digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at physorg.com

The North Star Has Revived Itself ... Its No Longer Dying!

physorg.com — Astronomers were watching Polaris in the expectation that they would catch the star switching off its vibrations completely when they made the surprising observation of its revival. Scientists have no idea why this is happening!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hiPpymIck, on 07/21/2008, -1/+92the only mentioned timescale is 100yr

    im guessing thats not very long
    astronomically
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/23/2008, -5/+10FTA: "This was being followed to learn about how stars age."

      All of human history is a blink of an eye to the lifespan of a star. How in the heck are WE going to study how stars age?
      • sockpuppets, on 07/23/2008, -5/+18By the number of botox injections it receives.
      • Chassit, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Every time you look at a star you look back into time. We study how a star ages by looking at more distant stars, because what we are seeing is how that star looked x number of years ago (x being the star's distance in light years).
      • DeviateSeptum, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I suppose the physics of Newton and the ideal gas law count for nothing in your estimation. Your insight is great indeed.
      • xtal3, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4DeviateSeptum^^
        Oh, come on, don't be an ass. Doing the math is one thing, but I don't think ANY astrophysicist will tell you that it isn't humbling or mind-boggling to think about the way our timelines mismatch. A geologic (and beyond!) time frame lends great perspective to everything, really.
      • RadiatedAnt, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1they're called records, use them.
      • twertyto, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1We can study them because of the vast number of stars means that we can find stars of any age. Since we have "snapshots" of stellar evolution it become simple to connect those into an evolutionary sequence.
      • crj123082, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5we find older alien civilizations and ask them
      • DeviateSeptum, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1If the OP was merely trying to make a poetic statement concerning the length of time involved, fine, but I don't think he was. I think he was trying to assert that we cannot understand how stars evolve. Stars are rather simple to understand and even their billions of years of change is well-understood.. even if it is not very "humble" to say so.
    • latrosicarius, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1stars go through several stages through their lifespan. At the end of their Main Sequence stage, a significant amount of their hydrogen will have been fused to helium, which has a higher binding energy than hydrigen, and therefore cannot fuse because the environment is not hot enough.

      But because the star has reduced its hydrogen supply, the outward explosive pressure of the fusion proccesses reduce as well, and gravity starts to shrink the star's size. As it shrinks, pressure increases, which causes temperature to increase enough to initiate the fusion of helium. Helium fusion releases more energy than hydrogen fusion and so the star will expand to enormous sizes, but in doing so, it's volume will be so great than any given point on the surface will be cooler (red) than during the main sequence stage.

      During this stage, things can get interesting for massive stars. The star can cycle through periods of contraction/hotter temperatures and expansion/cooler temperatures, until it simply runs out of fuel. When it is hot and contracted, it would be called a blue supergiant (this is what Polaris currently is). When it is expanded and cool, it is called a red supergiant. They can toggle back and forth numerous times before their final state, which can be a number of things (supernova / black hole / white dwarf / neutron star / etc) and is something to discuss in another topic.
    • joegibes, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2That's what she said.
  • btschul, on 07/22/2008, -5/+31Shoot it in the head! It's the only way they stay down!
    • HairyFotr, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I say we take off and nuke the entire star from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
      • LJRod82, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7But that star has significant financial value to the Company.
      • Deadpixel1221, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3HairyFotr can't make that kind of decision he's just a grunt, no offense....
    • theaceoffire, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8How can you kill that which has no life???
    • picciano, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9I KNEW there was something up with that star. ALL THE OTHER STARS revolve nicely around the Earth...but THAT ONE just SITS THERE, staring at us! Mocking us.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 07/22/2008, -3/+27Or maybe it's just a variable star with a low frequency.
    • sockpuppets, on 07/23/2008, -3/+58It's Isaac Hayes?
    • davidwasman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Quite right. It IS a variable star...also known as a Cephied star.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Then it would have to be a variable variable star.
    • cptsteiny, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0Both the frequency and the amplitude of the variations have been changing (read the preprint).
  • moxysports, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8Haven't they seen "The Core". Same technology, just aliens. Simple.
    • olithebumm, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2My God, we're doomed.
    • cyclonesworld, on 07/23/2008, -2/+13Sunshine would be more appropriate.
      • coyote1284, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2But no one has seen it except for a few hardcore nerds and Boyle fans.
      • TyrelVnne, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0i bought sunshine at a grocery store in montana. not that bad
  • dungar, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8It marks the beginning of a new Epoch, the likes of which we have never witnessed before.
    • awtripp, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Alright Captain Kirk settle down.
      • toonworld, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1I like Captain Kirk, he's cool and sh*t. He f*cked a green b*tch once. I dunno, if the b*tch is green there must be something wrong with the p*ssy
      • toonworld, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Oh come on! Tell me you all knew this was an Eddy Murphy quote!
    • Millsee, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Make it so!

