Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone | Hacker News Reader

https://www.nationalastro.org/news/cool-new-worlds-found-in-... tries to hide it, too, but says, in note 1: The closest of these new discoveries is roughly 23 light-years away from the Sun. Many more of these brown dwarfs are in the 30–60 light-year distance range.

View on HN

Why do they always reference the nearness to the Sun, rather than just to us? With 8 light minutes between us and our nearest star, and light years to the dwarf stars they are as close to us as the Sun. Your average person is going to read the statement as being near to the Sun almost as if they are close to it but far from us.

If this "average person" is going to get such a false impression from clear and correct information, then maybe there's no use them knowing it anyway? They're obviously not even trying. I know someone who thinks the Milky Way is the same thing as the solar system. That person won't be reading an article about astronomy and it's OK. They have their own life and don't care about it.

It would have made more sense if they would have said that they are close to our solar system.

"What's a solar system? Why didn't they just say how far it is from Earth."

Is the earth flat? are you still close when the earth turns 90 degrees?

Feels like you’re calling me an idiot because, I’ll admit it, that’s exactly what I thought. You’re right in that I care significantly less now than I know the scale of “close” is not actually close in my terms. But it made it sound like a more impressive discovery than I perceive it to be. So, what they did is astronomical linkbaiting.

Sorry, I was going by the GP's mentioning light years. I see now that the article doesn't say that at the top, just "near the sun" which I agree is weird and confusing.

It doesn’t say it at the top or anywhere else.

I assumed “near the sun” the meant between us and the sun, which would have blown my mind having taken just a few undergrad courses in astronomy and physics.

I think the best way to phrase it would be “close to the solar system”, but even then, “close to”, IMO, doesn’t really carry the message for the general public. Neptune is 4 light hours from the sun. 20 light years is 40,000 times that distance, so that’s like saying somebody 40 km away is “close to you”.

I mean, compared to the distance to the moon, yeah - 40km is a rounding error. I don't care if I'm measuring the distance to the moon from my location or 40km away.

And that's 4x less of a difference than your 20 light-year example (moon is ~10,000x further than 40km). Choosing "from us" seems more than precise enough.

Earth tends to move around (literally, or at least elliptically) quite a bit over the course of the year. It’s not much but it is definitely not still.

In the grander scheme of light years the sun is less wobbly in its position.

However, I live 50 feet above sea level, a baseline not known for its short term (or long term) stasis, so I suppose its not exactly as if logic rules the language of waves and stars.

Pff since the closest star system is just 4ly away I was expecting something closer...

There may still be some cold brown dwarf nearer than Proxima.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(hypothetical_star)

As the wikipedia article states, the WISE survey[1] results would have turned up Nemesis or anything like it, and did not. Currently most likely theory for the improbable distribution of objects beyond the Kuiper Cliff is Planet Nine.[2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Exp... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

Reply on news.ycombinator.com