This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Double star article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
If Double star is another term for binary star, then why don't we turn this page into a redirect instead of an article? CDClock 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that true binary stars comprise about half the stars (some sources say more, others say less) that we see. In any case, they are not the "vast majority" asserted in the article. 71.131.210.63 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is worthless as it stands. Actual, gravitationally bound binaries are the only type worth discussing in an article. So what if two stars "appear close together?" What if three stars appear close together--do we need a "triple star" article, too? Or four? Or five? Oh wait--we already have an article about that. It's called, Star cloud. But more significantly, there already is an article about binary stars. We do not need a more general article about stars that appear close to one another, and may or may not be gravitationally related. For that, we have the article about star clouds. Two stars appearing close together is not fundamentally different or even interesting. - 69.47.186.226 07:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that a double star is just two stars that are close together. Sometimes that is interesting, such as with Mizar and Alcor. I do not think, though, that a double star and a binary star are synonymous. -- Segregold 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems this page was completely rewritten by one editor. It has been reverted and should now make more sense. Vsst 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Multiple stars are classically sub-class of double stars, both historically and currently. I.e. If it were not called the Washington Double Star Catalogue, therefore why does it list multiple stars? I accuse Spacepotato of gross manipulation of the definition of double star. (If you want to have the decided on some arbiter, then I am prepared to go the distance, because you clearly don't know what you are actually talking about.) User:Arianewiki1 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There are so many errors and inconsistencies that this entry is mostly a waste of time fixing. The new entries by Spacepotato, and the continuous his reverts is totally unacceptable - who is still prepared to delete whole sections, even though they are relevant and are placed for clarity. I have fixed these same problems on three separate occasions, and will not be doing this again. User:Arianewiki1 07:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The page says, 'if the relative motion is small compared to the common proper motion of both stars, it may be concluded that the pair is in mutual orbit as a binary star.' Is this correct? I can't see how the proper motion is relevant, surely only their relative motion (and perhaps proximity) are relevant. 174.61.204.120 ( talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Double star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A few months ago I added a sentence saying that Mizar and Alcor (in the Big Dipper) are possibly a "binary" star (actually there are six stars in all, but they appear as two to the naked eye). Arianewiki1 took that out with the comment that Mizar is not a 'known' binary. But I did not write that Mizar was a known binary. I wrote that Mizar and Alcor are possibly a binary. So what I said was correct.
He or she also moved the Alpha Centauri - Proxima system from the list of visual binaries to the list of "Uncertain" cases. But it has now been established that Proxima is gravitationally bound to Alpha Centauri. The reference is in the article Proxima.
So I intend to put my changes back in.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 08:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
To all observers of double stars. Pages 285 to 319 in T.W.Webb's Celestial Objects For Common Telescopes (Volume 2: The Stars) show an interesting index of double stars with coordinates for Epoch 2000. In this index, a certain 'Lambda' (a designation code from one of the many double star observers) is mentioned about a dozen times. Now, who is (or was) 'Lambda'? (λ). Below you see the printed examples from the 'Lambda' catalogue: λ 32 (RA 3:47.9), λ 88 (RA 7:48.9), λ 91 (RA 7:55.7), λ 96 (RA 8:12.5), λ 108 (RA 9:0.3), λ 115 (RA 9:37.1), λ 140 (RA 11:56.7), λ 176 (RA 13:20.5), λ 228 (RA 15:23.2), λ 249 (RA 15:47.6), λ 316 (RA 17:0.4), λ ? (RA 17:6.4), λ 320 (RA 17:12.2), λ 342 (RA 17:53.3). All examples are located in the southern celestial hemisphere. Is this 'Lambda' catalogue in some way related to T.J.J.See's catalogue? (the numbers of these 'Lambda' double stars seem to correspond with those of T.J.J.See's double stars). Danny Caes, Ghent-Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:151F:5500:6DB0:E10C:2CAE:9FF2 ( talk) 15:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Lithopsian (!) and Arianewiki (!) and perhaps many more readers of this quest (that's VERY interesting info!!!). I must say, I like this ancient booklet from T.W.Webb (Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes, Volume 2) very much, but it is necessary to investigate these yellowish pages the way a detective would do (bit by bit). I underlined the names of all double star observers mentioned in that booklet (fluo-marker) because there's no alphabetic name-index in it (I did the same in Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Vols 1, 2, 3). Danny Caes, Ghent-Belgium (explorer of astronomical catalogues, and dedicated contributor of the Wikipedia page 'List of Astronomical Catalogues'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:151F:5500:6DB0:E10C:2CAE:9FF2 ( talk) 06:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)