      ...no, wait....
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11Even though I liked your comment, I chose to bury it to show you that the Universe is arbitrary and unfair.
      • Akairenn, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1A new Epoch? Is LARPing really *that* popular???
    • Archer007, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1http://xkcd.com/376/
  • crazyjake, on 07/23/2008, -3/+53The Doctor...
    • whahaa, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3fantastic!
    • woodman445, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1It's clearly the Doctor's hand. Remember the time when the Earth was kidnapped along with all the other planets? That was like a month ago.
    • Mier, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1Don't talk to me about that pacifist little *****. He's becoming self-righteous and annoying. I'd be beating his ass with a history book to show him dictators and mad men like Davros don't deserve pity or leniency.
    • selmer, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1...rocked her
  • hallwu, on 07/23/2008, -8/+1GREAT JOB
  • jayhawk88, on 07/23/2008, -2/+13Clearly their scientists were able to develop a solar rejuvenator before their star went nova. Now that this problem is out of they way, they can continue the research on the Tri Focus Plasma Cannon and defeat the dreaded Darlocks.
    • TyrelVnne, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0That was my second guess:

      1. Mr. burns like sun blocker
      2. Dreaded Darlocks
      3. investigate/get laid

      I do a lot of investigating these days anymore.
  • joshuagor44, on 07/23/2008, -4/+35I had no idea it was dying.
    • griz, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3All stars are dying or else they would be making energy from nothing.
      The fact that the title implies that it is "no longer dying" is just bogus. No one said the vibrations were an indication of its dying and lack of these vibrations certainly are not an indication to the contrary.
  • lajaw, on 07/23/2008, -3/+145"Scientists have no idea why this is happening!"

    Scientists have no idea on about 99% of the universe.
    • ovset, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15We haven't even completely figured ourselves out yet. Hurry up, science!
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/23/2008, -6/+15"Scientists have no idea on about 99% of the universe. "
      Finally a voice of reason on Digg.
      • Azerael, on 07/23/2008, -13/+53In comparison, religious wackos have no idea about 100% of the universe, opting instead to make it up as they go along, murdering each other along the way.
      • zombiecarlin, on 07/23/2008, -25/+7Why bring religion into this? ***** like you preach as much as the religious *****, put a sock in it.
      • lajaw, on 07/23/2008, -16/+2@Azerael- religion has as much proof as science does concerning the universe. Remember, I said "proof" which is provable. We are in the dark concerning most things outside of the earth.
    • sublimemm, on 07/23/2008, -3/+19if you remember calculus class... a finite amount divided by an infinite amount is 0.

      (knowledge of universe)
      ______________________________ = scientists know 0 about the universe, not even 1%
      (ever expanding area of universe)
      • dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4assuming the laws of the universe are not consistent across infinity.
      • leerayIG88, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7I never wint to calculus class. Skhool was'nt very fun.
      • drlha, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2There isn't an infinite amount of stuff in the Universe though.
      • lorean, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3No. No. AND No.
        Convergence of limits is not synonymous with equality. Infinity is merely short-hand notation to express a specific type non-convergence.

        (ever expanding area of universe) you assumes that the universe does not expand to a supremum. For example, it could continue to grow but never grow past a certain point.
      • CosmosCR, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Thats like saying there are infinite numbers so we dont know anything about math.
    • someidiotinnj, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2We have no intellegence! repeat we have no intellgence!
      • Archer007, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1The enemy has taken our intelligence.
    • jockser, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1the invisible man did it.
    • brokencrystal, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1We don't even fully understand earth, its oceans, and many other things in our own back yard.
  • charbon, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4Black holes have a limited density else matter would be compressed until it was non-existent.
    The density of a black hole is roughly equal to (1.8x1016 g/cm3) x (Msun / M)2 where M is the mass of the black hole.

