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

Science Memes

10970 readers
2104 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
858
stars & sharks (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

this blows my mind

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 36 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.

[–] [email protected] 41 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it's technically not wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yet, technically wrong

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Schrödinger's fact.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

holu shit polaris is super young sicko-zoomer

load more comments
view more: next ›