Talk:Zeta Reticuli

Magnitude/Luminance disagreement
From the infobox:


 * ζ1 Ret
 * Absolute magnitude (Mv) 5.11±0.01[5]
 * Absolute bolometric magnitude (Mbol) 5.03 ± 0.03[3]
 * Luminosity (bolometric) 0.77[note 1] L☉
 * Luminosity (visual, Lv) 0.77[note 2] L☉

So, the two abs. mags disagree, but the luminosities agree. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ζ2 Ret
 * Absolute magnitude (Mv) 4.83[5]
 * Absolute bolometric magnitude (Mbol) 4.79 ± 0.03[3]
 * Luminosity (bolometric) 0.96[note 1] L☉
 * Luminosity (visual, Lv) 1.00[note 2] L☉

Even worse, by abs. mag, the bolometric value is higher (more luminous), but the visual luminosity is higher. Is that even theoretically possible?

If I read the formulas right, it's not possible, and the magnitude figures are essentially logarithms. IMO, the only source of the disagreement could be that one source calls certain frequencies visible which the other calls infrared or ultraviolet, or if both stars are significantly variable, esp. WRT spectral type. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me. Even has footnotes explaining the exact formulae used to calculate the luminosities from the absolute magnitudes. No thought required, just a little effort. Plug the numbers yourself and you'll see. Lithopsian (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I missed the fact that the two magnitude figures for the Sun are defined differently.
 * ¡Oops! (hurt me / more pain) 17:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that measurement errors always exist, which can sometimes lead to seemingly irreconcilable results. All we can do here is report the findings until data with higher accuracy becomes available. Praemonitus (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zeta Reticuli. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110723142621/http://hatirlabeni.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=401:zeta-reticulideki-uzayllar&catid=25:proje&Itemid=53 to http://hatirlabeni.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=401:zeta-reticulideki-uzayllar&catid=25:proje&Itemid=53

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet, debris, etc
Considering how little we know of Zeta Reticuli, I don't see what the problem is with a short history of interesting observations and interpretation. It appears that an editor has a strong opinion on what should be there, but Wikipedia should simply reflect reliable sources, not one's imagination... The ZetaTalk reference is not optimal, but appears to serve as context with some better sources cited later. — Paleo Neonate  – 07:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree there's nothing wrong with the current section. The editor in question has been blocked for disruptive editing, per the talk page. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)