The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Dryson]

Incorrect. No telescope in existence is powerful enough to detect the cometary tail of an object in orbit of Tabby's Star. Not in the 1890s, and not in the 1980s. Kepler can't do this either; the Hubble can't even do that.

So no, comets would NOT have shown their tails within the last 127 years. We are too far away to see them.

Cometary debris glows due to the interaction with the Sun and the dust and ice particles of the tail. If there had been a swarm of comets then transiting across KIC for 2.5 to 5.0 days at a time, which is very slow transit velocity for a comet given Earth transits our own Sun in 13 hours and Jupiter makes it's transit in 33 hours, then there would have been a cometary tail that would had to have been present in order to cause the dims of KIC. The swarm of comets would have been far to small to have been picked up by Kepler. In one article it was said that over 600,000 200km in diameter comets would had to have been present to cause the dim if there was not any cometary tail. That many comets grouped together would equal a small planet still not able to be detected by Kepler or cause a dim unless it was the size of Earth or larger. The objects transiting KIC were very slow moving.

http://www.newscientist.nl/nieuws/kic-8462852-verandert-in-soapster/

This is the most recent article regarding KIC. Google Translate didn't do a very good job translating from German into English so it rather hard to read and understand.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That's a Dutch (not Deutsch) translation of an article in English on newscientist.com. I think you might need a subscription to read the original in its entirety.

 

[Silvercrest]

If he was trying to translate from German, no wonder he had such a hard time.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Might also explain the usual double dutch.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Cometary debris glows due to the interaction with the Sun and the dust and ice particles of the tail.

Indeed.

Which doesn't change the fact that cometary debris is NOT bright enough to be detected by Earth-based telescopes at this distance.

The only way to detect comets in other solar systems (at the moment) is to identify a change in the spectral pattern of very young, very dim stars when a gas cloud passes in front of them. Tabby's Star is FAR too bright for those spectral features to be discernible; the actual cometary tail could be detected even if the spectral anomaly was visible, which in this case it is not.

In one article it was said that over 600,000 200km in diameter comets would had to have been present to cause the dim

That's the (still unconfirmed) Schaeffer event again. Completely different phenomenon that is not even related to the Kepler event.

The objects transiting KIC were very slow moving.

Or in a very elliptical orbit with its apopsis in the Earthward direction.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

By the way, here's the abstract from Schaeffer's paper:

The star KIC 8462852 is a completely-ordinary F3 main sequence star, except that the light curve from the Kepler spacecraft shows episodes of unique and inexplicable day-long dips with up to 20% dimming. Here, I provide a light curve of 1232 Johnson B-band magnitudes from 1890 to 1989 taken from archival photographic plates at Harvard. KIC 8462852 displays a highly significant and highly confident secular dimming at an average rate of 0.165+-0.013 magnitudes per century. From the early 1890s to the late 1980s, KIC 8462852 has faded by 0.193+-0.030 mag. This century-long dimming is completely unprecedented for any F-type main sequence star. So the Harvard light curve provides the first confirmation (past the several dips seen in the Kepler light curve alone) that KIC 8462852 has anything unusual going on. The century-long dimming and the day-long dips are both just extreme ends of a spectrum of timescales for unique dimming events, so by Ockham's Razor, all this is produced by one physical mechanism. This one mechanism does not appear as any isolated catastrophic event in the last century, but rather must be some ongoing process with continuous effects. Within the context of dust-occultation models, the century-long dimming trend requires 10^4 to 10^7 times as much dust as for the one deepest Kepler dip. Within the context of the comet-family idea, the century-long dimming trend requires an estimated 648,000 giant comets (each with 200 km diameter) all orchestrated to pass in front of the star within the last century.

A researcher invoking Ockham's Razor in his extract... that one gave me a giggle.

