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    9. Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or WWII footage. Unless you're saying Hitler was an alien

    10. Re:The most important question... by evafan76 · · Score: 1

      that pissed me off so much, universe was actually getting quite good....Someone needs to invest in a real scifi network that only show...oh i dunno....science fiction?

      A good starting lineup would be stargate, a star wars tv series, A reboot of firefly, and some good old fashioned early 90's anime....

      I think many SciFi and Anime fans have gotten to the point where they just download or stream or buy DVDs/BluRays (or some combination of the 3) of things they want to watch, which is why I don't think a new SciFi network could be successful. The consumers have moved on to other media.

      That said, I wonder why SciFi producers in the west haven't tried to copy the OVA model used by some in the Anime Industry, where some Anime goes direct to DVD. They wouldn't have to deal with having to get their show on a network, and there have been successful OVAs that have multiple (albeit short) seasons.

    11. Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know Polaris doesn't have any planets, so probably not.

      Doh! Everybody knows is too cold for having planets... Don't you know it is in the north pole?

    12. Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, I wonder why SciFi producers in the west haven't tried to copy the OVA model used by some in the Anime Industry, where some Anime goes direct to DVD.

      In the west, "direct-to-video" is a synonym for "unwatchable crap".

  5. Good riddance, I say. by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Polaris is a sneaky, underhanded, deceitful star, not to be trusted. Fortunately, in about 15,000 years, it will no longer be the north star. Sir Alop

    1. Re:Good riddance, I say. by waTeim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh yea? and I suppose Vega is soooooo much better! She sends us a text to come to her party, but when we get there there are already 8 other dudes hanging out, and we're in the friend-zone!? Small moves? bullshit, that two-timing whore.

  6. Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oddly enough, the old Russian maxim applies here. One does not travel at warp, warp travels you.

    --
    You never know...
  7. A counter-argument... so? by macraig · · Score: 1

    It still doesn't mean that Turner is wrong. Remember Piltdown Man? Even people who are committed to science sometimes still get it terribly wrong.

    1. Re:A counter-argument... so? by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Does this discrepancy only exist for Polaris? Do all other stars give the same results for both measurement methods?

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    2. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, that's why we call it science. If it were never wrong, it would be religion.

    3. Re:A counter-argument... so? by fazey · · Score: 0

      Idk, give me five minutes, i'll go measure again.

    4. Re:A counter-argument... so? by tqk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does this discrepancy only exist for Polaris? Do all other stars give the same results for both measurement methods?

      Short read.

      You'd think making Hubble take an accurate bead on the thing on Dec. 31 and Jul. 1, then comparing the two readings to triangulate would be all that's needed (basic geometry); nuh uh. How about Type 1a supernovae which ought to all be the same luminosity, or Cepheid Variables, ditto.

      Nope. It's not that easy. Fun problem.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:A counter-argument... so? by macraig · · Score: 0

      Which of course is exactly why I mentioned the Piltdown Man fiasco, because for some of the people involved science had become a religion. They were too emotionally invested in a particular fact or discovery. It certainly was not the first nor last example of that.

    6. Re:A counter-argument... so? by macraig · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know. I can't answer it, but I hope others can eventually.

    7. Re:A counter-argument... so? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like the autism/vaccination link, Piltdown man was a deliberate fraud exposed by scientists themselves, to me these and other famous frauds are strong evidence that science works as advertised. For an honest man capable of introspection, the scientific method (eventually) weeds out wishful thinking, propaganda, and fraud, this is it's strength. It's weakness is in the undocumented assumption that all involved are honest men acting in good faith.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Polaris is the easiest to measure. Anything off axis from our tilt takes a lot more work to measure and get right

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that last weakness is common to any distributed system. As long as intellectual inquiry must be distributed among many people (because you don't have time to rediscover everything yourself), you have to assume that most of them are acting in good faith

    10. Re:A counter-argument... so? by popoutman · · Score: 1

      Actually Polaris is not the easiest - it's any stars nearer the Ecliptic Pole, which is based on the Earth's orbit. This is in Draco, and the nearest naked-eye star to the Ecliptic poles are 36 Dra in the northern sky at about 2 degrees from the ecliptic northern pole, and Eta1 Dor at the south ecliptic pole. Surprisingly enough, the LMC is only about 4 degrees from the southern ecliptic pole.
      However, Polaris would show the most diurnal parallax, as that is indeed based on the earth's spin.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    11. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I think that last weakness is common to any distributed system. As long as intellectual inquiry must be distributed among many people (because you don't have time to rediscover everything yourself), you have to assume that the journalists are acting in good faith

    12. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? Science has to be the worst religion of all.

