The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Dryson]

Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star

Something "5 times the size of Jupiter" would by definition NOT be a meteor or planetesimal.

And your math is wrong because you're using diameter instead of surface area of a disk among other things.

Read some books.

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).

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.

I see two spheres in a 3 dimensional environment along with two circles in a 2 dimensional environment. I got my numbers directly from Space.com.

Your gonna tell me they are wrong in their measuring of the Sun?

Go ahead then put your disk math to it and solve the diameter of the of the two objects that caused 15% and 22% dim in KIC.

 

[sojourner]

Re: A New Idea About Tabbey's Star

I didn't say the numbers were wrong. I said how you are using them is wrong. Think about it. Try to figure out why for yourself. Think.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Some basics:

Circumference of a circle of radius r = 2 * pi * r
Area of a circle of radius r = pi * r^2
Apparent cross-sectional area of a sphere of radius r = pi * r^2
Area of the surface of a sphere of radius r = 4 * pi * r^2
Volume of a sphere of radius r = 4/3 * pi * r^3

Where:
r^2 (r squared) = r * r
r^3 (r cubed) = r * r * r

The angle subtended by an object diminishes as the inverse of its distance. The apparent cross-sectional area subtended by an object diminishes as the inverse of the square of its distance.

 

[Dryson]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Some basics:

Circumference of a circle of radius r = 2 * pi * r
Area of a circle of radius r = pi * r^2
Apparent cross-sectional area of a sphere of radius r = pi * r^2
Area of the surface of a sphere of radius r = 4 * pi * r^2
Volume of a sphere of radius r = 4/3 * pi * r^3

Where:
r^2 (r squared) = r * r
r^3 (r cubed) = r * r * r

The angle subtended by an object diminishes as the inverse of its distance. The apparent cross-sectional area subtended by an object diminishes as the inverse of the square of its distance.

Just someone posting math formula that has nothing to do with the diameter of KIC.

Take your formulas Asbo Z. and soujourner and determine the size of the objects that caused the 15% and 22% dim of light for KIC.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

 

[Dryson]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

Now do the math so your figures show your objects to cause a 15% and 22% dip in light.

 

[sojourner]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

Now do the math so your figures show your objects to cause a 15% and 22% dip in light.

He just did. You quoted it.

 

[Dryson]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

They word that you said was likely.

Now do the math so your figures show your objects to cause a 15% and 22% dip in light.

http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2015/10/15/kic-8462852wheres-the-flux/

According to Jason Wright : 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.

Half of the diameter of KIC is therefore 1.044 million km.

The first body that you quoted is 1.4 million km in diameter. This figure puts your object at 356,000 km over half of the diameter of KIC.

The second body that you quoted is 1.04 km. This figure puts your object at 4,000 km close to being half the diameter of KIC.

 

[Dryson]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

The Transit Method of Determining the size of a planet when found passing across a sun.

Thirty pages long.

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~ingo/Lecture_Notes_files/lect11.pdf

 

[Silvercrest]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

And your math is wrong because you're using diameter instead of surface area of a disk among other things.

Read some books.

I didn't say the numbers were wrong. I said how you are using them is wrong. Think about it. Try to figure out why for yourself. Think.

He's not doing any math. The calculations from his original post on 12/27 are cut and pasted from the Jason Wright page he linked today.

 

[sojourner]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

The cut and pasted part is from Dryson's own comment to the article by Jason Wright. Not part of Jason's actual article.

 

[Silvercrest]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Mea culpa; I misread.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

They word that you said was likely.

Now do the math so your figures show your objects to cause a 15% and 22% dip in light.

http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2015/10/15/kic-8462852wheres-the-flux/

According to Jason Wright : 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.

Half of the diameter of KIC is therefore 1.044 million km.

The first body that you quoted is 1.4 million km in diameter. This figure puts your object at 356,000 km over half of the diameter of KIC.

The second body that you quoted is 1.04 km. This figure puts your object at 4,000 km close to being half the diameter of KIC.

Where did 1.04 km, 356,000 km and 4,000 km come from?

If KIC 8462852 has a diameter of 2 million km rather than 1.4 million km, multiply my estimates by about 1.4. That makes the sizes of the occulting bodies (seemingly more ridiculously) bigger at 0.85 and 1.46 million km.

By the way, please stop referring to this star as KIC -- that stands for the Kepler Input Catalog, which has more than a single entry.

