Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
...if it weren't for the fact that it's an incorrect deduction.
...if it weren't for the fact that it's an incorrect deduction.
The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
Actually it's perfectly accurate as long as you understand that the only thing changing is the dictionary definition of the word "year."
The subject's physical age doesn't change just because he happens to be on one of the Wolf 1061 planets. Nor does the subject's perception of time. It's the same as saying I'm several thousand Wolf 1061 years old right now, without having left the Earth. I really am ... because the word "year" is redefined. (Regardless, I look good for my age.)
Whether the other poster understands that is a separate discussion.
Oh, and the planet with a five-day orbit is not the one in the habitable zone, so there's not much point discussing its seasons.
Actually it's perfectly accurate as long as you understand that the only thing changing is the dictionary definition of the word "year."
The subject's physical age doesn't change just because he happens to be on one of the Wolf 1061 planets. Nor does the subject's perception of time. It's the same as saying I'm several thousand Wolf 1061 years old right now, without having left the Earth. I really am ... because the word "year" is redefined. (Regardless, I look good for my age.)
Whether the other poster understands that is a separate discussion.
Oh, and the planet with a five-day orbit is not the one in the habitable zone, so there's not much point discussing its seasons.
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
I have the same interpretation as you do. In fact, time likely passes slightly more slowly relative to Earth if this planet has higher gravity and higher orbital speed. I'm not going to try and educate the other poster. I just don't have the time or patience...
These planets are likely tidally locked in any case.
I have the same interpretation as you do. In fact, time likely passes slightly more slowly relative to Earth if this planet has higher gravity and higher orbital speed. I'm not going to try and educate the other poster. I just don't have the time or patience...
These planets are likely tidally locked in any case.
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
You think I look good for my age? Thanks!!!
You think I look good for my age? Thanks!!!
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
As applied to myself, of course.
As applied to myself, of course.
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
You look good for my age?
I look good for your age?
You look good for my age?
I look good for your age?
Re: Has Kepler Discovered An Alien Megastructure? (now featuring comet
No data.
No data.
A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
I was looking through meaningless tabloid pop ups when I came across the Fukang Meteorite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukang_(meteorite)
With the lowering and raising of the light levels from KIC being between 15% and 22% perhaps an extremely large Fukang Meteorite passed across the surface of KIC.
As the Fukang Passed across in front of KIC the metallic structure blocked the light of KIC where the olivine crystals still allowed a percentage of light from KIC to pass through.
I still doubt that the dim in light was because of a swarm of comets. The two data recordings took place within two years of each other. At two years the swarm of comets would be very close to KIC most likely at a range of somewhere around the transit of Mars. Being in a close transit of two years the swarm of comets would have evaporated due to the heat of KIC.
There would also have been cometary debris that would be obvious and detectable if the object had in fact been a large swarm of comets.
I was looking through meaningless tabloid pop ups when I came across the Fukang Meteorite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukang_(meteorite)
With the lowering and raising of the light levels from KIC being between 15% and 22% perhaps an extremely large Fukang Meteorite passed across the surface of KIC.
As the Fukang Passed across in front of KIC the metallic structure blocked the light of KIC where the olivine crystals still allowed a percentage of light from KIC to pass through.
I still doubt that the dim in light was because of a swarm of comets. The two data recordings took place within two years of each other. At two years the swarm of comets would be very close to KIC most likely at a range of somewhere around the transit of Mars. Being in a close transit of two years the swarm of comets would have evaporated due to the heat of KIC.
There would also have been cometary debris that would be obvious and detectable if the object had in fact been a large swarm of comets.
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
---------------
Isn't there only one "Fukang Meteorite", and wasn't it on Earth when the dimming was observed?
---------------
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
There are lots of Fukang meteorites. Why, just the other night, I looked up in the sky and said, "Woah, look at the size of that Fukang meteorite!" Then, this other time, through my telescope, I saw a bunch of Fukang meteorites in a shower. I used to collect Fukang meteorites, but my Mom told me to stop Fukang around and do something productive with my life.
