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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Friday January 18, 2013 @05:08PM 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."

45 of 75 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ooops! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 17:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Looks like another mixup between metric and imperial measurement systems. /jk
Alas... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 17:29 · 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 · 2013-01-19 05:07 · 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
Good riddance, I say. by PacRim+Jim · 2013-01-18 17:48 · 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 · 2013-01-18 18:23 · 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.
Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by rusty0101 · 2013-01-18 17:49 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
You never know...
A counter-argument... so? by macraig · 2013-01-18 17:50 · 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 · 2013-01-18 18:05 · 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 · 2013-01-18 18:05 · 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 tqk · 2013-01-18 18:56 · 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.
4. Re:A counter-argument... so? by macraig · 2013-01-18 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to know. I can't answer it, but I hope others can eventually.
5. Re:A counter-argument... so? by TapeCutter · 2013-01-18 23:15 · 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.
6. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Lumpy · 2013-01-19 02:26 · 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.
7. Re:A counter-argument... so? by popoutman · 2013-01-19 05:56 · 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.
8. Re:A counter-argument... so? by Sulphur · 2013-01-19 07:22 · 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
Metric Mixup by nephillim · 2013-01-18 18:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Probably an error converting between metric light-years and American light-years.
1. Re:Metric Mixup by Arancaytar · 2013-01-18 21:59 · 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 · 2013-01-19 00:35 · 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 · 2013-01-19 02:28 · 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 Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-19 05:30 · 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.
5. Re:Metric Mixup by Sigg3.net · 2013-01-20 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  How many wax candles is that?
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
Re:The most important question... by witherstaff · 2013-01-18 19:19 · 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.
Re:The most important question... by Tubal-Cain · 2013-01-18 20:00 · Score: 1

As far as I know Polaris doesn't have any planets, so probably not.
Confusion by lolococo · 2013-01-18 20:26 · 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 ..
They're both right. by Arancaytar · 2013-01-18 21:53 · 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 · 2013-01-19 08:00 · 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 · 2013-01-20 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  If this were Reddit, you'd have Reddit Gold right now. Priceless. :-)
3. Re:They're both right. by dywolf · 2013-01-24 01:41 · 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.
Re:The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-18 22:33 · 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....
Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-19 00:54 · Score: 1

Yes, because you see, these go to 11!
It's so very lonely by PopeRatzo · 2013-01-19 02:11 · Score: 1

It's 1000 light years from home.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:any recommendation? by Eglaelin · 2013-01-19 02:16 · Score: 1

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

--
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
Strange methods by imsabbel · 2013-01-19 02:19 · 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 imsabbel · 2013-01-19 03:51 · 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?
2. Re:Strange methods by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-19 04:04 · 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.
3. Re:Strange methods by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-19 06:02 · 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.
4. Re:Strange methods by dougisfunny · 2013-01-19 12:12 · 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.
Re:The most important question... by Lumpy · 2013-01-19 02:24 · 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.
Re:any recommendation? by Lumpy · 2013-01-19 02:31 · Score: 1

Yes, you will utterly love 4chan....
http://boards.4chan.org/sci/

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:The most important question... by gmuslera · 2013-01-19 02:36 · 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.
Re:Keep looking at it... by thorgil · 2013-01-19 02:39 · Score: 1

rename it to "stella endermanis"

--
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
Re:HOW LONG AT WARP 10 ?? by Dishevel · 2013-01-19 09:07 · 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?
Re:The most important question... by TangoMargarine · 2013-01-19 10:23 · 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
Re:The most important question... by evafan76 · 2013-01-19 13:13 · 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.
Lanney Kekua by Latent+Heat · 2013-01-19 13:19 · 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.