Talk:Gliese 710

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gliese 710 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Red dwarf?

The red dwarfs article states that red dwarfs "have a diameter and mass of less than one-third that of the Sun" but here the mass of Gliese is estimated at 0.4 to 0.6 sun masses. What's wrong? 84.160.247.111 10:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an orange dwarf. Bud Charles (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 data

Someone needs to update this article to account for recent research regarding this star: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2160 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akokoza (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have updated this article with new data from the bobylev article Hurtling star on a path to clip solar system at www.newscientist.com. I hope all the information is correct I think I may have updated the reference link incorrectly if someone could correct this it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Credible Theories that Gliese is in Orbit Around The Sun?

I saw a note to that effect on the discussion page of Nemesis (star)

75.166.172.10 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more than 3.6 light-years (230,000 AU) from the Sun is NOT bound and is located in the Interstellar medium. -- Kheider (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply To Recent Edits

I think we need to select one set of data for the article either The data from the Bobylev article or the older data whichever is more "Accurate". --03jmgibbens (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

García-Sánchez2001 suggested a minimum distance of 0.337 parsecs (1.09 light-years) while Bobylev2010 (Table 3) says 0.311 ± 0.167 parsecs (1.0 light-years). Bobylev also says, "GL 710 is the only star with a significant difference between the data of Tables 2 and 3. This suggests that the conditions for its encounter with the Sun make the stellar orbit very sensitive to small changes in such initial data as the parallax and radial velocity." No where does Bobylev say GL 710 **will** pass within 10,000 AU (0.158 ly). Stating any figure closer than 0.21 pc (0.68 ly) as an outright fact IMHO would not be supported by the reference. -- Kheider (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand what you are saying I may have done some calculations wrong I took all of the information from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18655-hurtling-star-on-a-path-to-clip-solar-system.html ( I would appreciate you taking a look at it) and certain figures such as the light years I worked out myself also it should have been 1000 AU of which their is a 1/10000 chance of happening. It also states their is an 86% of it passing through the ORT Cloud. This is from a well recognised website and they have taken it from the "Full" Bobylev article. --03jmgibbens (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the "86 percent chance of passing through the Oort cloud" (located @ 50,000AU / 0.79ly) and "the 1/10,000 chance of perturbing the Kuiper belt" (sounds like the the ~1000AU figure) are mentioned in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Annotations that with recent astrometric data (used by Bobylev) and in linear approximation, the distance of closest approach is 0.302 pc. IMHO, this distance of ≈0.3 pc (compatible to both Garcia-Sanchez et al. and Bobylev's table 3) should be preferred at the moment, closer values are too speculative. --Yigor (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim V. Bobylev gives 0.21 pc (which would be 0.69 lightyears) as the closest distance of Gliese 710 in 1444 thousand years. The list in the article List of nearest stars (section Future and past) gives 0.311 pc resp. 1.01 lightyears for Gliese 710 for the same time, and cites Bobylev as the only reference (Vadim V. Bobylev: Searching for Stars Closely Encountering with the Solar System, 10 March 2010). There are linked two articles by Bobylev, in the reference, one of April 1, 2009, the second of March 10, 2010. Only this newer text by Bobylev is freely accessible, and gives the above mentioned, smaller number of 0.21 pc, which contradicts the numbers in the Wikipedia article.

Moreover, in this article on Gliese 710, the star`s closest approach was given as not 1.01 (which would be correct if Bobylev had wrongly given 0.21 pc instead of 0.311 pc), but 1.1 lightyears.

The user Yigor claims he was a professor of mathematics at the university of Toulouse and, at the moment, worked on the kinematics of nearby stars. That questions his objectivity; the annotations he cites are contributions of a user with the nickname Yigor in an internet forum. I have replaced the unreferenced data in this article by those of Bobylev 2010. In the article List of nearby stars, I don`t know how to replace the data, as the list is not accessible in the source code of the page, but only linked to by the words Solar encounters, in curved brackets.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobylev 2010 (doi:10.1134/S1063773710030060, Table 3) gives a closest approach distance of 0.311 pc (1.01 ly), which is correctly reported in this article and in List of nearby stars. The 0.21 pc is from Table 2. The reason for the discrepancy is that 0.21 pc is using the nominal observed data for the position and velocity of Gliese 710, but the figure of 0.311 pc is obtained from a statistical simulation which takes into account the errors in the observed data. A histogram of closest approach distances for Gliese 710 is shown in Figure 3a of Bobylev 2010. The closest approach distance is quite sensitive to the errors in the data and may vary from <0.1 pc to >0.7 pc. 0.311 pc is, according to the paper, a median value. Spacepotato (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Gliese 710 have an Oort Cloud?

