The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Crazy Eddie]

You are still imposing Occam's Razor because it fits a belief that you want to perceive is correct.

I'm not "imposing" the so called "Occam's" Razor at all. A group of comets on a highly elliptical orbit fits the observations AND it is something that has been known to exist in our own solar system. We don't know of much of anything else that fits those observations; even Schaeffer doesn't propose an alternative.

Attempting to prove a negative is illogical; you cannot actually demonstrate "it wasn't comets" unless you put forth an alternate explanation that explains the data BETTER than comets. You haven't bothered to do that.

If there were two different groups of comets near the 15% dim of KIC then because of their close approximation in transit times they would have grouped closely to the dim that took place 150 days after the last dim occurred before the 15% dim.

"Closely" in terms of celestial mechanics or "closely" in terms of Dryson's interpretation of how these things are supposed to look?

Anyway, it's not "two groups" of anything. It would be a single group of objects widely dispersed along a highly elliptical orbit. For a very long period orbit (most comets have much longer periods than Halley, on the order of hundreds of years) that's a difference of 150 days for an orbit that may take 30,000 days or more to completely orbit Tabby's Star. In terms of celestial mechanics, that's barely a hiccup.

Comets don't simply orbit a sun for a certain amount of days and then get together and decide to move on. If these had been comets in an elliptical orbit around KIC 8462 then orbit and Transit would have been regular just like the data from the chart shows them to orbit and transit.

The transits would have been nothing of the sort. To date, there is no record of any comet in the Solar system orbiting the sun with a period of less than 400 days (and I don't even think that approaches the lower limit).

I do not even know anymore what your attempted refutations are based on; you seem to be making up ever more elaborate "should have beens" from your half-understanding of a scattershot of disciplines in which you have no formal education at all. I'm trying my best to be patient, but it's extremely clear you have no idea what you're talking about but still want to be taken seriously as an expert.

So are you now going to dispute Jason Wright as throwing out additional observations as well as Schaefer of whom Jason has supported Schaefer in his claims?

Put it this way: Schaefer is -- quite literally -- eyeballing the plates to produce his estimates and then writing down numbers based entirely on his perceptions of what he's seeing. Apart from the fact that this technique stopped being used BECAUSE of it's unreliably (despite Schaeffer's claims to the contrary), the validity of his data is supported by nothing whatsoever except "Trust me, I'm a scientist!", his paper is laced with logical fallacies and his conclusions are PATENTLY ABSURD.

The man who links two completely unrelated phenomenon to the same cause because "Ockham's Razor," with no other evidence of causation whatsoever, and then uses that link in an attempt to PROVE A NEGATIVE, is a man whose eyeball estimates of photographic plates (observations he goes out of his way to claim he is uniquely qualified to make because nobody uses that system anymore) can be safely disregarded as "bullshit."

 

[Dryson]

And what professional expertise and or Master or Doctorial degree in the field of astronomy do you have Crazy E to justify such a profound and elogant elaboration of Schaefer regarding his work as "bullshit".

The problem with your " Crazy E Roadrunner Bullshit Maneuver" is that you are not wanting to put forth the effort to discover what might be ground breaking and foundation forming regarding KIC because the find might completely destroy a preconviced notion of aliens existing that would ruin your happy little ego. Thus you invoke Occam and then walk away hoping no one discovers what you don't want you found.

It wasn't comets because that is too easy and simply.

 

[Silvercrest]

You're the one who brought up Occam. You're also the one who brought up aliens. Neither applies here.

And a master's or doctorate isn't required to punch holes in statements. It doesn't take much when the statements are full of obvious holes, logic errors, and preconceived notions. Crazy Eddie already pointed those out.

 

[Dryson]

And what professional expertise and or Master or Doctorial degree in the field of astronomy do you have Crazy E to justify such a profound and elogant elaboration of Schaefer regarding his work as "bullshit".