There are lots of Fukang meteorites. Why, just the other night, I looked up in the sky and said, "Woah, look at the size of that Fukang meteorite!" Then, this other time, through my telescope, I saw a bunch of Fukang meteorites in a shower. I used to collect Fukang meteorites, but my Mom told me to stop Fukang around and do something productive with my life.
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
Fukang meteorites, how do they work?
I apologize to the good people of Fukang for acting like a three-year old. Yeah, it wasn't a Fukang meteorite that dimmed Tabbey's star. It was Fukang Santa Claus with his giant sleigh.
Fukang meteorites, how do they work?
I apologize to the good people of Fukang for acting like a three-year old. Yeah, it wasn't a Fukang meteorite that dimmed Tabbey's star. It was Fukang Santa Claus with his giant sleigh.
Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread
Dryson, you really don't have to start a new thread every time a new thought about KIC pops into your head. Just use this existing one. Thanks.
Dryson, you really don't have to start a new thread every time a new thought about KIC pops into your head. Just use this existing one. Thanks.
Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0[/yt]
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
Thanks for merging...later though.
I got a new Fukang Duck Blender for Christmas. Fukang duck.
http://futurism.com/supergiant-and-hypergiant-stars-compared-to-our-solar-system/
Without knowing the entire Galaxy inch by inch and cataloging everything yet there is nothing to say that a large meteor or planetesimal five times the size of Jupiter could not exist.
http://futurism.com/supergiant-and-hypergiant-stars-compared-to-our-solar-system/
http://www.space.com/2028-big-discovery-hypergiant-stars-harbor-planets.html
A hypergiant star could form an extremely large clump or planetesimal from the dust ring orbiting it. The planetesimal could then have broken in to several chunks that would be even still larger than Jupiter.
The idea of a large swarm of comets blocking out 22% of KIC's light is not feasible because of the twp year time difference between each data recording that Kepler took.
Tabby's Star is about 1 1/2 times our Sun. Our Sun's diameter is 1.392 million km. That would make Tabby's Star roughly 2.088 million km in diameter.
The distance from the Sun to Mars is 227,900,000 km. Subtract 2.088 million km from the Sun to Mars to compensate for Tabby's Star size and the new distance is 225,812,000 million km.
Not much of distance increase but if data consisted of a four year recording where in that time the two major recordings were two years apart and a body was in orbit around KIC then the orbit would have been a little bit further than Mars at 1.88 years. Given the size of KIC and its increased amount of heat released comets orbiting KIC would have vaporized being that close to KIC where cometary debris would have been present and very noticeable coming from an object large enough to block out 15% and 22% of KIC's light.
During the four years of data gathering there were six decrease in KIC's light of around 2%. Which are the very small dips on the graph. Given the size of KIC and that Jupiter would causes a 1% dip in light when it passes across KIC's surface the six 2% dips could be attributed to planets 1x larger than Jupiter passing across the surface of KIC.
The 15% mark on the graph is the first dip of KIC that is recorded. The smaller transits however do remain constant right up and till the 22% dip in light is experienced. Then a 3% and finally a 7% dip in KIC's light with numerous smaller dips occurring more frequently around the 22% dip.
To block out 15% of KIC's light the planet or object have to be 313,200 km in diameter. 15% of 2.088 million km is 313,200 km. Jupiter is 139,822 km in diameter. The object would therefore be 173,378 km in diameter larger than Jupiter.
To block out 22% of KIC's light the planet or object have to be 459,360 km in diameter. 22% of 2.088 million km is 459,360 km. Jupiter is 139,822 km in diameter. The object would therefore be 319,538 km in diameter larger than Jupiter.
The math doesn't seem correct for some reason. How can an object just slighter larger than Jupiter or Object 15 cause a 15% dip in light when Jupiter only causes a 1% dip in light as well as Object 22 nearly triple the size of Jupiter being able to cause a 22% dip in light?
I think I did the math correctly. I did a Reduced Diameter check where the reduced diameter is subtracted from the original diameter and the result divided by the original diameter.
