Rule of Exception in All Nearest Objects I once heard of a strange phenomenon, but now cannot find anything about it on the Internet.  I might be looking for the wrong keywords or misremember some relevant aspect.  So maybe someone here can help me out and point me in the right direction.

The described phenomenon goes like this, as I remember it:

During the course of the scientific research, people found out more and more about the objects surrounding us.  Moon, Sun, planets, other stars, other galaxies, etc.  But each time (more or less) a little later (after a new discovery was getting an established fact) it showed that the closest object of this kind to Earth was rather an exception among its peers.  For instance, the closest other galaxy is blue-shifted.  Or that the closest Pulsar is somehow an exception among its peers.

It might be that the rule was not about the closest but about the first found object of a kind.

I think I remember Prof Harald Lesch (a German physicist lecturing on TV in a popular format called "Alpha Centauri") mentioning this peculiar phenomenon and fleshing it out with some examples, but now I'm not able to find the clip.

I understand the point about closing this question, but maybe leave it open for some weeks (or months), just in case somebody drops by who has something to contribute.  After a grace period the non-reaction can be counted as a vote for "isn't common knowledge".  Without such a grace period closing the question can only be based on "I don't know such a thing" (which should not be enough).

The concrete questions (because that was asked for, so it seemed to be unclear to some people) are:


Is such a phenomenon known?
Is there a source describing it?


Nice to have:  Which of the Alpha Centauri lectures was probably the one introducing me to the topic?

Is there a name to it?
What are examples of such objects?
I have not heard of any idea that the nearest object is exceptional in any significant way, and in the case of the nearest pulsar, nearest star, nearest (large) galaxy etc. the properties are usually typical of the underlying population, though perhaps not the observed population because of biases and selection effects.

Take Proxima Centauri as an example. It is unlike any star that can be observed with the naked eye. However, it is a very good example of a "modal" star - much less massive than the Sun, about half the age of the Galaxy and a member of a multiple system. The reason for the discrepancy is of course that stars have a wide range of luminosities and distances; in a "flux-limited" survey, we always pick out the brightest sources, which tend to be the most luminous sources at large distances, where our survey volume is largest.

So, it is true that nearby objects are different to the observed population.

The same may apply whenever some unusual chacteristic makes a type of object more likely to be detected. There is certainly a phenomenon in astronomy where the prototype of a class of objects (usually the first discovered) turns out to be atypical of the class as a whole.

As an example we could consider RS CVn binaries, named after the object RS CVn, which is a close binary system containing an evolved (subgiant) component, and exhibiting extreme levels of magnetic activity (star spots, coronal X-ray emission).

It was initially believed that the presence of an evolved component was a defining feature of the class. However, over the years it has become apparent that there are many more examples of close, magnetically active binaries with main sequence components. The prototype is atypical in having an evolved component - the explanation is that, although short-lived and rarer, evolved magnetically active stars are much more luminous and easier to find/study.

As a final word on this, there is a set of nearby/nearest objects, including the Sun and Moon, that are somewhat unusual. The Sun is more massive than 90+% of stars in the Galaxy; no other planets in our solar system have a moon that is so (relatively) large. An explanation for these things may lie with the anthropic principle, which argues that we would not observe any circumstance that would preclude the development of intelligent life on Earth or, to turn that around, we are more likely to find ourselves in a situation that is favourable for the development of intelligent life on Earth.