      Just look at any vaccine story comments on this site - fanaticism at its finest. No further research necessary! Vaccines might as well be from God.

  8. Metric Mixup by nephillim · · Score: 5, Funny

    Probably an error converting between metric light-years and American light-years.

    1. Re:Metric Mixup by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Imperial system uses light fortnights (3.62628957 * 10^14 m), whereas the metric system uses light megaseconds (2.99792458 * 10^14 m).

      One light year contains 31.536 light megaseconds, but only 26.07 light fortnights.

      :-P

    2. Re:Metric Mixup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be specific one of the systems have a single arbitrary unit and loads of other units derived from it and the other system went all out and decided that all units should be arbitrary.

    3. Re:Metric Mixup by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      American Light years are BIGGER, but slower, and usually dont have enough gas mileage to get there.

      Holy crap, that does explain the difference!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Metric Mixup by sidyan · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, everybody uses Parsecs. 1 pc = 648000 / PI * 149597870700 m ~= 3.0856775814913676 * 10^16 m.

    5. Re:Metric Mixup by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, everybody uses Parsecs. 1 pc = 648000 / PI * 149597870700 m ~= 3.0856775814913676 * 10^16 m.

      There are those who argue that Imperial Parsecs measure time.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:Metric Mixup by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      How many wax candles is that?

      --
      Defining Statistics and Social Research
  9. Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by elvesrus · · Score: 0

    Just 11? 11 is an afternoon stroll for kirk

  10. Confusion by lolococo · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who first read "Solaris Really Does Seem 434 Light Years Away"?
    Man, I'm glad I was sitting ..

    1. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as "Paris Really Does Seem 434 Light Years Away" and was pretty confused about what this is about.

  11. They're both right. by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Polarans solved FTL travel ages ago, and now use it to troll other civilisations by placing their star along some life-bearing planet's axis of rotation, waiting for people to develop advanced astronomy, then randomly feinting at them to mess with the scientists' heads.

    1. Re:They're both right. by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      The Polarans solved FTL travel ages ago, and now use it to troll other civilisations by placing their star along some life-bearing planet's axis of rotation, waiting for people to develop advanced astronomy, then randomly feinting at them to mess with the scientists' heads.

      Applying Occam's Razor to the question, you are almost certainly correct.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    2. Re:They're both right. by error_logic · · Score: 1

      If this were Reddit, you'd have Reddit Gold right now. Priceless. :-)

    3. Re:They're both right. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I figured a ship using a warp drive simply got in the way of the scientists making the measurement, throwing off their calculation with the distorted space-time.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  12. Easy way to decide who's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Treat the Universe as a jigsaw puzzle. Figure out some phenomena in space that would be affected by a difference in measurement. If the results using Turner's method would allow the phenomena to fit better with actual knowns, Turner's probably right. There are so many crazy phenomena in the Universe, and I wonder how much of it would be less crazy and more expected if some common beliefs were overturned.

  13. See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we had the Deathstar we could end the controversy with one shot.

  14. any recommendation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone recommend me a site with astronomical news and comments without 90% dumbass failed-funny comments as here on /.?

    1. Re:any recommendation? by Eglaelin · · Score: 1

      So let it be written, so let it be done. CosmoQuest

      --
      Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    2. Re:any recommendation? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes, you will utterly love 4chan....

      http://boards.4chan.org/sci/

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, because you see, these go to 11!

  16. It's so very lonely by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It's 1000 light years from home.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Strange methods by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reading up, it turnes out the whole argumentation is exactly the other way round than I would hav eexpected.

    You can meassure the distance of stars in multiple ways, most depend on assumptions that can be pretty hard to get right. There is ONE way, though, to accurately determine the distance:

    By simple geometry. If you observe the star 6 months apart, you get a trianble with a base of 2AU, which is enough accurately triangulate the distance of stars up to a some 100 ly away.