    Though in a way you're right. The more matter it accumulates, the density will rise as well.
    • avonalt, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6An increase in mass would lead to a decrease in density using your formula.
  • fabkebab, on 07/23/2008, -0/+101If you actually read the article, you will see that the star was NEVER DYING - what an utterly misleading headline

    The star has been "pulsing" - getting brighter and dimmer - but less so over the last hundred years - thats it - a whole lot more boring than the sensationalist title- buried
  • ansatsu29, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3that's quite a news. surprising though.
  • davidwasman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13With the distance between us and Polaris, you would think it is entirely possible that there were celestial bodies distorting the view. Perhaps planets passing in front of the star or cosmic dust trails or any number of anomolies.

    You'd also think that Scientists would have thought of that and not some twit like me on Digg.
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Yes, but then the frequency of oscillation would be steady, instead of rising and falling.
      • davidwasman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Respectfully I somewhat agree, but not everything in our universe rotates on a perfect axis nor does every planetary body orbit in a straight line. We have yet to escape beyond or own moon, so there is no telling what else awaits us out there. Anomalies our scientists couldn't come up with in a millennia could be just at the edge of our own universe.

        While Polaris is (approx.)132 parsecs, something else could be within 130 or even 50. Maybe numerous things. That's all I am trying to say.

        Still, all that is almost moot when you factor in the long known factor that Polaris is a Cephied star which means it has variations.

        Thanks for the informed reply, though. Glad not all of Digg is about 4channy phrases and one-liners.
      • Rodalli, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4MOAR!!!
    • TSK05, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2We would be able to tell through spectroscopy, specifically absorption or emission lines for any dust trails or nebulae and if it was a planet then we'd have a dark spot surrounded by a halo of light (star is much bigger than a planet).
      • davidwasman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Thank you....I was hoping for a simple, logical answer.

        And yes, I know Stars are much larger than planets. Even Dwarf Stars.

        Put your thumb to the sky against the Moon, though, and you see how I could believe that a planet, or other celestial body closer to us than the star, could refract/distort its light.

        I wasn't, however, aware that all planets emitted a visible halo from such a distance...until now. Thanks for that.
      • TSK05, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1davidwasman, I am not sure if that was sarcasm or if you misunderstood me. The planet does not emit a halo or any light, but if it blocks a star then we could probably tell through the light it reflects which has absorption lines. The true problem with a planet interfering is that as both the planet and the star are rotating around different centers of gravity the planet would not block the star for long, certainly not 100 years and more likely it would be in the order of days max.
  • spazoidspam, on 07/23/2008, -2/+28I think something that non-scientist people find hard to believe is the fact that scientists get very much enjoyment out of being proven wrong with evidence.

    When someone is able to change my opinion, I love it, because it means I know even more about the world around me.
    • Arcesius, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11You mean we're not spawns of Satan that roam the earth seeking to cause trouble for "true believers" with our logic and reason? What a stunning discovery.
    • joe8pack, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Actually it means you know even less about the world, because what you thought you knew was wrong.

      I love the open minded scientist, the ones that don't question the basic dogma, things like the big bang etc, if all your postulates are based on error, your just creating a cascade of errors. Not all knowledge is in books and not all great science is discovered by scientist. The whole plate tectonics for instance,was ignored or worse when it was introduced, Tesla was a madman until he lit the world, science is a cozy world where one risks everything if they go off the reservation very far. It reminds me of medieval artisans - without a wealthy sponsor you were penniless. Now we have corporate or government sponsors, that herd us towards "products' or "weapons' and they good stuff is classified, which totally destroys the concept of sharing ideas to build a better world.

      Still I like scientist more than the no-talent manufactured singer/dancer/actor/model currently being designed and sold by the mass media to keep us from noticing the chaos enveloping society.

      Oh yeah Orion, helluva thing, Whats next galactic core dump?
  • mysmartypants, on 07/23/2008, -10/+5This is clearly the result of Al Gore's drive to eradicate global warming. Give that man another nobel peace prize!
  • tudy5102, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2The star's apparent signs of death were obviously caused by subspace fluctuations which were in turn caused by the last jump of the alien invasion fleet towards Earth. I, for one, welcome our new alien overlods.

