Talk:Proxima Centauri

I removed the following paragraph from the "Distance and motion" section because there is nothing in the source to support it:

"Six single stars, two binary star systems, and a triple star^[specify] share a common motion through space with Proxima Centauri and the Alpha Centauri system. The space velocities of these stars are all within 10 km/s of Alpha Centauri's peculiar motion. Thus, they may form a moving group of stars, which would indicate a common point of origin,^[1] such as in a star cluster."

Praemonitus (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Praemonitus Amazing and led me on a chase. I suspected essentially vandalism but it was much more complicated. Here's the insertion. - but the *citation* is different in the url which is still there and is totally legit and I found when the citation was changed at this bot edit so the problem was the bot!! Smkolins (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your investigation. I restored the paragraph in the article using the original cite, but changed the URL to a bibcode. Hopefully that will protect it from future bot changes. Praemonitus (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? The Anosova (1994) article? That article makes the claim that Proxima is almost certainly in a hyperbolic orbit around Alpha AB, which I understand was refuted several years ago (yeah, Kervella 2017^[1]), producing an eccentricity of 0.5(+0.08 -0.09). Do we still accept the 1994 conclusion? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying was refuted. Kervella (2017) gives the eccentricity of 0.5. Were you saying that Kervella was refuting the earlier claim? (If so, "yeah" should be changed to "by.") On reading the abstracts of the two cases, I don't see any quarrel between them. What exactly are you referring to?

Kavella 2017: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A%26A...598L...7K/abstract

Anosova 1994: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A%26A...292..115A/abstract

Here are links to the two articles. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The group they propose includes the Alpha Centauri system, so the nature of Proxima Centauri's orbit does not necessarily negate the proposed co-moving hypothesis. That being said, I couldn't find any follow-up studies based on more accurate astrometric data so it probably is not widely accepted. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction: I do see it mentioned in Schultz et al. (1998), Wertheimer and Laughlin (2006), and Barnes et al. (2016). Hence it's probably not something we can readily dismiss. Praemonitus (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Foxy Husky: just added radiuses for two of the planets. Where did these come from? They aren't specifically cited, and I don't see them mentioned in any existing reference. Indeed, I'm not sure how we would have derived them, which is why I was looking for the citation. Anyone know more than I do on this? Tarl N. (discuss) 06:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tarl N. i actually thought these radius from Suárez Mascareño 2025 and because i saw the reference on header box, i chose not to put it into the radius

but after looking at these radius from these planets' article, i realise its from different sources. srry... i will gonna add source on the radiuses Foxy Husky (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Foxy Husky: Looking at the new reference, I find those planetary radii dubious. They have a minimum mass for the planet given the uncertainty in inclination. This suffices for the calculation they were trying to make - probability of transit. Transit would only occur if inclination was effectively zero, and thus only if the mass is at the absolute minimum of the established mass range. In essence, after guessing at the composition of the planet, it's proposing a minimum radius (we know the radius cannot be any smaller), but it's being presented in the table as "the radius is xxxx +/- 0.08", which is vastly misleading. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40668597

Why is this? ~2026-40980-9 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that was back before the present day system of spectral classification was finalized. In particular, the Morgan–Keenan classification was introduced in 1943. Praemonitus (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)