• 10_0
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    12 hours ago

    See how did sharks swim north without the north being there?

  • woodenghost [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours 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.

  • falsemirror@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

  • essteeyou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    235
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      13 hours 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.

  • neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes 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 early-stage star. That would definitely make any age models ‘confused’ heh

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

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

      Yeah! Makes ya think!