    Hail Ants!
  • 1nhuman, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1Obviously an alien race, far more advanced then us, used some awesome technology to revive the star.
  • mysticalone, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4i think i feel some super powers, this morning's poop shook the house a bit.
  • tuxidomasx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+46the north star is 430 light years away

    this "revival" happened way back in 1578
    • JorgeGT, on 07/23/2008, -10/+1Maybe you would find Einstein's Relativity interesting....
      • Agalychnis, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9Why? because it explains the shift in the frequency (but not speed) of the electromagnetic radiation either up or down depending on the relative speeds of us a polaris? The speed of light is still c, a constant.
      • TSK05, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Relativity has nothing to do with this.
      • Brassbud, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0Why doesn't relativity have anything to do with this? I would say that by definition relativity has something to do with everything.
      • JorgeGT, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Constant c is just one of the two premises of Relativity.It leads to several consequences. One of these is: something "happens" when its light arrives to you, because there's no concept of simultaneity in Relativistic physics. You can't know something in advance of its light because that would violate causality. See for example:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

        I miss the ol' days when Digg was an educated community.
      • Agalychnis, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I don't see a violation in causality in knowing about something that happened in the distant past due to light reaching you in the present... If there's something more to it than a very small deviation (that easily still rounds to the same year when taken into account) due to minute effects involving "simultaneity" or just the effect of diffuse matter between polaris and us, then please let me know.
    • jd72277, on 07/23/2008, -12/+3uhh, did you really just subtract LIGHT YEARS from calendar years like it was 1:1???
      • Jonsey, on 07/23/2008, -0/+14Unless im totally wrong, or this is really terrible sarcasm tuxidomasx is right.

        From Wikipedia:
        "A light-year or light year (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under ten trillion kilometres. As defined by the International Astronomical Union (which is the body which has the jurisdictional authority to promulgate the definition), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year."

        A Julian year is equal to 365.25, which is equal to a "calendar year" (when you factor in the leapyear etc.)
      • LiquidShield, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3@Jonsey

        You have to finish what the rest of the page says you can't just give out the first paragraph. I knew a guy that did that and he was usually wrong with his arguments, because he didn't read the rest of the page.

        From the same wikipeida page:

        Numerical value

        A light-year is equal to:

        * exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 km (about 10 Pm)
        * about 5,878,625,373,183.61 international miles
        * about 63,241 astronomical units
        * about 0.3066 parsecs

        The figures above are based on a Julian year (not Gregorian year) of exactly 365.25 days (each of exactly 86,400 SI seconds, totalling 31,557,600 seconds) as defined by the IAU.[2]

        The light-year is often used to measure distances to stars. In astronomy, the preferred unit of measurement for such distances is the parsec, which is defined as the distance at which an object will appear to move one arcsecond of parallax when the observer moves one astronomical unit perpendicular to the line of sight to the observer. This is equal to approximately 3.26 light-years. The parsec is preferred because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data. However, outside scientific circles, the term light-year is more widely used.
    • LiquidShield, on 07/23/2008, -6/+31 light year in distance is:

      186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles/year

      This is how far a beam of light will travel if you left it on for 1 year exactly. Since light year (ly) is a measure of distance you would take this number in miles to travel in one year, and multiplyed that by the the ly distance from earth to polaris. Its actually 25,305,785,683,200,000 miles away form earth if my math is correct. The exact distance to Polaris is 431.42ly.

      If my math is correct on this then it would take you 247 million earth years to travel to Polaris at a speed of 11,700 mph. Which is the velocity that a space craft can reach in space.

      If you take the distance 25,205,785,683,200,000 miles and divide that by 102,492,000 miles which is the distance traveled for one year at 11,700 mph. it would take you approximately 246,904,984.6 earth years.

      At the speed of light what we see is actually light bounced off the object (polaris) about 4,314.2 years ago.

