Talk:Gamma Microscopii: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:07, 4 June 2021

Astronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamma Microscopii. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6630AbtJZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Foutreach.atnf.csiro.au%2Feducation%2Fsenior%2Fastrophysics%2Fphotometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearest approach

Why is the visual magnitude given for the uninteresting distance of 6ly, but not for the very interesting closest distance of 1.14ly? Fig (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it is because the distance (and therefore visual magnitude) at closest approach is highly uncertain - the 1.14ly figure appears to be one end of the error bar. I infer that the intent of the paragraph is to communicate that it shone in Earth's sky at a visual magnitude of -3.0 or brighter for 200000 years and that, at its closest, it reached between about 0.8 and 3.3 magnitudes brighter than that. The former would leave it slightly inferior to Venus at the latter's brightest, the latter would make it truly spectacular: even a casual observer would notice it in the daylight sky in favorable conditions. 213.78.82.8 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:05, 4 June 2021 edit 213.78.82.8 (talk) →‎Nearest approach ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:07, 4 June 2021 edit undo 213.78.82.8 (talk) →‎Nearest approach Next edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Why is the visual magnitude given for the uninteresting distance of 6ly, but not for the very interesting closest distance of 1.14ly? [[User:Fig wright\|Fig]] ([[User talk:Fig wright\|talk]]) 19:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)		Why is the visual magnitude given for the uninteresting distance of 6ly, but not for the very interesting closest distance of 1.14ly? [[User:Fig wright\|Fig]] ([[User talk:Fig wright\|talk]]) 19:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

	:I presume it is because the distance (and therefore visual magnitude) at closest approach is highly uncertain - the 1.14ly figure appears to be one end of the error bar. I infer that the ''intent'' of the paragraph is to communicate that it shone in Earth's sky at a visual magnitude of -3.0 or brighter for 200000 years and that, at its closest, it reached between about 0.8 and 3.3 magnitudes ~~bright~~ than that. The former would leave it slightly inferior to Venus at the latter's brightest, the latter would make it truly spectacular: even a casual observer would notice it in the daylight sky in favorable conditions. [[Special:Contributions/213.78.82.8\|213.78.82.8]] ([[User talk:213.78.82.8\|talk]]) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)		:I presume it is because the distance (and therefore visual magnitude) at closest approach is highly uncertain - the 1.14ly figure appears to be one end of the error bar. I infer that the ''intent'' of the paragraph is to communicate that it shone in Earth's sky at a visual magnitude of -3.0 or brighter for 200000 years and that, at its closest, it reached between about 0.8 and 3.3 magnitudes brighter than that. The former would leave it slightly inferior to Venus at the latter's brightest, the latter would make it truly spectacular: even a casual observer would notice it in the daylight sky in favorable conditions. [[Special:Contributions/213.78.82.8\|213.78.82.8]] ([[User talk:213.78.82.8\|talk]]) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)