Reading his actual paper, the first three things jump out at me:
1) He repeatedly cites his own papers as sources, and uses himself as a reference more than all other references combined
2) He has ZERO evidence to claim the putative century-long dimming has anything whatsoever to do with the Kepler Event, and the difference in timescales strongly suggests they aren't actually related; he handwaves this away by invoking Ockham's Razor, and nothing else.
3) This passage:

Under ordinary situations, an experienced eye has a photometric accuracy that is 1× to 3× more accurate than DASCH (e.g., Schaefer 2014a; 2014b). This result is from several ‘blind’ methods for many stars, for example by measuring the RMS scatter throughout the folded light curve of a variable star with a roughly-sinusoidal light curve. For the case of KIC8462852, I find that the real uncertainty in the magnitudes are close to being equal for the DASCH and the by-eye measures.

Literally: "I didn't actually measure it, I just eyeballed it, because if you look at the plates the right way, the star looks dimmer over time."

Summary:
"The star looks like it's dimmer to me (trust me, I'm a scientist). Also, the dimming is definitely caused by the same thing that caused a transient twenty percent drop in luminosity last year because Ockham's Razor."

This, ladies and gentlemen is a truly magnificent specimen of the genus 'Academus Talkfromnaus." Commonly known as "bullshit."

 

[Dryson]

By the way, here's the abstract from Schaeffer's paper:


A researcher invoking Ockham's Razor in his extract... that one gave me a giggle.

Reading his actual paper, the first three things jump out at me:
1) He repeatedly cites his own papers as sources, and uses himself as a reference more than all other references combined
2) He has ZERO evidence to claim the putative century-long dimming has anything whatsoever to do with the Kepler Event, and the difference in timescales strongly suggests they aren't actually related; he handwaves this away by invoking Ockham's Razor, and nothing else.
3) This passage:

Literally: "I didn't actually measure it, I just eyeballed it, because if you look at the plates the right way, the star looks dimmer over time."

Summary:
"The star looks like it's dimmer to me (trust me, I'm a scientist). Also, the dimming is definitely caused by the same thing that caused a transient twenty percent drop in luminosity last year because Ockham's Razor."

This, ladies and gentlemen is a truly magnificent specimen of the genus 'Academus Talkfromnaus." Commonly known as "bullshit."

...do you have any links to papers you have published?

Schaefer is correct that causing the dim of KIC would take 600,000 + 200 km in diameter comets to cause the dim of KIC.

Like I have mentioned some of the transits across KIC took over two days to complete and up to five days for others. The rate of transit velocity for the objects is slow. Much slower that Earth and even Jupiter at 13 and 33 hours respectively. At the rate of two to five day transit velocities if the objects had Ben a large swarm of comets then there would have been dims that would have trailed the large dims due to solar radiation interacting with the debris of the cometary tail of the swarm. The only way a comet produces a cometary tail is if it comes close enough to the sun where the ice is evaporated and leaves behind the tail. Based on Schaefer's 600k comets needed the tail of the swarm would have be huge as each comet would have created its own tail. More than enough debris to cause much more than a 15% and 22% dim. More than be enough debris to leave trail for a few days after the comets had passed.

If the comets didn't not come within range to be evaporated their tail would not have been seen.

Like I said a two day to five day transit is slow and if the comets did create the dim the first time around and had cometary tails based on how slowly they transited across KIC I think that solar radiation would have evaporated the entire swarm of comets leaving nothing but dust behind. More than enough dust once the water evaporated to cause a continued dim that would be the same with each transit but would not increase in causing the dim of KIC the second transit at day 1540.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.massà

The paper is citing dims between 5 and 80 days in length. Comets do not create dims for that long as the ice would have long have melted. If the dims were caused by a planetesimal or planetesimals the dims surrounding dims would continue to get smaller and smaller as the planetesimal collected the debris into a large mass creating a larger dim.