2.088 mil km - 139,822 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .933304% or 93.33304% of the sun light of KIC visible with .066696% or 6.6696% of KIC's light blocked by Jupiter.
2.088 mil km - 313,200 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .85 or 85% of the sun light of KIC visible with .15 or 15% of KIC's light blocked out by Object 15.
2.088 mil km - 459,360 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .78 or 78% of the sun light of KIC visible with .22 or 22% of KIC's light blocked out by Object 22.
http://www.amnh.org/our-research/ha...strange-case-of-tabby-s-star-an-ongoing-story
Thanks for merging...later though.
I got a new Fukang Duck Blender for Christmas. Fukang duck.
http://futurism.com/supergiant-and-hypergiant-stars-compared-to-our-solar-system/
Without knowing the entire Galaxy inch by inch and cataloging everything yet there is nothing to say that a large meteor or planetesimal five times the size of Jupiter could not exist.
http://futurism.com/supergiant-and-hypergiant-stars-compared-to-our-solar-system/
http://www.space.com/2028-big-discovery-hypergiant-stars-harbor-planets.html
A hypergiant star could form an extremely large clump or planetesimal from the dust ring orbiting it. The planetesimal could then have broken in to several chunks that would be even still larger than Jupiter.
The idea of a large swarm of comets blocking out 22% of KIC's light is not feasible because of the twp year time difference between each data recording that Kepler took.
Tabby's Star is about 1 1/2 times our Sun. Our Sun's diameter is 1.392 million km. That would make Tabby's Star roughly 2.088 million km in diameter.
The distance from the Sun to Mars is 227,900,000 km. Subtract 2.088 million km from the Sun to Mars to compensate for Tabby's Star size and the new distance is 225,812,000 million km.
Not much of distance increase but if data consisted of a four year recording where in that time the two major recordings were two years apart and a body was in orbit around KIC then the orbit would have been a little bit further than Mars at 1.88 years. Given the size of KIC and its increased amount of heat released comets orbiting KIC would have vaporized being that close to KIC where cometary debris would have been present and very noticeable coming from an object large enough to block out 15% and 22% of KIC's light.
During the four years of data gathering there were six decrease in KIC's light of around 2%. Which are the very small dips on the graph. Given the size of KIC and that Jupiter would causes a 1% dip in light when it passes across KIC's surface the six 2% dips could be attributed to planets 1x larger than Jupiter passing across the surface of KIC.
The 15% mark on the graph is the first dip of KIC that is recorded. The smaller transits however do remain constant right up and till the 22% dip in light is experienced. Then a 3% and finally a 7% dip in KIC's light with numerous smaller dips occurring more frequently around the 22% dip.
To block out 15% of KIC's light the planet or object have to be 313,200 km in diameter. 15% of 2.088 million km is 313,200 km. Jupiter is 139,822 km in diameter. The object would therefore be 173,378 km in diameter larger than Jupiter.
To block out 22% of KIC's light the planet or object have to be 459,360 km in diameter. 22% of 2.088 million km is 459,360 km. Jupiter is 139,822 km in diameter. The object would therefore be 319,538 km in diameter larger than Jupiter.
The math doesn't seem correct for some reason. How can an object just slighter larger than Jupiter or Object 15 cause a 15% dip in light when Jupiter only causes a 1% dip in light as well as Object 22 nearly triple the size of Jupiter being able to cause a 22% dip in light?
I think I did the math correctly. I did a Reduced Diameter check where the reduced diameter is subtracted from the original diameter and the result divided by the original diameter.
2.088 mil km - 139,822 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .933304% or 93.33304% of the sun light of KIC visible with .066696% or 6.6696% of KIC's light blocked by Jupiter.
2.088 mil km - 313,200 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .85 or 85% of the sun light of KIC visible with .15 or 15% of KIC's light blocked out by Object 15.
2.088 mil km - 459,360 km and then divided by the original 2.088 returns a result of .78 or 78% of the sun light of KIC visible with .22 or 22% of KIC's light blocked out by Object 22.
http://www.amnh.org/our-research/ha...strange-case-of-tabby-s-star-an-ongoing-story
Last edited:
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
We are not talking about the surface area of a disk. We are talking about the diameter of KIC and the diameter of the objects that passed across its surface. When is the last time you read about measuring the diameter of a sun using the math to measure a disk? Is a sun a disk?
