Talk:Sirius

trademark is a drawing of a white dog with a blue, star-shaped eye." does not belong in the third paragraph?

Aristotle might have referred to the double star in his Meteorologica, citing African sources:

"... some of the fixed stars too get a tail. For this we must not only accept the authority of the Egyptians who assert it, but we have ourselves observed the fact. For a star in the thigh of the Dog had a tail, though a faint one. If you fixed your sight on it its light was dim, but if you just glanced at it, it appeared brighter."

However, this reference has been attributed to M41 or a train of stars near Delta Canis Majoris.^[1]

Is "Gaza sphinx" correct? Should it not be "Giza sphinx"?

(Star Study) The object which is being called "Sirius" is in fact not. The object being discussed within this article is in fact within the boundaries of our solar system. This object being depicted as "Sirus" the "brightest star in the sky" can be viewed moving from east to west, whereas the constellation of "Orion" moves across the sky from west to east. The article is in fact fraudulent and should be revised to show it's fictitious propaganda.

Coming to this page to check some facts about Sirius A for a book I am writing about Manchester physics, I was disappointed to find that one of the things I already knew as an irrefutable fact was incorrectly reported here. This undermines the credibility of the whole article and since I assume it has been written by astronomers and I am a mere particle physicist, I can't trust the article for anything. I am therefore surprised that it has received accolades for being such a good one.

The irrefutable fact is that the first measurement of the diameter was published in 1956 and not 1959 as stated in the text, nor 1958 as given in the (wrong) citation. The original paper was: ^[1] The value they measured was 6.8 +/– 0.5 mas.

In addition, this original paper is cited in the subsection headed "Discovery of a companion" and not in the section "Sirius A" where a "current" uncited value of 5.936±0.016 mas is quoted. I have found a recent Australian compilation giving the diameter as 6.041±0.017 mas which differs from the value quoted here by six standard deviations of the quoted errors, which is most disturbing.

I haven't edited then page because it might be someone's pet baby. But I do urge a thorough vetting and overhaul of the whole article which I feel has gained an undeserved reputation for quality.

TheProfRobin (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)