      If my math is wrong please let me know.
      • NaziHatinChimp, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I thought we could travel at 17,000 MPH
      • SlowelyFadeAway, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Not quite yet.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3You enjoyed that, didn't you?
      • Agalychnis, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Your math is a bit confusing, but I think it is at least is wrong at the very end. The final answer is off by ten times, it takes light 431.42 years to come from polaris to earth at that distance. A light year is the distance traveled by light in one year. If we were looking at light that bounced off of polaris (which is not what's going on here- you don't look at a star to see reflections of things) coming from the earth and back, then the trip would just take 2*431.42 years, or 862.84 years.
      • textrant, on 07/23/2008, -2/+13If you travelled at 88mph you'd get there a lot sooner.
      • Kajarago, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0Well, light travels regardless of its source being on or off. Plus, the star is a light source so, while light may reflect off its surface, the light it generates overtakes the luminosity of the reflection by far, so the light we see is as it was generated 431.42 years ago.
    • cdahlkvist, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Exactly. This could have been a last death throe and the star has actually been dead for hundreds of years already.
    • Junkey, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Liquidshield has the right idea. 1 light year != 1 earth year op.
      • Kojote, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1According to howstuffworks.com it is. (I know, it's not as reputable as Wikipedia)

        http://www.howstuffworks.com/question94.htm

        "Using a light year as a distance measurement has another advantage -- it helps you determine age. Let's say that a star is 1 million light years away. The light from that star has traveled at the speed of light to reach us. Therefore, it has taken the star's light 1 million years to get here, and the light we are seeing was created 1 million years ago."

        It's not rocket science you know.
      • twertyto, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1light year is distance
        earth year is time

        So yes there are different but when scientist say light year they mean the distance it takes light to travel in one earth year.
      • Kajarago, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0Apples and oranges. It's exactly like saying meters != minutes; yes it's true, but you can't really compare the two.
    • TSK05, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4LiquidShield, I am not sure where you made a mistake, but you made one (it looks like you carried a ten wrong somewhere, your answer is one order of magnitude greater than it should be).

      tuxidomasx is right (I am an astronomy major). The star is 430 light years away from us, thus it took light 430 years to travel to us from the star, thus what we see now is what happened at the star 430 years ago.

      That's also how we approximate the big bang (not counting the 380,000 years that we can't see but that's a long story), we look out and our visual horizon is about 13.6 GLYR (giga-light years or billion light years) but we say GYR because it's equivalent.
      • twertyto, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Your last paragraph is not quite right(I'm an astronomy graduate). The visual horizon is longer. See:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

        Also we current base our age of the universe on studying the anisotropy of the CMBR and comparing the size of the structures to cosmological models.
      • TSK05, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Thanks for correcting me. I do know that we use CMBR to base the age on as it's much more accurate than the visual horizon but I thought that the visual horizon was a good approximation - I have not learned about comoving distance yet, I guess that will come in more advanced courses.
  • BabyBrumak, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Look at the plot of the variation. The last cluster in red (around 1980) has huge error bars. The data recorded there could easily overlap the new measurements. Besides which, 100 years isn't exactly very long in the life of a star. That's like saying a person is dying because his heart rate is dropping from 100 to 60 bpm.
  • crapuccino, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8This is innaccurate. Polaris isn't dying. It's been well known as a cepheid variable star for a long time, but over the past 100 years it's brightness variations have dropped from 10% to 2% (measured ~1998). Current measurements indicate that it now varies by 4%, so there appears to be an underlying longer period variablility beneath the standard variable period of about 4 days.
    • bundwallah, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Great explanation. How long until the aliens planets around it start bitching about global warming. ? :)
  • EgaoNoGenki, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6An alien superciv just jump-started that star.
  • banido, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Proof that there is intelligent life over there, the Aliens delivered their Icarus bomb to revive their star.
  • freshyill, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Holy *****, so we're not going to die?

    Wait, Polaris?
  • palehorse864, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1"Wait till you see our submarines with Polaris"

    Good, now maybe someone will tell us the missing lyric to "Hey Sandy".
  • Frostek, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Has Netcraft confirmed this?

    Oops... we're not on Slashdot...
  • designet, on 07/23/2008, -3/+26shall we just agree to blame the RIAA and move on?
  • stonebone4, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Great, zombie stars, that's all we need.

