Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   The North Star is 30 percent closer to Earth than we thought it was in the 1990s, which either means our observations are getting more precise, or in about 45 years we're in big trouble   (news.nationalgeographic.com ) divider line 6
    More: Interesting, North Star, Earth, Polaris, long exposures, northeastern India, visible spectra, percent closer  
•       •       •

7592 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 10:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-08 11:00:36 AM  
2 votes:

enemy of the state: nekom: This is sort of surprising. I thought we had a pretty good grasp on things like that many decades ago.

As an astronomer, I can say that the distance measurements from the Hipparchos satellite were significantly different from many thousands of others calculated by other, pretty solid, methods. My guess is that there was something fundamentally flawed with Hipparchos, exactly what, I have no idea, but it could be alot of things.

It wouldn't be the first time the European Space Agency put a piece of crap into orbit (the ISO observatory satellite was a good example of a billion dollar satellite that was a complete piece of junk. I wasted months trying to make even a tiny bit of sense from the data. It should have produced 30,000 publications, it produced less than a tenth of that).

I think all this article is saying is that the Hipparchos measurements of distances to stars are garbage.


I should add that to say the measurements of Hipparchos being "generally accepted" is bullshiat.
2012-12-08 10:58:04 AM  
2 votes:

nekom: This is sort of surprising. I thought we had a pretty good grasp on things like that many decades ago.


As an astronomer, I can say that the distance measurements from the Hipparchos satellite were significantly different from many thousands of others calculated by other, pretty solid, methods. My guess is that there was something fundamentally flawed with Hipparchos, exactly what, I have no idea, but it could be alot of things.

It wouldn't be the first time the European Space Agency put a piece of crap into orbit (the ISO observatory satellite was a good example of a billion dollar satellite that was a complete piece of junk. I wasted months trying to make even a tiny bit of sense from the data. It should have produced 30,000 publications, it produced less than a tenth of that).

I think all this article is saying is that the Hipparchos measurements of distances to stars are garbage.
2012-12-08 12:16:29 PM  
1 vote:
imgs.xkcd.com
2012-12-08 11:30:41 AM  
1 vote:

abhorrent1: [api.ning.com image 483x555]


beautiful, just beautiful Brought a tear to my eye.
2012-12-08 11:20:29 AM  
1 vote:
img.phombo.com
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-08 10:56:10 AM  
1 vote:
I just thought something this relatively close, 300 ly, could be resolved just through simple means like parallax though.

The Hipparcos satellite did that. The new result contradicts older parallax measurements.
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report