 

[Dryson]

Let's see how many Earth's and Jupiter's transited across KIC based on the 80 day dim. It takes Earth 13 hours to transit across our Sun. We all know that a full day on Earth is 24 hours. So by the time that Earth made 2 transits across KIC equaling a day Object 80 would have made a one day transit. So within the 80 day transit Earth would have transited nearly 160 times. I think Earth transiting 160 times within the 80 day transit would make Object 80 rather slow moving to say the least.

In one paper by Tabetha she states that transit times were between 5 to 80 days. At the lower end of the transit values are 2.5 day transits. If it takes Earth 13 hours to transit across our Sun then it might take maybe 13-17 hours to transit KIC 8462852. If it takes Jupiter 33 hours to transit could the distance that the objects are from KIC possibly be in the range of Saturn to Neptune? The 80 day dim does not look like it would be caused by an asteroid or large swarm of comets. Taking 80 days to transit across KIC is an extremely slow moving object.

A new theory on Dyson Swarms or Dyson Spheres. Why put them in orbit around a star like KIC using conventional thrusters and attitude correction programs? Instead simple place the Dyson Sphere unit on a transiting asteroid.

I still do not see a large swarm of comets causing a dim of 22% or transiting KIC for 80 days.


Here is a an interesting image of Stonehenge with shadows being cast by the stones. The shadows created are reminiscent of the dim in light of KIC 8462852. They might be a connection between the two.

http://evol-forum.ch/gaia/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/11/Stonehenge-original.jpg

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Schaefer is correct that causing the dim of KIC would take 600,000 + 200 km in diameter comets to cause the dim of KIC.

He's also correct when he refers to Harvard as a college, but that doesn't mean that observation is relevant to anything.

Again, there is no evidence the century-long dimming is related to the Kepler event, and his attempt to claim a connection is an obvious logical fallacy.

Like I have mentioned some of the transits across KIC took over two days to complete and up to five days for others. The rate of transit velocity for the objects is slow.

Which I have mentioned -- FOUR TIMES NOW -- is entirely consistent with an object in a long-period elliptical orbit.

Comets do not create dims for that long as the ice would have long have melted.

Halley's comet has been crossing through Earth's orbit -- and flaring up brightly on each approach -- for almost three thousand years. I don't think 80 days is pushing it for the lifespan of an active comet, let alone a large cluster of them.

Let's see how many Earth's and Jupiter's transited across KIC based on the 80 day dim. It takes Earth 13 hours to transit across our Sun...

Are you ever going to answer the question "Viewed from where?" Because you keep quoting this figure as if it is relevant and you don't seem to have the slightest idea what it means.

 

[Dryson]

It takes Earth 13 hours transit across our Sun not orbit. There is a big difference. It takes Jupiter 33 hours to transit our Sun as well. Once again I will correct your statements. The objects if you look at the charts regarding the dim of KIC have dims that last between 2.5 to 80 days. That means an object will have to have transited for that amount of time in order to cause any dim of KIC. There is no possible way that a comet would take 2.5 to 80 days to transit across KIC. Not even a large swarm of comets would cause a at minimum 2.5 day dim of KIC. Jupiter only causes a 1% dim in our own Sun's light at a 33 hour transit. The objects transiting KIC are very slow, even slower than Jupiter's transits.

Which I have mentioned -- FOUR TIMES NOW -- is entirely consistent with an object in a long-period elliptical orbit.

A long period ellipitcal orbit would not take place within a five year time period like the events of KIC were recorded as being.

I don't think 80 days is pushing it for the lifespan of an active comet, let alone a large cluster of them.

Halley's comet comes once every 86 years. The recorded events of KIC took place within less than five years. If the objects causing the dim of KIC were a large swarm of comets then they would have to be rather close to KIC. Being close to KIC means they would leave behind a much larger amount of debris that would interact with the solar radiation of KIC thus causing a continued glow of particle dust and ice that would cause KIC to dim continually. Where is your cometary dust and solar radiation interaction at?

Besides if the objects causing the dim of KIC were comets then there would be other orbital bodies within the same solar system of KIC where the gravity of such planets would over time either break the large swarm of comets up or cause the large swarm of comets to break up and then fall into an orbital pattern around the planets the swarm would have come into contact with.