I will assume for the moment that the objects were in fact a large swarm of comets. Given that they were a large swarm nearly triple the size of Jupiter why don't we see cometary debris registering as causing a continued dim in KIC? If the objects had been comets then they would have given off rather large amounts of debris that would have shown up as dims similar to Object 15 and Object 22 while in transit around KIC.
This is what a sun looks like - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml
How Big is the Sun? | Size of the Sun - Space.com
www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html
Space.com
Aug 8, 2012 - The mean radius of the sun is 432,450 miles (696,000 kilometers), which makes its diameter about 864,938 miles (1.392 million km).
We are not talking about the surface area of a disk. We are talking about the diameter of KIC and the diameter of the objects that passed across its surface. When is the last time you read about measuring the diameter of a sun using the math to measure a disk? Is a sun a disk?
I will assume for the moment that the objects were in fact a large swarm of comets. Given that they were a large swarm nearly triple the size of Jupiter why don't we see cometary debris registering as causing a continued dim in KIC? If the objects had been comets then they would have given off rather large amounts of debris that would have shown up as dims similar to Object 15 and Object 22 while in transit around KIC.
This is what a sun looks like - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml
How Big is the Sun? | Size of the Sun - Space.com
www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html
Space.com
Aug 8, 2012 - The mean radius of the sun is 432,450 miles (696,000 kilometers), which makes its diameter about 864,938 miles (1.392 million km).
Last edited:
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
If not being able to see cometary debris is a reason against comets, wouldn't not being able to see "several chunks that would be even still larger than Jupiter" be even strong evidence against this form of obscuration?
If not being able to see cometary debris is a reason against comets, wouldn't not being able to see "several chunks that would be even still larger than Jupiter" be even strong evidence against this form of obscuration?
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
For occlusion purposes, the star and what is occluding it are disks. Try it, take a tennis ball and hold a marble in front of it. what do you see? the "disk" of the marble occluding the "disk" of the tennis ball. Using diameter for your math is incorrect. you need to use the surface area of a disk based on that diameter - which is a much different set of numbers.
For occlusion purposes, the star and what is occluding it are disks. Try it, take a tennis ball and hold a marble in front of it. what do you see? the "disk" of the marble occluding the "disk" of the tennis ball. Using diameter for your math is incorrect. you need to use the surface area of a disk based on that diameter - which is a much different set of numbers.
Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star
Extrasolar planet astronomers have turned up some pretty massive gas planets. The most massive so far contains 28.7 times the mass of Jupiter.
That’s so massive it’s more like a brown dwarf.
But if you had a planet entirely made of rock, like the Earth. It would need to be much, much larger before its core would ignite in fusion.
It would need to be dozens of times the mass of our Sun.
Stars with 8-11 stellar masses can fuse silicon. So a rocky planet would need millions of times the mass of the Earth before it would have that kind of pressure and temperature.
So you could get a situation where you have more mass than the Sun in a rock flavored world, and it wouldn’t ignite as a star. It would get pretty warm though.
http://www.universetoday.com/115320/could-a-planet-be-as-big-as-a-star/
Extrasolar planet astronomers have turned up some pretty massive gas planets. The most massive so far contains 28.7 times the mass of Jupiter.
That’s so massive it’s more like a brown dwarf.
But if you had a planet entirely made of rock, like the Earth. It would need to be much, much larger before its core would ignite in fusion.
It would need to be dozens of times the mass of our Sun.
Stars with 8-11 stellar masses can fuse silicon. So a rocky planet would need millions of times the mass of the Earth before it would have that kind of pressure and temperature.
So you could get a situation where you have more mass than the Sun in a rock flavored world, and it wouldn’t ignite as a star. It would get pretty warm though.
http://www.universetoday.com/115320/could-a-planet-be-as-big-as-a-star/
Similar threads