 

[Dryson]

Re: The merged and improved (?) KIC thread

Assuming a spherical occulting body that completely crosses the disc of the star, the ratio of its radius to that of the star is (0.15)^0.5 and (0.22)^0.5 respectively, so 0.39 and 0.47 as a minimum. If KIC 8462852 is a typical F3 main sequence star with a mass of 1.43 times that of the Sun, it likely has a diameter of 1.58 times that of the Sun. That gives the minimum diameters of the occulting bodies as 0.61 and 0.74 times 1.4 million km or 0.85 and 1.04 million km respectively. For comparison, the diameter of Jupiter is 0.14 million km. In any case, the observed time series do not have the flat-bottomed profiles of spherical bodies typical of transits so the bodies (assuming that is the cause) are either very large and clipping the edges of the star as seen from Earth or their shapes deviate from spheres significantly.

They word that you said was likely.

Now do the math so your figures show your objects to cause a 15% and 22% dip in light.

http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2015/10/15/kic-8462852wheres-the-flux/

According to Jason Wright : 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.

Half of the diameter of KIC is therefore 1.044 million km.

The first body that you quoted is 1.4 million km in diameter. This figure puts your object at 356,000 km over half of the diameter of KIC.

The second body that you quoted is 1.04 km. This figure puts your object at 4,000 km close to being half the diameter of KIC.

Where did 1.04 km, 356,000 km and 4,000 km come from?

If KIC 8462852 has a diameter of 2 million km rather than 1.4 million km, multiply my estimates by about 1.4. That makes the sizes of the occulting bodies (seemingly more ridiculously) bigger at 0.85 and 1.46 million km.

By the way, please stop referring to this star as KIC -- that stands for the Kepler Input Catalog, which has more than a single entry.

Obviously you did not do the math correct because I linked the site that has the correct formula in which to determine the size of a planet in transit around a star. And no I will continue to use KIC to refer to Tabby's Star. Just because you you want to find something that is conviently wrong to further distract away from your own failure proves just that.

You forget to add distance to the variable as well. Seeing as the how the recordings were two years apart that would put the transit of the object or objects at around a little further than then distance Mars orbits the Sun.

Your estimates are scrim.

According to Jason Wright : 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.

At the two year transit distance the size of the objects would be 312km and 459km in diameter.

The data was taken two years apart.

If we set the objects further away in the range of Jupiter the 1.46 million km diameter would cover more then 3/4 of KIC due to KIC appearing to get smaller and the object appearing to get larger.

 

[Dryson]

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sl...tar_alien_dips.png.CROP.original-original.png

 

[Dryson]

In the image above starting from the left we can see the consistency of a light dim around KIC at .996 and has orbit transit of around 150 days.

The transit seems fairly consistent relative to time. We can also see that the object is moving away from KIC because the link dip slowly diminishes and then nearly fades away.

Based on the first reading the size of the object is smaller than Jupiter but not much given that the object resides within the same 1% light dip that Jupiter does.

Then all of sudden there is the 15% light dip. Possible collision. Then two years later the light dip increased to 22%. So what took place mostly likely happened at the farthest point in the objects transit around KIC where the gravity kept the object close together but became enourmous as it passed KIC.

If the object remained in its transit then the same light dip would have been recorded again. The same as it had been with the first recording at the left of the chart.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Thankfully, I've remembered that there is an ignore button.

 

[Dryson]

Thankfully, I've remembered that there is an ignore button.

You only ignore because you know you are wrong and are just fitting math to your belief.

That's your problem.

If you look at day 1200 you can see a light dip that is slightly smaller than the original light to the right of the 15% dip.

This could be because of the object having impacted something where the 15% is the chunk and debris where the dim at 1200 days is the original object at the left where there is .996 dim

 

[{ Emilia }]

Thankfully, I've remembered that there is an ignore button.

I understand your frustration but telling somebody that you're ignoring him is seen as trolling by mods around here. There's no reason to not just use the ignore function without turning it into a little show.
I'd appreciate if you kept that in mind from now on.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Upon further reflection I think this thread needs a break so that it can relax a little and have a coffee. Sojourner and Dryson, you might both want to reconsider your tone.
Dryson, don't start a new thread about this.

And no I will continue to use KIC to refer to Tabby's Star.

This is an asinine statement because it doesn't identify the star at all. I have updated the thread title to make more sense. Thanks for pointing it out, Asbo Zaprudder.