5 ms·

Wait a second, this doesn't sound right. According to your wikipedia link, the "Seven Sisters" constellation actually has 9 stars (named after the 7 sisters + p

Wait a second, this doesn't sound right. According to your wikipedia link, the "Seven Sisters" constellation actually has 9 stars (named after the 7 sisters + parents). They are all visible with the naked eye.

tiagod 6y ago
The pleiades are a cluster, not a constellation.
- SkittyDog 6y ago
  From the WP article, under "Folklore and Mythology": "Some Greek astronomers considered them to be a distinct constellation, and they are mentioned by Hesiod's Works and Day..." (emphasis mine) So it would appear that they are both. FWIW, I have no idea if there is some astronomical technical jargon distinction between "constellation" and "cluster" that inspires your comment. But to this layman, your correction comes across as pedantix and unnecessary. The term "constellation" is clearly valid, here, as common everyday English is spoken.
  - cedilla 6y ago
    There is a difference: a constellation is an area of the sky where some stars appear to belong together to form an image. Their actual distance may be vast. A cluster on the other hand actually is a group of stars that formed from the same material and are thus very close to each other. So there is a difference, but it's only a problem to interchange the terms the other way round.
    - macintux 6y ago
      Given that the Pleiades are, I believe, the only cluster in the sky large enough to act as a constellation, it's certainly not irrational to treat them as both. A cluster could be treated as a constellation, but not vice versa.
      - sellyme 6y ago
        This is exactly what the comment you are replying to said.
    - SkittyDog 6y ago
      While I'm glad to be educated about the technical definition, it's still not even remotely relevant. The point is to whether the commonplace usage is worthy of correction... In this case, the correction adds nothing of value to the discussion. It struck me as a rude, self-aggrandizing gesture by an adult who should know better.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  What is the difference?
  - antonvs 6y ago
    A cluster is a collection of stars that are relatively close to each other in space, and bound together as a group by each other's gravity. For example, the Pleiades has a core radius of only about 8 light years, and almost all of the 1,000+ stars in the cluster are within a volume of radius 43 light years. A constellation is a two-dimensional region of the sky, more like counties or states on a map. The "celestial sphere" is divided into 88 constellations, which were chosen essentially arbitrarily, based largely on historically significant apparent groupings of stars. Stars in a constellation superficially look to us as though they're near each other, but they may be very different distances from us, because we see the night sky as two-dimensional. For example, one of the furthest stars visible to the naked eye is over 16,000 light years away, called V762 Cas in the constellation Cassiopeia. Cassiopeia also contains many other stars that are much closer to us, such as Eta Cassiopeiae which is just 19.4 light years away, practically a next-door neighbor.
0_____0 6y ago
idk about you but when i look at it I see 6. been trying to spot #7, no luck so far.
- lolinder 6y ago
  Do you live in the middle of nowhere, far away from any light pollution? If not, your inability to see more than 6 means nothing about what someone 2000 years ago would have been able to see.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    Not the OP, but I have been observing the naked eye sky for decades from many different locations, including locations far from light pollution. In my best nights, when I was young, and far from light pollution, I could never make out more than 6 stars. And I'm able to spot Alcor very easily, even in suboptimal conditions.
  - 0_____0 6y ago
    no matter where I am, if i have the night sky, I check for Pleiades and take note of how many I can see. sometimes it's fewer than 6 depending on light pollution, but I have never been able to see 7, even on nights in deeply rural areas where the milky way is stunningly bright and clear.
- pegasus 6y ago
  I imagine hunter-gatherers, whose life depended on their eyesight acuity, would be find it easier to spot than most modern humans do.
  - comboy 6y ago
    Plus light pollution and air pollution. Maybe some other changes in the atmosphere. And very careful looking. You don't need lenses, just looking through a hole in a leaf could be helpful.
    - 6y ago
nsilvestri 6y ago
Being technically visible to the naked eye does not mean they are easily discernable. It's like how the Galilean moons are technically visible to the naked eye, but Jupiter's overwhelming brightness makes them nigh on impossible to see except in specific circumstances.
- lolinder 6y ago
  Right, but that they are ever visible to anyone means that the story could just as easily be inspired by the rarely-seen 7th sister, rather than the last-seen-100k-years-ago 7th sister.
  - dd_roger 6y ago
    This is a much more likely explanation but in all non-scientific accademic fields it's usually more important to come up with a narrative that's appealing to the general public or the political class than with an accurate narrative. Hence the explanation that makes the most sense but is less "Wow"-inducing will be swept under the rug. There are plenty of fields where we entertain "mysteries" that have perfectly rational explanations but settling the question once and for all with a rational argument would dry up the funding stream for accademicians and could have other undesirable consequences on some countries' political narrative.
    - posterboy 6y ago
      one would like to think the most accurate story was awesome-most precisely because of its accuracy. IMHO you are merely complaining that it isn't precise enough to convince you, though it couldn't be improved much without written accounts? And then it a sense of incredulity is showing, it's unimaginable, 100,000 kya is unimaginable, as if the world was fashioned in the mesolithic.
  - posterboy 6y ago
    A nother comment mentions indigenous Australians. Who, if I remember correctly, are estimated to have settled about 50kya. There are later intrusions into the peninsula, as it were back then. Oceania was settled even later by boat. The language divide in Australia is overwhelmingly that of earlier indians (if you'll excuse the pun, the land bridge was connected to the Indian subcontinent), with other language families mostly limited to the north end This I think might strengthen the argument significantly.
sradman 6y ago
The abstract of the preprint [1] starts: > There are two puzzles surrounding the Pleiades, or Seven Sisters. First, why are the mythological stories surrounding them, typically involving seven young girls being chased by a man associated with the constellation Orion, so similar in vastly separated cultures, such as the Australian Aboriginal cultures and Greek mythology? Second, why do most cultures call them “Seven Sisters" even though most people with good eyesight see only six stars? Most people see six bright stars, like those depicted in the Subaru logo. Yet, you are quite correct to point out that the overlapping stars in question, Atlas and Pleione, are named after the parents of the seven sisters in Greek mythology. Six-vs-Seven or Eight-vs-Nine are valid criticisms and raise the question of when the names of the stars were first used. The narrative-based approach is imprecise but, like Historical Linguistics [2], it might be useful in identifying origins and connectedness. Regardless, knowing that the bright stars Atlas and Pleione were separated in the past is a useful fact for generating and testing hypotheses. [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/np0n4v72bdl37gr/sevensisters.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/np0n4v72bdl37gr/sevensisters.pdf?d... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics
vivekd 6y ago
I wonder if this means there is something we are missing here. Like maybe there was a 10th star in the cluster long ago that for some reason is no visible to us today
- credit_guy 6y ago
  This is unlikely. A star can disappear if it goes supernova, or it implodes to become a neutron star or a black hole. The Pleiades are very close to us (astronomically speaking) at around 400 light-years. It would be virtually impossible for the remnants of a supernova at that distance to remain undiscovered, and also for a neutron star/ black hole to be so close to us and us not know about it. For example the remnant of Tycho Brahe's supernova is at about 8000 light-years from us [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572