    This was exactly the method used 2 decade ago.

    Not this new guy used a very indirect way (measuring the brightness we see the star, guessing its real brightness by looking at spectra and then deciding how far away it must have been), gets a 30% different number and claims his, indirect and error-laden, way is yielding the more correct of the results.

    Tard.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Strange methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      base of 2AU sounds big but how many AUs are the other two sides?

    2. Re:Strange methods by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      A couple millon.

      But with stars being point sources, with a telescope you can determine shifts of the center of brightness between stars very very accurately, especially with a sat telescope outside the atmosphere.

      There ARE, of course limits, and the method becomes useless for stars many 1000 ly away (in the sense that the indirect methods, despite all their error possibilities, become more accurate), but 400ly is still doable.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Strange methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By simple geometry. If you observe the star 6 months apart, you get a trianble with a base of 2AU, which is enough accurately triangulate the distance of stars up to a some 100 ly away.

      This was exactly the method used 2 decade ago.

      Not this new guy used a very indirect way (measuring the brightness we see the star, guessing its real brightness by looking at spectra and then deciding how far away it must have been), gets a 30% different number and claims his, indirect and error-laden, way is yielding the more correct of the results.

      So, by your own words, Polaris is too far away to use triangulation. Yet, you insist that's the correct method for finding it's distance. Then end off by calling the guy names.

    4. Re:Strange methods by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      By simple geometry. If you observe the star 6 months apart, you get a trianble with a base of 2AU, which is enough accurately triangulate the distance of stars up to a some 100 ly away.

      This was exactly the method used 2 decade ago.

      Not this new guy used a very indirect way (measuring the brightness we see the star, guessing its real brightness by looking at spectra and then deciding how far away it must have been), gets a 30% different number and claims his, indirect and error-laden, way is yielding the more correct of the results.

      So, by your own words, Polaris is too far away to use triangulation. Yet, you insist that's the correct method for finding it's distance. Then end off by calling the guy names.

      Depends on what he means by "accurately". Certainly not the "off by 25%" the new guy is claiming.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    5. Re:Strange methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi again, thx for clarifying, so a scale of 1 to million, 1 cm to 10km, that ratio puts an enormous strain on the accuracy of the angles right? If off by even a microscopic amount that would make a huge difference. An the point of light argument - not sure really, the boffins cannot even determine Betelgeuse (sp?) size very precisely because it (apparently) changes as does Polaris FTA.
      I am not arguing against the triangulation method and no reason to dump it due to this guys theory - just think that a little more "humble-ness" than your post displayed would be appropriate considering the astonishing scales we are talking about and that even a tiny miscalculation/error would have huge implications.
      Of course I could be wrong but that was my point anyway. Cheers.

    6. Re:Strange methods by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      About 27 million give or take. 1 AU is ~8.3 light minutes, 525949 minutes per year, 434 years.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    7. Re:Strange methods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thx for the feedback.
      About 27 million... wow! Sounds more like of a straight line than a triangle to me :)
      The angle difference at the two points of the base must be absolutely microscopic.
      I know from Kepler planet hunting that science+technology can detect to incredible levels of accuracy but still - that is some triangle !!

  18. Re:Keep looking at it... by thorgil · · Score: 1

    rename it to "stella endermanis"

    --
    Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
  19. Objects in the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are closer than they appear. Gotta stop using mirrors in telescopes to get accurate readings.

    Hell, when I shave in the mirror it looks like I'm like 3 feet away from me... I know I'm much closer than that.

  20. Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At Warp 10 about 43 years, at Warp 11 about 39 years.

  21. Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Warp 11 is 1331 times the speed of light.
    So around 3 months.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  22. Lanney Kekua by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Forget the Piltdown Man fraud.

    Who is implicated in the Lanney Kekua scam?

    Is Mr. Mani Te'o innocent in all of this. That he lied about meeting Ms. Kekua so his dad and others wouldn't think less of him for being head-over-heels for a virtual girlfriend?

    Does the set of geek dudes who are too shy to have a real girl friend intersect the set of star college football players?

    If Mani's musician-dude friend is behind the thing, does the musician have a serious man-crush on Mr. Te'o?

    Forget the parallax of Polaris, these are the questions that demand answers.