The problem with your " Crazy E Roadrunner Bullshit Maneuver" is that you are not wanting to put forth the effort to discover what might be ground breaking and foundation forming regarding KIC because the find might completely destroy a preconviced notion of aliens existing that would ruin your happy little ego. Thus you invoke Occam and then walk away hoping no one discovers what you don't want you found.

It wasn't comets because that is too easy and simply.

 

[Dryson]

You're the one who brought up Occam. You're also the one who brought up aliens. Neither applies here.

And a master's or doctorate isn't required to punch holes in statements. It doesn't take much when the statements are full of obvious holes, logic errors, and preconceived notions. Crazy Eddie already pointed those out.

If you don't have a base of academic professionalism then all you are doing is merely repeating what others have stated hoping to make someone believe that you are correct.

Like I have stated numerous times when Crazy E and others make their assumptions of being wrong can prove they have professional knowledge then they can make such comments against professionals.

I would suggest that if you are that intelligent Crazy E that you can punch holes in what Jason and Schaefer are saying then go on national T.V. and make your claims.

The dim of KIC was not caused by comets.

Prove that it wasn't aliens.

Prove with your own data research and charts that comets created the dims of KIC including oribital models based off of your data that operate similar to Super Planet Crash.

 

[Silvercrest]

If you don't have a base of academic professionalism then all you are doing is merely repeating what others have stated hoping to make someone believe that you are correct.

Agreed! You've proven that you don't have an academic basis for anything, and you keep repeating gibberish and citing any source you can find trying to make someone believe you.

How's that working?

Prove that it wasn't aliens.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. No one has to disprove a wild tin-foil hat notion. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

If you don't have a base of academic professionalism then all you are doing is merely repeating what others have stated hoping to make someone believe that you are correct.

I assume this means you will never make another post here again, right?

Like I have stated numerous times when Crazy E and others make their assumptions of being wrong can prove they have professional knowledge then they can make such comments against professionals.

I would suggest that if you are that intelligent Crazy E that you can punch holes in what Jason and Schaefer are saying then go on national T.V. and make your claims.

Eddie made some great points and also tried to show you the scope of the conversation. So far in this thread you have not answered any of his points and instead chosen to attack Eddie himself. Eddie addresses your posts point by point.

And no, nobody thinks Schaefer has proposed anything other than a highly speculative guess about what is going on. Even Schaefer readily admits he is guessing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And what professional expertise and or Master or Doctorial degree in the field of astronomy do you have Crazy E to justify such a profound and elogant elaboration of Schaefer regarding his work as "bullshit".

When a guy in a fancy suit walks up to me on the street and offers to sell me the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, I don't need a Master's degree in economics to call bullshit.

The problem with your " Crazy E Roadrunner Bullshit Maneuver" is that you are not wanting to put forth the effort to discover what might be ground breaking and foundation forming regarding KIC because the find might completely destroy a preconviced notion of aliens existing that would ruin your happy little ego.

You have clearly not been paying attention: I have said in many threads that I am pretty sure that aliens DO exist, and that we are even likely to find living creatures on Europa, and that the galaxy is probably fairly heavily populated by sentient beings. I was the one, if you remember, who demonstrated that the "Fermi Paradox" isn't a paradox at all, as our lacking any knowledge of alien civilizations is a FAR more likely outcome than their not-actually-existing in the first place.

On the other hand, if a guy in a lab coat walked up to me at told me he had scientific proof that Hale-Bop was an alien spaceship, I wouldn't need a Doctorate in astronomy to call him on his bullshit either.

Thus you invoke Occam...

I've never invoked "Occam." The Kepler team has already analyzed the data and come up with the most likely candidate for what caused those observations. There is NOT an equally-likely explanation with which to compare, so Ockham's Razor doesn't apply.

It wasn't comets because that is too easy and simply.

Since when does truthfulness correlate with complexity? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a comet is just a comet.

 

[scotthm]

I would suggest that if you are that intelligent Crazy E that you can punch holes in what Jason and Schaefer are saying then go on national T.V. and make your claims.

