Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22bc36d6815f162

Jump to content

Talk:Achernar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Pancakes321 in topic "Most oblate star" title usurped?

New paper on binary

[edit]

I added link to 2022 Kervella paper and updated info on the binary orbit in the starbox and main body. I did this quickly, so it may benefit from specialist review. --Az7997 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Visibility in ancient times

[edit]

An anonymous user added the following comment to the article, referemcing whether Ptolemy could have observed Achernar. I have moved it here:

This is not true. The Aegyptians navegated the seas (fathom, ancla, anchor, are terms of Aegyptian origin. 

Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Supposed last

[edit]

The article says "it was the last first magnitude star observed". Those near the Equator and South of the Equator saw it earlier, in view of its magnitude and R.A. and Declination. It is noted that it was named by an Australian aborigine tribe.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:E083:8201:D9EA:2EBF:182B:6112 (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have improved the article. I have, on several points.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:E083:8201:D9EA:2EBF:182B:6112 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Precession

[edit]

I've added an "explain" to the use of precession here. Is something meant like "as it rotates around the galactic enter it rises higher as against the latitude of Earth?" Because just calling this precession is not very clear.Wjhonson (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Namesake

[edit]

Due to the way the article is set up, it implies that it is named after an American naval ship, a naval ship that then humorously, links back to the article as being the ship's name Sake. I'd argue that the namesake Category is redundant as such, or could be turned into an explanation of the star's name and how it was arrived upon or discovered

The Legendary Vin (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've clarified that the ship was named after the star. Whether this sort of information belongs in an article about a star has been controversial in the past. It can be argued either way: it does not impart any information about the star, but it does show a real-world non-fictional "cultural" impact. It is already in the nomenclature section, as its own sub-section, so I'm struggling to see how it can be linked more closely to the description of the nomenclature; the star was named as described and the ship was named after the star. Lithopsian (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Gotchu gotchu The Legendary Vin (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spectral type? B3 or B6

[edit]

I don't understand this but there seems to be some doubt about whether it is B3 or B6. https://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Achernar kinda has both William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is worth noting that Achernar is a highly-oblate star, with a polar temperature about what you'd expect for a B3 star and an equatorial temperature more like a B8 star would have. It also has a close companion, close enough that most measurements of its spectral type would be a blend of both stars. Any spectral class that doesn't explicitly account for both stars should be considered suspect, although it is over three magnitudes fainter. The spectrum is also complicated by the presence of emission lines. There are differences in the published spectral types of much more normal stars, although B3 to B6 is quite extreme. Compare Epsilon Cassiopeiae, another Be star although not as extreme, which has been given spectral types from B2 to B5 over the years. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

First image

[edit]

On mobile view, the top image in the infobox is off-centre. Sushidude21! (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Misleading illustration

[edit]

The illustration is a little misleading. Its equatorial diameter is about 48% wider than its polar diameter, not 35%. Uttrediay (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe the 35% might be due to a mistranslation of 'the polar diameter are 35% shorter than the equatorial diameter'. Pancakes321 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Most oblate star" title usurped?

[edit]

Phecda's polar radius/equitorial radius ratio is 1.5485:1, compared to Achernar's 1.351:1. Pancakes321 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply