This list includes stars that have been observed, and the direct and indirect methods disagree.
This is the comparison that led us to ditch the indirect method. It seems to have two issues
- It does not take magnitude into account.
- Some stars with proper motion seem to be wrongly matched.
Anyway, these are all faint stars.
The purpose of this report is to check whether outliers can be caused by misidentification.
When looking at the report for a given outlier, consider that if the true match is a star with no
proper motion in Gaia, then there should be an AGASC star matched to this Gaia star. Is there one?
If you double-click on a report's figure, it will zoom out and show you all AGASC stars around.
Notable examples:
-
1185880 .
direct method gives a star that is closer in magnitude and angular separation
no idea why the indirect method gives another
-
10881736 .
two stars close in magnitude with the AGASC star right in between (AGASC was not resolved)
the direct method gives a star that is MUCH closer in magnitude and angular separation
-
1214128920 .
the direct method gives a star that is MUCH closer in magnitude and angular separation
-
1214648312 .
the direct method gives a star that is MUCH closer in magnitude and angular separation
still, this is a faint star, so irrelevant for us
Stars