I'm well amused to note a few things that as usual Wikipedia isn't mentioning, here in this article about Sirius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy

It has been variously reported at several different epochs, dating back to ancient greece, and several further reports in the several thousand years since.

Essentially, within relatively short spans of time, the brightest star in the sky has been observed to be reddish at some times, and blueish at others.

I'm not sure why it would be controversial to suggest this, but I read somewhere some time back that pointed out this changing colour of Sirius and suggested that it may actually be our Sol's binary twin.

The motion of Sirius, relative to us, is quite close, to the point it is:

> The brightest star seen from Earth, Sirius is recorded in some of the earliest astronomical records. Its displacement from the ecliptic causes its heliacal rising to be remarkably regular compared to other stars, with a period of almost exactly 365.25 days holding it constant relative to the solar year.

"remarkably regular". Like as though it has a huge amount of inertia in common with our solar system.

What's bizarre is that this is not an idea that is generally even known of by astronomy fans, or that the colour change situation could be explained by our solar system being in orbit with Sirius A and B - while at the same time, most moderately informed people will know that our sun's absence of a pair is uncommon, the vast preponderance of stars now observed have been determined to be binary pairs.

Just a reminder of how stupid even smart people are - that an obvious implication about blue/red changes in a VERY BRIGHT STAR that we know by parallax is under 9 light years away - OF COURSE its motion is tied to the motion of our planet. I mean, sure, we can't see much that isn't glowing within that 9 light years radius around us, other than Sirius and Alpha/Proxima Centauri, but the synchrony of motion screams common origin to me.

I've got plenty of ideas that probably are wrong, and maybe this is one of them, but idgaf, it's just very interesting.

The idea that scientists have the best, and not to be changed again idea about anything, is quite patently ridiculous.

And no less ridiculous than the idea that there isn't a bigger truth out there, when we know plenty of smaller truths.