I know this may not be the place for it but I have just a query about Gliese 710, does it have an Oort cloud? Given our Oort cloud may extend out to 100,000 AU (1 Light year = 63,241.077 AU) and Glise 710 may approach to about a light year, this seems, if the radius of it’s Oort cloud is similar, to put Earth right at the outer edge of it’s Oort cloud. What are the consequences if this is the case, if there is any?

This is just a query, I have no info nor any expertise in this field but if someone has info I would think it may be useful to include in the Article. --shronemor 30th June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shronemor (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the current state of astronomy, it is impossible to answer your question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.158.18 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Gliese 710 is less massive than the Sun it should have a smaller Oort cloud. But I see no reason to think Gliese 710 would not have an Oort cloud. But keep in mind that the Oort cloud is mostly empty space. There should not be a significant increase in the cratering rate. Jupiter is frequently perturbing asteroids that get too close to the Kirkwood gaps. -- Kheider (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angular Momentum and Uncertainty in the Close Approach of Gliese 710 to Eta Serpentis

The article should mention the close approach that Gliese 710 is having now with the large star Eta Serpentis. The uncertainties of mass, location, speed, and direction, of this potential gravity interaction seems to put the future path of Gliese 710 in considerable doubt. I don't believe the several references have addressed the situation adequately either.

We seem to be at least one dissertation short of the confidence usually needed for drawing conclusions. Conventional rules of evidence are different when health and safety are impacted by the results. In such cases the researchers and writers of reference articles are not expected to bear the burden of proof. The burden is placed on opponents who say it isn't dangerous.

It is an interesting question whether or not Eta Serpentis will deflect Gliese 710 enough to prevent disruption of the solar system outer fringes in the next 1.4 million years. To leave it out of the article seems to mislead the readers.

Also missing from the article and the references is a suitable discussion of conserving angular momentum in close encounters, which tends to avoid collisions by compelling the massive bodies to orbit around each other.

I would like to read a larger version of this article by experts in the field, which would suggest additional reference articles should be written about the influence of Eta Serpentis and other intervening stars.Astrojed (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Serpentis is only 2 solar masses and if at closest approach Eta Serpentis and Gl 710 are several light years apart, the perturbation could be lost in the existing trajectory uncertainties. -- Kheider (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Launch satellite to orbit around star?

In reading the timeline of the far future, this star is supposed to come very close to the sun - astronomically speaking. Could we send a satellite around this star and "aim" it just right that it orbits around an extrasolar star (if that's a phrase)?

Human will probably be long dead by the time this happens (~1 million years in the future), but it would an interesting "artifact" to leave behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.107.142 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolometric magnitude

Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to the given radius (0.67) and temperature (4250K) I get about 0.13, so I think something must be amiss with the values in the info box. Qemist (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory lead section

The cite of "strongest disrupting encounter in the future and history of the solar system" is in contradiction to below, "In a time interval of ±10 million years from the present... will cause the greatest gravitational perturbation of the Solar System". The latter makes much more sense, the former is sensationalistic. Our solar system is much older than 20 million years, has probably undergone much more disruptive encounters. Pekoebrew (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible grammatical error in third sentence

Hello All, there appears to be a grammatical error in the third sentence.

I have never edited any Wikipedia articles before so I wanted someone else to double check this please.

It reads:

“The predicted minimum distance is 1.281 million years from now, possibly approaching as close as 0.0676 parsecs, 0.221 light years or about 13,300 AU:[10] being about 20 times closer than the current distance of Proxima Centauri.”

Shouldn’t it be something like:

The predicted minimum distance may occur about 1.281 million years from now and possibly be as close as 0.0676 parsecs, 0.221 light years or about 13,300 AU:[10] being about 20 times closer than the current distance of Proxima Centauri. Techman101101 (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including a history of distance estimates

Awesome addition to the article! Misty MH (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]