The dim of KIC was not caused by comets.

Are we to understand then that you're preparing your own national television special to refute the comet hypothesis?

---------------

 

[Silvercrest]

Careful. He might say yes.

 

[Dryson]

Are we to understand then that you're preparing your own national television special to refute the comet hypothesis?

---------------

Why should I?

I have already posted on numerous face book pages, including CNN as well as being in contact with Dr. Schaefer and Dr. Boyajian and Jason Wright et al that I also say that the objects were not comets.

Where have any of you shown any data other than words showing proof of your comet theory because even Dr. Boyajian says that what took place at KIC 846 was not caused by comets. Where is your data?

I suggest you learn about transits and stop using your literal word associations because they are not science. They are Minch.

I also suggest you stop listening to that idiot B.o.B. who says the Earth is flat as well.

Below is how to read a light chart that is based off of KIC 8462852.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/g0g3ryynhr9leky/KIC_8462_Data_Read_Out_11.PNG

Comets did not cause the dim of KIC 8462852.

 

[Dryson]

When a guy in a fancy suit walks up to me on the street and offers to sell me the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, I don't need a Master's degree in economics to call bullshit.


You have clearly not been paying attention: I have said in many threads that I am pretty sure that aliens DO exist, and that we are even likely to find living creatures on Europa, and that the galaxy is probably fairly heavily populated by sentient beings. I was the one, if you remember, who demonstrated that the "Fermi Paradox" isn't a paradox at all, as our lacking any knowledge of alien civilizations is a FAR more likely outcome than their not-actually-existing in the first place.

On the other hand, if a guy in a lab coat walked up to me at told me he had scientific proof that Hale-Bop was an alien spaceship, I wouldn't need a Doctorate in astronomy to call him on his bullshit either.


I've never invoked "Occam." The Kepler team has already analyzed the data and come up with the most likely candidate for what caused those observations. There is NOT an equally-likely explanation with which to compare, so Ockham's Razor doesn't apply.


Since when does truthfulness correlate with complexity? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a comet is just a comet.

No one is trying to sell you the deed on the Brooklyn Bridge are they?

If you can provide your own data proof Crazy E. that proves Dr. Schaefer is wrong then go on national T.V. and refute him or contact him personally and refute him.

 

[scotthm]

Why should I?

You shouldn't. I just wonder why you think you shouldn't.

I have already posted on numerous face book pages, including CNN as well as being in contact with Dr. Schaefer and Dr. Boyajian and Jason Wright et al that I also say that the objects were not comets.

Believe it or not, none of this surprises me.

Where have any of you shown any data other than words showing proof of your comet theory

I cannot speak for others, but I don't have a "comet theory". My theory is that we don't know and are making educated guesses. At least some are making educated guesses. Others are making wild speculations that I find mildly entertaining.

I also suggest you stop listening to that idiot B.o.B. who says the Earth is flat as well.

I have no idea who you're talking about or why you said this to me, but your suggestion that I stop listening to idiots is good, if self defeating, advice.

Comets did not cause the dim of KIC 8462852.

So you proclaim, but you haven't convinced anyone that you have any other legitimate theory.
---------------

 

[Dryson]

I cannot speak for others, but I don't have a "comet theory". My theory is that we don't know and are making educated guesses. At least some are making educated guesses. Others are making wild speculations that I find mildly entertaining.

Then take the time and do the research learning how transits work.

I am going to take my data and submit it too Super Planet Crash and see if they can make a model out of it.

Here is the data that I have been working on based on the light charts of KIC 8462852.

I was wondering if you could create a base model for star KIC 8462852 using the supplied data?

It would be interesting to see a model of what KIC 8462 might look light with supposed objects orbiting it. Starting with Day Transit Occurred (from zero) then Transit of Object, etc. would correlate to the data (1)D-140 , 10-13.62 and so forth across the data sheet.