Without other planets in the KIC system the comets would have been caught by KIC 8462852's gravity and orbited the Sun evaporating long ago.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Your above post is really confusing. It looks like they are all your words, but that's not the case.

 

[Dryson]

Your above post is really confusing. It looks like they are all your words, but that's not the case.

I forgot to put Crazy E's comets...eh hum I mean comments in bold.

 

[sojourner]

There is a quote function built into the forum. You might try using it to help you out.

 

[Dryson]

There is a quote function built into the forum. You might try using it to help you out.

There is a large kettle under the sink. You should try that out.

Okay. I am looking at Crazy E's elongated - elliptical orbit theory.

Just from reading about Halley's Comet the outer planets such as Jupiter help keep Halley's in an orbit around the Sun.

Now if those planets were not present then one of two things would happen.

1. Halley's would orbit the Sun one time and after caught in the gravity of the Sun would sent on a trajectory parallel to the Sun and off into space.

2. Halley's could have become trapped in the Sun's gravity orbiting the Sun thus causing Halley's to melt or evaporate.

So if the dims if KIC were caused by large swarm of comets then there would have to be other planets orbiting KIC that would collect the swarm over time or if there no other planets present the swarm would simply have been sent out into deep space.

For the comet swarm to hold true there would have to be other planets orbiting KIC to keep the swarm in an elongated ellipitical orbit around KIC as well as keeping the swarm just far enough from KIC to not be melted or evaporated.

 

[Silvercrest]

Just from reading about Halley's Comet the outer planets such as Jupiter help keep Halley's in an orbit around the Sun.

Now if those planets were not present then one of two things would happen.

1. Halley's would orbit the Sun one time and after caught in the gravity of the Sun would sent on a trajectory parallel to the Sun and off into space.

2. Halley's could have become trapped in the Sun's gravity orbiting the Sun thus causing Halley's to melt or evaporate.

Jupiter and the outer planets do not keep comets in orbit. 1) and 2) are the only two possibilities, period. Either you're held by the Sun's gravity or you aren't. Comet Halley is. Its orbit may be affected by other bodies, but it isn't caused by them. And it hasn't evaporated ... at least not yet.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

There is a large kettle under the sink. You should try that out.

Considering your usual post structure, is this a literal case of the pot calling the kettle something?

 

[Dryson]

I suggest all of you start doing research instead of saying that everyone does not know what they are writing about. Because its obvious you just want to wish you know what you are talking about.

The orbits of the Halley-type comets suggest that they were originally long-period comets whose orbits were perturbed by the gravity of the giant planets and directed into the inner Solar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet

For the comet swarm of KIC to hold true of being a comet swarm there would have to be other planets orbiting KIC to keep the swarm in an elongated ellipitical orbit around KIC as well as keeping the swarm just far enough from KIC to not be melted or evaporated.

Without other planets pulling in the comet swarm away from the Sun the gravity of the Sun would pull the comet swarm into the Sun causing the swarm to evaporate.

Like CERN has discovered Electromagnetism is a more powerful force than gravity is where refrigerator magnet is more powerful than the Earth's gravity.

When a swarm of comets comes into contact with a planet that the swarm is closer too the swarm will be attracted to the planet. If the swarm is traveling faster than the ability of gravity and EM to maintain an effective hold on the swarm or single comet the swarm or single comet will follow a trajectory of least resistance breaking free of the orbit of the planet.

Look at the orbital pattern of Halley's Comet it occupied also three dimensions meaning that its orbital path is effected by the other planets orbit around the Sun.

 

[Silvercrest]

I suggest all of you start doing research instead of saying that everyone does not know what they are writing about. Because its obvious you just want to wish you know what you are talking about.

I suggest you start checking your syntax.

Like CERN has discovered Electromagnetism is a more powerful force than gravity is where refrigerator magnet is more powerful than the Earth's gravity.

