this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
855 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

10905 readers
2356 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 271 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Polaris is 45-67 million years old.

The oldest total-group chondrichthyans, known as acanthodians or "spiny sharks", appeared during the Early Silurian, around 439 million years ago.

It's not even close.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Dinosaurs died off 65 MYA. Dinosaurs were most likely gone before Polaris formed.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They probably died off because they couldn’t use Polaris for navigation!

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Polaris goes in and out of North Star status on the 26,000 year precession cycle. So for the duration of humanity (let's say 100,000 years), there have been decent chunks of time where it's not in use.

[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You gotta rest up man, that's a pretty big job for one star

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Can you imagine having to give directions to a bunch of illiterate primates? Ugg. I’d have quite after the first thousand years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m now sad that dinosaurs could never look up and see Polaris.

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Eh, they got to see the thousands of other stars that are now obscured by light/atmospheric pollution.

[–] stewie3128@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Most nights even I can barely see Polaris.

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

I came here to question whether that claim is true, saw your post, and thought something like "well, that settles that." Then I scrolled down and saw neatchee's (great username) post and now my whole world is uncertain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 208 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is only sort of true, unfortunately. Polaris is a two-star system: Polaris Aa and Polaris B.

Polaris B is much older than sharks, by several billion years.

Polaris Aa appears to be younger than sharks, at a measley 50 million years old, compared to sharks' 420 million years

HOWEVER it is unclear whether Polaris Aa is actually that young. Scientists believe that, based on some contradictory findings, that measurement may be inaccurate if Polaris Aa is formed from two different stars that merged. In that scenario, the model we use to calculate star age would no longer work and could give wildly inaccurate estimates of the star's true age

TMYK

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right but how did it know to be the pole star?? Huh?

Yeah! Makes ya think!

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It had the fastest lap in qualifying.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

Max Verstappen approves of this comment.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

In my opinion Polaris B and Polaris Ab (it's actually a three star system!) don't count as 'The North Star' because they contribute almost nothing to the visible light seen without a telescope. Without Aa there's just no north pole star at the moment.

But that's interesting about the age being uncertain. I'd use the age of the merger as the age of the star anyway unless it didn't add much mass (but in that case it would have been a short lived giant anyway...) which would still likely put it under the 420 million years mark.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Fair enough on the first point!

The interesting scenario re: Polaris A's age would be if a larger, younger original star merged with a smaller, much older star. You'd have a small amount of late-stage byproducts in an otherwise relatively early-stage star. That would definitely make any age models 'confused' heh

I could imagine a scenario where the math works out such that the star appears a lot younger than it is despite being the product of a merger of two older stars, based on the masses and ages of the contributing objects and the amount of different material contributed by each

[–] SadSadSatellite@lemmy.dbzer0.com 106 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Sharks are older than trees.

They're older than a lot of things. Land plants, Yellowstone, appendages,dinosaurs, doritos.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 52 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Sharks are older than trees.

But are younger than the mountains.

[–] Buttermilk@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 13 points 1 month ago

The geologic processes that led to the formation of the Appalachian Mountains started 1.1 billion years ago.

There's no shark without Mountain Mama

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ehhhh they're younger than some mountains though. There are ranges that are over a billion years old, but the Himalayas are "only" some 40-70 million years old, depending on when you start counting (40-50 if you actually start from being mountains, 70 if you start from "ground moves up")

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why did I read this to the tune of colors of the wind…

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sharks are older than the grinning bobcat

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Some of it.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I refuse to believe any animal is older than doritos

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 points 1 month ago

No they are wrong. Doritos are eternal.

[–] Maturin@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

What do you think the first several hundreds of millions of years were like before they had Doritos?

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

He's thinking of penguins

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 month ago (2 children)

One of my favorites is "the Appalachian mountains are older than bones"

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 31 points 1 month ago

Bones evolved for the first time: "485 Ma First vertebrates with true bones (jawless fishes)" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life (Vertebrates existed without a bony notochord before then.)

But the Appalachians were started much earlier: "The geologic processes that led to the formation of the Appalachian Mountains started 1.1 billion years ago." They were basically finished growing by the time bones existed: "Around 480 million years ago, geologic processes began that led to three distinct orogenic eras that created much of the surface structure seen in today's Appalachians. [d] During this period, mountains once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rockies" Since then, it's just been wearing down. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains

and bones are I turn older than Saturn's rings, by about 300 million years

[–] falsemirror@beehaw.org 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) this appears to be untrue.

Polaris is a cluster of stars formed about 2 billion years ago. Sharks originated about 450 million years ago.

One star of Polaris (Aa) appears to be 50 million years old, but it seems likely due to a collision of stars which added mass to it.

[–] nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it's technically not wrong.

[–] WrenMala8@pawb.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yet, technically wrong

[–] nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

Schrödinger's fact.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

But polaris Aa is the only visible star with naked eye. So that can be called formation of star?

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I just checked, Polaris is about ten times younger than sharks. The other two stars of its ternary star system are older, but not visible to the naked eye, so early sharks would not have been able to use them for purposes of navigation.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 month ago

this blows my mind

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Thanks for this. Now I’m on a major Wikipedia deep dive on Polaris and cepheid variables!

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago

holu shit polaris is super young sicko-zoomer

load more comments
view more: next ›