tiagod 6y ago

The pleiades are a cluster, not a constellation.

SkittyDog 6y ago
From the WP article, under "Folklore and Mythology": "Some Greek astronomers considered them to be a distinct constellation, and they are mentioned by Hesiod's Works and Day..." (emphasis mine) So it would appear that they are both. FWIW, I have no idea if there is some astronomical technical jargon distinction between "constellation" and "cluster" that inspires your comment. But to this layman, your correction comes across as pedantix and unnecessary. The term "constellation" is clearly valid, here, as common everyday English is spoken.
- cedilla 6y ago
  There is a difference: a constellation is an area of the sky where some stars appear to belong together to form an image. Their actual distance may be vast. A cluster on the other hand actually is a group of stars that formed from the same material and are thus very close to each other. So there is a difference, but it's only a problem to interchange the terms the other way round.
  - macintux 6y ago
    Given that the Pleiades are, I believe, the only cluster in the sky large enough to act as a constellation, it's certainly not irrational to treat them as both. A cluster could be treated as a constellation, but not vice versa.
    - sellyme 6y ago
      This is exactly what the comment you are replying to said.
  - SkittyDog 6y ago
    While I'm glad to be educated about the technical definition, it's still not even remotely relevant. The point is to whether the commonplace usage is worthy of correction... In this case, the correction adds nothing of value to the discussion. It struck me as a rude, self-aggrandizing gesture by an adult who should know better.
umanwizard 6y ago
What is the difference?
- antonvs 6y ago
  A cluster is a collection of stars that are relatively close to each other in space, and bound together as a group by each other's gravity. For example, the Pleiades has a core radius of only about 8 light years, and almost all of the 1,000+ stars in the cluster are within a volume of radius 43 light years. A constellation is a two-dimensional region of the sky, more like counties or states on a map. The "celestial sphere" is divided into 88 constellations, which were chosen essentially arbitrarily, based largely on historically significant apparent groupings of stars. Stars in a constellation superficially look to us as though they're near each other, but they may be very different distances from us, because we see the night sky as two-dimensional. For example, one of the furthest stars visible to the naked eye is over 16,000 light years away, called V762 Cas in the constellation Cassiopeia. Cassiopeia also contains many other stars that are much closer to us, such as Eta Cassiopeiae which is just 19.4 light years away, practically a next-door neighbor.