Data with * indicates a possible planet orbiting KIC 8462 based on the amount of time between each orbit that was based off of the dims having nearly the same dim values as well as associating the orbital period with orbital periods for planets orbiting our Sun.

For example *1 at Day 140 and *1 at Day 259 both have approximately the same data regarding transit time, light dim and a period of time between each observed event of 119 days that would suggest this object is slightly larger than Venus and has an orbit around KIC between Venus and Mercury with an orbital adjustment based on KIC being 1.5 times larger than Earth based on Kepler's Law.

You will need the Light Chart which I have linked here to compare the data- https://www.facebook.com/641915669282915/photos/p.661715923969556/661715923969556/?type=3&theater

Day Transit Occurred (from zero) / Transit of Object / Orbital Distance from KIC 8462 / Dim Caused (dim/normalized flux) / Time Between Next Transit / Possible Size of Object/Possible Orbital Bodies Notes
*1(1)D-140 10 – 13.62 days b/tw Earth and Saturn .0050/.9950 18.65 days Mars to Earth / 1
*2(2)D-159.02 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 49.94 days Mercury to Venus
*2(3)D-208.96 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 45.4 days Mercury to Venus
*1(4)D-259.02 10 - 13.62 days b/tw Earth and Saturn .0050/.9950 22.7 days Mars to Earth / 1
*2(5)D-281.72 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 72.64 days Mercury to Venus
*3(6)D-359.02 3 – 4 days b/tw Earth and Saturn .0025/.9975 18.16 days Venus to Mars / 1
*2(7)D-372.64 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 49.94 days Mercury to Venus
*2(8)D-427.24 3 – 4 days b/tw Earth and Saturn .0022/.9978 18.16 days Mars to Earth / 1
*2(9)D-445.4 1 – 2 days + .0022 / + 1.0022 54.48 days Increase in light emitted from KIC 8462, transits 9,10,12 & 13 are mirrored.
(10)D-500 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 286.26 days Mercury to Venus
(11)D-586.26 40.86 days Outside of Solar System .15/.8500 354.6 days Jupiter / Many Jupiter causes a .10/.90 dim, -.05/-.05 difference, Neptune transits at around four days. Transit is 10.25 times slower than Neptune's transit.
(12)D-1140.86 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015/.9985 31.78 days Mercury to Venus
(13)D-1172.64 1 – 3 days + .0022 / + 1.0022 27.24 days Increase in light emitted from KIC 8462, transits 9,10,12 & 13 are mirrored.
(14)D-1209.08 2 – 4 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0038/.9962 36.32 days Mars to Earth / 1
(15)D-1240.86 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0017 / .9983 18.16 days Venus to Mars / 1
(16)D-1259.02 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 72.64 days Mercury to Venus
(17)D-1336.32 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 27.24 days Mercury to Venus
(18)D-1359.02 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 /.9985 13.62 days Mercury to Venus
(19)D-1372.64 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 22.7 days Mercury to Venus
(20)D-1402 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 27.24 days Mercury to Venus
(21)D-1417.80 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 27.24 days Mercury to Venus
(22)D-1459.02 1 – 2 days b/tw Mercury and Mars .0015 / .9985 31.78 days Mercury to Venus
(23)D-1490.8 6 – 9.08 days b/tw Earth and Saturn .0038 / .9962 Mars to Earth / 1

Data added 2.14.16 – Measurements approximate and are based on each 100 day transit being divided up into 1/16th = 5 days, 1/8th = 20 days and an inch = 160 days

D(24) – 660 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 25 days Mercury
D(25) – 690 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 10 days Mercury D(25 – 27) all have basically the same transit data
D(26) – 700 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 10 days Mercury Possibly a very fast moving object transiting KIC 8462 with an orbit value of 13.333 days around KIC 8462.
D(27) – 710 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 20 days Mercury
D(28) – 720 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 25 days Mercury
D(29) – 740 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 20 days Mercury
D(30) – 765 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 150 days Mercury

D(31) – 910 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 100 days Mercury
D(32) – 1010 .5 – 1 day b/tw Mercury and Sun .0090/.9910 85.5 days Mercury

The data is approximate because I do not the Super Micro Enfilbulatory Machine That Goes Ping to zoom in to see the data up close without the data turning in a Super Giant Mega Pixel.