    Or maybe it was that band (Polaris) that was on the front page yesterday. Their metal is so face-meltingly awesome that the power of their rock can jump-start dying celestial bodies.
  • Pixelante, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1You're all wrong. The North Star was simply concentrating and gathering its energies to release its mighty Fist.
    Omae wa mo shindeiru!
  • Aliwalla, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3Global Warming
  • canadalolz, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3Scientists have no idea why? Let's pull out the ol' GOD OF THE GAPS to explain it!
    • BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Well, it's better then the god of the Israelites...
  • rdj262, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Buried for inaccurate. Read the article - the star was never "dying." The normal variations in its luminosity were changing.
  • Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -3/+19It knows Americans will need it to point the way towards Canada in case McCain is elected.
    • ender7074, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1You libs always threaten to leave but never do. Please, please make good on your promise!
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Yeah, ***** librarians!
      • Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Actually I'm a registered Independent but thanks for playing!
  • luag, on 07/23/2008, -9/+4Its Jesus Christ Super Star :-P
  • McShr3dd3r, on 07/23/2008, -7/+21up!
  • tresvold, on 07/23/2008, -4/+0egh i am with a lot of other people, i never even knew this was happening
  • restlessmouse, on 07/23/2008, -5/+0I for one welcome our... aww screw it
  • skaface69, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1It just got back from see the dark knight.
  • ripple123, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2buried, cause i like it when things die slowly.
  • iamthearm, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2It's because of Jesus. lol
  • 2012, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9This article seems incomplete. The title is VERY misleading. The observations were that the star's vibrations (?) were fading. What they mean by vibrations - I have no idea. However, in 2006 the Hubble telescope found that what we know as the North Star is actually a cluster of 3 stars. It had been known before that it was a binary system. This article did not mention any of this. The link to the Hubble site: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ ...
    P.S. I am not that smart. This information was in one of the comments below this article. :)
    • njdube, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Dugg, for being the only digger (other then me) who knew that little fact. :-)
    • TSK05, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1What they mean by vibrations is that these stars (cepheid variables in this case but there are other variable stars) contract and expand, during contraction the luminosity falls (so it's less bright) and during expansion luminosity rises. Fun fact: Edwin Hubble used a cepheid in the Andromeda galaxy to prove it was a galaxy and not a nebula (and that was the first proof that other galaxies even existed, happened in mid-1920s).

      As for cluster of 3 stars, yep but that does not affect much here. One of the stars is a white dwarf hence it's luminosity is near negative compared to Polaris A, and the other is orbiting at 2400 AU which means it's reaaaaaaaaally far away (1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the sun, our solar system is 100 AU and that means the heliosheath which is way past Pluto).
  • Shinbone, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Dying? How about pulsing? Come on, OP...
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6I hate this trend in headlines of "SCIENCE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT!!!! THEY ARE BAFFLED!!!!"

    It should say something like "Scientists are very confused by this activity and as such are working diligently to figure it out"

    I suspect the latter of the 2 would be much closer to the reality of the situation.
    • billbugger, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1BUT IT'S NOT EYE CATCHING!!!!

      I agree with you, though
  • scarwars, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4♪♫ "Startrekking across the universe,
    slowly going forward,
    still can't find reverse" ♪♫
    • Kojote, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0♪♫"There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow.
      There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape them off Jim!"♪♫
    • ender7074, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0Damn you! Now that song is running through my head.
  • sHockz, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2could it be because something may have passed between the earth and the star....?? hmmm....
    • jaredcat, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5yo momma
    • Agalychnis, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3not unless it's something passing back and forth very quickly across the line between us and the star at various distances in a repeated four day pattern...
  • BradleyNowell1, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2A better title would probably have been "Scientists can't figure out why the North Star is still there...Should have blown up by now"
    • cptsteiny, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Perhaps... except for the tiny fact that us "scientists" know that this star has pretty much zero chance of blowing up within our lifetimes.
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Jesus with his mighty sword and his angles are coming.

    A Jehovah's witness told me this, and he was serious.

    /Heads will roll.
    • etherreal, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Trapezoids or Dodecahedrons?
    • Gemfinder, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Angles? Oh yeah, that's right...Jesus didn't have curves.
  • icantdenythis, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I feel like the more we "know" the less we find out we actually "know" about this crazy universe.
  • JR__, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1http://jennicat5.deviantart.com/art/Doctor-Who-Dav ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.