0_____0 6y ago

idk about you but when i look at it I see 6. been trying to spot #7, no luck so far.

lolinder 6y ago
Do you live in the middle of nowhere, far away from any light pollution? If not, your inability to see more than 6 means nothing about what someone 2000 years ago would have been able to see.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  Not the OP, but I have been observing the naked eye sky for decades from many different locations, including locations far from light pollution. In my best nights, when I was young, and far from light pollution, I could never make out more than 6 stars. And I'm able to spot Alcor very easily, even in suboptimal conditions.
- 0_____0 6y ago
  no matter where I am, if i have the night sky, I check for Pleiades and take note of how many I can see. sometimes it's fewer than 6 depending on light pollution, but I have never been able to see 7, even on nights in deeply rural areas where the milky way is stunningly bright and clear.
pegasus 6y ago
I imagine hunter-gatherers, whose life depended on their eyesight acuity, would be find it easier to spot than most modern humans do.
- comboy 6y ago
  Plus light pollution and air pollution. Maybe some other changes in the atmosphere. And very careful looking. You don't need lenses, just looking through a hole in a leaf could be helpful.
  - 6y ago

nsilvestri 6y ago

Being technically visible to the naked eye does not mean they are easily discernable. It's like how the Galilean moons are technically visible to the naked eye, but Jupiter's overwhelming brightness makes them nigh on impossible to see except in specific circumstances.

lolinder 6y ago
Right, but that they are ever visible to anyone means that the story could just as easily be inspired by the rarely-seen 7th sister, rather than the last-seen-100k-years-ago 7th sister.
- dd_roger 6y ago
  This is a much more likely explanation but in all non-scientific accademic fields it's usually more important to come up with a narrative that's appealing to the general public or the political class than with an accurate narrative. Hence the explanation that makes the most sense but is less "Wow"-inducing will be swept under the rug. There are plenty of fields where we entertain "mysteries" that have perfectly rational explanations but settling the question once and for all with a rational argument would dry up the funding stream for accademicians and could have other undesirable consequences on some countries' political narrative.
  - posterboy 6y ago
    one would like to think the most accurate story was awesome-most precisely because of its accuracy. IMHO you are merely complaining that it isn't precise enough to convince you, though it couldn't be improved much without written accounts? And then it a sense of incredulity is showing, it's unimaginable, 100,000 kya is unimaginable, as if the world was fashioned in the mesolithic.
- posterboy 6y ago
  A nother comment mentions indigenous Australians. Who, if I remember correctly, are estimated to have settled about 50kya. There are later intrusions into the peninsula, as it were back then. Oceania was settled even later by boat. The language divide in Australia is overwhelmingly that of earlier indians (if you'll excuse the pun, the land bridge was connected to the Indian subcontinent), with other language families mostly limited to the north end This I think might strengthen the argument significantly.

sradman 6y ago

The abstract of the preprint [1] starts: > There are two puzzles surrounding the Pleiades, or Seven Sisters. First, why are the mythological stories surrounding them, typically involving seven young girls being chased by a man associated with the constellation Orion, so similar in vastly separated cultures, such as the Australian Aboriginal cultures and Greek mythology? Second, why do most cultures call them “Seven Sisters" even though most people with good eyesight see only six stars? Most people see six bright stars, like those depicted in the Subaru logo. Yet, you are quite correct to point out that the overlapping stars in question, Atlas and Pleione, are named after the parents of the seven sisters in Greek mythology. Six-vs-Seven or Eight-vs-Nine are valid criticisms and raise the question of when the names of the stars were first used. The narrative-based approach is imprecise but, like Historical Linguistics [2], it might be useful in identifying origins and connectedness. Regardless, knowing that the bright stars Atlas and Pleione were separated in the past is a useful fact for generating and testing hypotheses. [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/np0n4v72bdl37gr/sevensisters.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/np0n4v72bdl37gr/sevensisters.pdf?d... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics

vivekd 6y ago

I wonder if this means there is something we are missing here. Like maybe there was a 10th star in the cluster long ago that for some reason is no visible to us today

credit_guy 6y ago
This is unlikely. A star can disappear if it goes supernova, or it implodes to become a neutron star or a black hole. The Pleiades are very close to us (astronomically speaking) at around 400 light-years. It would be virtually impossible for the remnants of a supernova at that distance to remain undiscovered, and also for a neutron star/ black hole to be so close to us and us not know about it. For example the remnant of Tycho Brahe's supernova is at about 8000 light-years from us [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1572