It took CERN to discover what a refrigerator magnet does? BRILLIANT!

So what does that have to do with comets, anyway? The EM force has a far shorter range than gravity and is basically negligible over distance. Gravity is the only thing you have to account for. (By the way, the strong nuclear force is far more powerful than the EM force, but has the same problem.)

 

[B.J.]

I suggest all of you start doing research instead of saying that everyone does not know what they are writing about. Because its obvious you just want to wish you know what you are talking about.

Oh God, the irony......

The orbits of the Halley-type comets suggest that they were originally long-period comets whose orbits were perturbed by the gravity of the giant planets and directed into the inner Solar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet

For the comet swarm of KIC to hold true of being a comet swarm there would have to be other planets orbiting KIC to keep the swarm in an elongated ellipitical orbit around KIC as well as keeping the swarm just far enough from KIC to not be melted or evaporated.

Without other planets pulling in the comet swarm away from the Sun the gravity of the Sun would pull the comet swarm into the Sun causing the swarm to evaporate.

Yes, it's possible that it was pulled in to its current orbit by the larger planets, but it does not require them to STAY in that orbit. As I've said before, you really need to read up on Kepler's Laws and orbital mechanics before YOU keep talking about stuff you don't know about.

 

[Silvercrest]

Oh God, the irony......

Irony is so ironic, isn't it?

 

[Dryson]

Oh God, the irony......


Yes, it's possible that it was pulled in to its current orbit by the larger planets, but it does not require them to STAY in that orbit. As I've said before, you really need to read up on Kepler's Laws and orbital mechanics before YOU keep talking about stuff you don't know about.

Then post something about Kepler's Laws using links instead of just posting because thats all you ever do is just post without providing links to what you are posting.

Here is more proof that the dims of KIC were not caused by comets. Comets would not have been detected unless they came close enough to KIC to sublimate. If the comets were the cause of the dims of KIC then there would have been mass IR readings taken of the solar radiation from KIC interacting with the large swarm of comets.

Such a large gas cloud would have easily have been recognized by Kepler and Tabetha's team.

Comets orbit in the same plane and direction of planets.
Many comets in orbital resonance with Neptune.

Case 2: Suddenly all the other planets disappeared from our solar system

Again, if the outer planets did not exist then Earth would have been exposed to a series of encounters with comets and asteroids that would've wiped out life on earth. It was thought that one such encounter had in fact wiped out the Dinosaurs.

Few scenarios where the Jupiter took a serious hit.

a) May 17th, 1994. Comet Shoemaker - Levy 9 collided with Jupiter. The impact was estimated to have released an energy equivalent to 6,000,000 megatons of TNT (600 times the world's nuclear arsenal).

b) July 19th, 2009. A small asteroid of size 200 to 500 meters in diameter impacted with Jupiter creating a crater of about 190 million square kilometres - approximate to the size of our Pacific Ocean. The impact released an energy approximately equivalent to 12,500–13,000 Megatons of TNT, over a million times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

In 2009, it was shown that the presence of a smaller planet at Jupiter's position in the Solar System might increase the impact rate of comets on the Earth significantly. A planet of Jupiter's mass still seems to provide increased protection against asteroids, but the total effect on all orbital bodies within the Solar System is unclear.

In roughly 5 billion years, the Sun will cool and expand outward many times its current diameter (becoming a red giant), before casting off its outer layers as a planetary nebula and leaving behind a stellar remnant known as a white dwarf. In the far distant future, the gravity of passing stars will gradually reduce the Sun's retinue of planets. Some planets will be destroyed, others ejected into interstellar space.

More than enough instances where comets have their orbits affected by planets in the same solar system.
So if the large swarm of comets did cause the dims of KIC because of the size and amount of comets needed to create the dims of KIC then there could possible be a an Oort type cloud as well as similar Kuiper Belt in KIC as well.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/kbos_comets.php