Let's take a look at Jason Wright's theory of a Swarm of Dyson Sphere's.

If there was a single ring around KIC 8462 made of a metal alloy there would be permanent reduction in the light emitted from KIC 8462. Now lets reduce that amount of metal alloy in the ring between the collectors to help save on the metallic alloy resource use and waste. What we might have would be something that looked like this.

------[ ]-------[ ]------[ ]------

The dashed lines, ----- ,would be the connector support truss between each collector, [ ].
With a large collector siphoning off material from KIC 8462, possibly plasma as well as thousands of these collectors orbiting KIC 8462 what would take place is a continual dim in light across the data sheet of KIC 8462 causing a dim of .0001/.9999%, theoretically.

If you look at the light chart of KIC just around the .001 to .0001 dim range there is a consistent pattern of dims and light returning to normal that would suggest that a collector of some sort was in orbit around KIC.

A sun is always turbulent and for any consistent patterns to emerge in data would mean that something artificial is present and causing the consistent pattern on the surface of the sun to take place.

One area that had not been discussed as being possible is that a large planet the size of Jupiter or Planet Nine with a ring system comprised of ice chunks orbiting the planet could be orbiting KIC where every so often a rogue ice chunk comes close enough to be sublimated causing a cometary tail to form that could result in the dim of KIC 8462.

With KIC 8462 being 1.5 times larger than our own Sun the sublimation range would be increased.

The question is could ice chunks in orbit around Jupiter actually be possible or would the ice chunks sublimate into a large cometary tail?

This is the image that I am seeing at KIC 8462 using the Ice Chunk Roadrunner Theory.
The Jupiter sized planet has billions of various sized ice chunks orbiting it. As the planet comes close enough to KIC 8462 the ice chunks closest to KIC 8462 sublimate causing a large cometary cloud to form that would follow the orbit of the Jupiter like planet until the planet orbited far enough away from KIC 8462 for the sublimation to stop.


I will say one thing though. It's not comets, because it's not comets.

 

[scotthm]

The data is approximate because I do not the Super Micro Enfilbulatory Machine That Goes Ping to zoom in to see the data up close without the data turning in a Super Giant Mega Pixel.
...
This is the image that I am seeing at KIC 8462 using the Ice Chunk Roadrunner Theory.
...
I will say one thing though. It's not comets, because it's not comets.

I think that about sums it all up.

---------------

 

[Silvercrest]

It's very scientific.

 

[Dryson]

It's very scientific.

Once again where are your facts or any type of research? You are trolling the forum as if you know something when you really don't. I am putting your education to the test Silvercrest.

With your data taken from the light charts of KIC 8462 supported with other astronomical associations prove that the events of KIC 8462 were not comments or where in fact comets.

You have to provide links and charts to support back up your claims. Not just some little fake row of Pips on a fake collar.

 

[Dryson]

Light Chart of KIC 8462. In the image below I have labeled the chart at the top that corresponds with the spreadsheet data. The images on the bottom are used to show both the Earth's and Jupiter's transit's across our own Sun and the amount of dim caused. You will notice that most of the dims were caused by objects smaller than Earth except for the 15% and 22% dims that were caused by objects larger than Jupiter.

 

[Silvercrest]

Once again where are your facts or any type of research? You are trolling the forum as if you know something when you really don't. I am putting your education to the test Silvercrest.

You have to provide links and charts to support back up your claims. Not just some little fake row of Pips on a fake collar.

What claim did I make?

 

[scotthm]

What claim did I make?

The last one I saw was that Dryson was being scientific. Stop making those outlandish claims!

---------------