The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
History of Tabby's Star http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=35590
We spent a whole week discussing calibration techniques, scanners, and fungus (one of the reasons why digitization of these plates is so important!). These fungi are actually called “gold disease” owing to their look on the glass. We enjoyed long evening talks about the millions of plates that still await their scientific use, and after all of this, had the chance to discuss our own findings in a presentation and discussion.
The Fungus Among Us!
The mi-go shrank on us.
Next thing you know--cosmic background radiation will be revealed as being pigeon poop after all...
Spraying Lotrimin on Webb's CCD array as we speak.
We spent a whole week discussing calibration techniques, scanners, and fungus (one of the reasons why digitization of these plates is so important!). These fungi are actually called “gold disease” owing to their look on the glass. We enjoyed long evening talks about the millions of plates that still await their scientific use, and after all of this, had the chance to discuss our own findings in a presentation and discussion.
The Fungus Among Us!
The mi-go shrank on us.
Next thing you know--cosmic background radiation will be revealed as being pigeon poop after all...
Spraying Lotrimin on Webb's CCD array as we speak.
It's not similar at all. It's an entirely different kind of phenomenon observed in an entirely different way.
No.
Not least of which because the "Dimming" you describe has already been adequately explained by an instrumentation error that Schaeffer failed to properly account for.
ASTRONOMERS, however, have not bothered with speculation and narrowed it down to a very small list of things that it could probably be, the most likely of which is an otherwise undetected comet cluster.
Astronomy and astrophysics are related but not identical fields.
There's no "network" to speak of. Most of those stars are not even in the same region of space and some are separated by hundreds of light years. They simply "appear" close together because they are in the same general region of the sky.
They do not. A century long dimming event could have been missed, but gravitational binding of dozens of stars to an unseen object is not the kind of thing early 20th century astronomers would have overlooked. Quite the contrary, it's one of the more interesting things we've known how to look for since the 19th century.
Could the same fungi be growing on the lens of Kepler?
Kepler has since moved on to a new mission and if Gold Disease was present then similar dims would be recorded in the next mission as well that has been recorded at KIC 8462.
KIC 8462 Kick Starter
http://www.space.com/32929-alien-megastructure-tabbys-star-kickstarter-campaign.html
No.
That fungi grows on the photographic plates, not on the lenses, and certainly not in the vacuum of space.
And even if it WAS growing on kepler, it grows at too slow of a rate to explain those observations.
And even if all that was wrong and there was magic fungus growing on Kepler causing this apparent dimming, we should see a lot more of it in the Kepler data we already have.
Yeah, it would likely have spread to neighbouring pixels of the CCD in the focal plane array. I'm not aware that any species of fungus has been observed to grow in hard vacuum while being exposed to cosmic radiation without access to water and a nutrient source such as decaying organic matter or a photosynthetic symbiont.
So we can discount fungus then as the reason for causing a possible blur on the lens that would have caused KIC 8462 to appear to dim?
What about water contamination in the process of making the lens for Kepler? Even if a small amount was present the water could cause the light from KIC 8462 appear to be dim.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/telescope.aspx
I'm thinking it might have been fireflies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Morocco
---------------
I think both water and fungus can be discounted as no other stars' light profiles being observed were affected in the same way and the time series also doesn't support the hypothesis.
Nobody proposed it but you, so yes.
No.
No.
The effect would be noticeable for ALL of Kepler's observations and wouldn't produce transient results.
Also, the JPL team knows how to spot an instrumentation error, as does Kepler's onboard software.
And the desperate "anything but comets" logical search continues...
I was watching this video about energy particles coming from the sun that could be used to power the Earth for 36,000 years. They aren't talking about solar power but harvesting particles from the sun that impact Earth billions of times a minute.
KIC 8462 could be experiencing the same type of harvesting that is being talked about in the video. The obvious near perfectly timed dims of KIC 8462 and the mirror of dims and increases in light around the 15% dim would fit in with an alien species harvesting the particles around KIC 8462. Particles that would reflect the light of KIC 8462 but would create a dim when harvested in large amounts.
KIC 8462 is a normal star that does not have a wobble or any known gas pockets, comets or planets orbiting it but still has the loss of its light curve. Without the natural objects being present to cause the dim then something must be harvesting the particles of KIC 8462.
http://pro.moneymappress.com/EADSOL...5&_ga=1.201693335.709126703.1464526280&h=true
KIC 8462 could be experiencing the same type of harvesting that is being talked about in the video. The obvious near perfectly timed dims of KIC 8462 and the mirror of dims and increases in light around the 15% dim would fit in with an alien species harvesting the particles around KIC 8462. Particles that would reflect the light of KIC 8462 but would create a dim when harvested in large amounts.
KIC 8462 is a normal star that does not have a wobble or any known gas pockets, comets or planets orbiting it but still has the loss of its light curve. Without the natural objects being present to cause the dim then something must be harvesting the particles of KIC 8462.
http://pro.moneymappress.com/EADSOL...5&_ga=1.201693335.709126703.1464526280&h=true
Christ, the guy in that video is such an egotistical windbag that they should just extract energy from him.
In any case, it seems to be describing that there's a way to extract solar photovoltaic energy with a much lower capital outlay. I'm not seeing anything about extracting energy from solar cosmic rays, solar neutrinos, the solar wind, or the interplanetary magnetic field.
In any case, it seems to be describing that there's a way to extract solar photovoltaic energy with a much lower capital outlay. I'm not seeing anything about extracting energy from solar cosmic rays, solar neutrinos, the solar wind, or the interplanetary magnetic field.
Last edited:
Still if there is a way to extract the actual particles from KIC 8462 before they reach a planet then the area where the particles were extracted from would create a dim.
I will have to ask Jason and Tabetha if there is a method of determining which side of KIC that the dims might have originated from.
Were the dims created on the backside of KIC 8462 out of sight of Kepler or were the dims created on the front side of KIC 8462 in sight of Kepler?
Right... I'm sure they'll want to devote their valuable time to answering that question.
It is a prudent question because it could determine if an object is on the backside of KIC 8462 causing the dimming to take place. Backside meaning in an orbit where the object would not be detected by a telescope like Kepler.
What is obvious is that there were not any transit shadows recorded as causing the dim. A transit shadow is what I call an object that has been verified as causing a dim because all we can see of the object is its shadow against the sun it is orbiting.
Transits of celestial bodies across stars aren't shadows being cast on the star. Stick up your thumb in line between your eye and a light source (for safety's sake, use a light bulb not the Sun). The apparent dimming is caused by an opaque object, your thumb, blocking photons from the light source. The shadow is cast into your eye, not into the light source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(astronomy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(astronomy)
Heh, probably so.
Similar threads
