The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Dryson]

You were making sense right up to this point: Kepler hasn't been observing Tabby's Star long enough to measure a long-term dip in brightness (nobody has, really).


No, the events Kepler observed are consistent with occultation by a swarm of comets, among other explanations, and probably have little or nothing to do with the actual star.

Four different sources citing that the dimming of KIC IS NOT because of a swarm of comets.

http://www.popsci.com/study-confirms-that-alien-megastructure-star-is-weird

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...t/news-story/1267c7a77e51b96090710da6cc4a9d4a

http://gizmodo.com/heres-how-astronomers-will-solve-the-alien-megastructur-1753665256

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/us/space-anomaly-remains-mystery/

"The century-long dimming trend requires an estimated 648,000 giant comets... all orchestrated to pass in front of the star within the last century," he writes in the research paper.

Giant comets that are 200km in size.

It wasn't comets. That many comets would create their own gravity field. If it had been comets then there would be a huge hole missing from somewhere around KIC where the 648,000 comets came from that would be seen by Kepler. The comets would have had to have come from somewhere. If there were part of a larger orbital swarm of comets like those of the Oort Cloud then an increase in light would be measured where the comets came from when the cloud passed in front of another sun. The light would the return to somewhat of a dim as the cloud without the hole from where the comets where passed by in front of the same sun.

If the swarm of 648,000 comets were all rogue comets then where did the comets come from that formed the actual swarm?

It wasn't comets it was something else completely unknown that took place. Science is about discovery and how the unknown challenges you. If you cannot except the challenge then you are really not vested in the spirit of science but only maintaining knowledge as is.

If the object had been a swarm of comets that exploded because of sublimation then there would have been thousand of dims that occurred with the result of Kepler being able to detect the dust particles coming off of the comet fragments.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Four different sources citing that the dimming of KIC IS NOT because of a swarm of comets...

..."The century-long dimming trend requires an estimated 648,000 giant comets... all orchestrated to pass in front of the star within the last century," he writes in the research paper...

Hold up. Did you read the below part of his post or just skim right over it? Particularly, note the part at the end I put in bold.

...No, the events Kepler observed are consistent with occultation by a swarm of comets, among other explanations, and probably have little or nothing to do with the actual star.

The long-term dimming, IF Schaefer's numbers are correct, is an unrelated phenomenon.

Anyway, I would agree that I think comets are also an unlikely cause of the 15 percent and 22 percent dip. But that is a separate point from the source you quoted above.

I am curious though. What does your gut tell you the most likely cause is if we somehow rule out aliens?

 

[Dryson]

Hold up. Did you read the below part of his post or just skim right over it? Particularly, note the part at the end I put in bold.

.



Anyway, I would agree that I think comets are also an unlikely cause of the 15 percent and 22 percent dip. But that is a separate point from the source you quoted above.

I am curious though. What does your gut tell you the most likely cause is if we somehow rule out aliens?

Purple Buddha my gut is telling me that since the star is a normal F class star that is acting odd that something within space time itself is causing the dim. Maybe something regarding Dark Matter.

If not space time or Dark Matter then possibly an influence from an orbiting star close by. Another KIC system has five suns in the same system. With that much EM and gravity present space time would be effected.

Just from looking at the data the dims prior to the one before the 15% dim were relatively the same then got smaller with a slight increase and then another dim before the 15% dim.

What ever caused the dim then caused an increase and then two larger dims. Its like something was trying to push through the fabric of space time with small pecks and then broke the shell of space time at the 15% and finally broke through the shell of space time at the 22% dim. Maybe an interaction between matter in another dimension effected the dim of KIC. We might not be able to see it but possibly what is on the other side of the dimensional rift is able to see into our dimension.

How would a wormhole opening close to sun like KIC affect its light?

A vacuum in space maybe that while the vacuum was forming drained some of the energy from KIC causing the dim then as the vacuum expanded caused an increase in brightness.

From what I have read the surface of a sun reacts equally to what is taking place at its core.

 

[Silvercrest]

I think he was asking if your gut suspected anything involving actual science. I am taking this as a "no".

 

[publiusr]

There was even a report about a comet causing the WOW signal recently.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Four different sources citing that the dimming of KIC IS NOT because of a swarm of comets.

Those are four different articles all quoting the SAME source, namely Scaeffer's claim. Interesting that he took his findings to CNN before his paper was actually published; score one for the "bullshitting" theory. The fact that Schaefer went out of his way to discount comets as an explanation for HIS theory is, I realized, another huge one for that mark; he's smart enough to know that a century-long dimming is a completely different phenomenon than what was observed by Kepler, so his specifically ruling out comets for THAT observation is directly an attempt to draw attention to his paper.

It wasn't comets.

Not for Schaefer's anomaly, no. They are still a likely candidate for the 15% and 22% momentary dip observed more recently.

 

[Dryson]

If the dims in light of KIC was caused by comets then why at day 1540 where a .0034% dim takes place are there two dims that occur exactly 2.5 days before the .0034% at .0017% as well as exactly 2.5 days after the .0034% dim.

Here is a link to my Facebook Page of the image marked by three ***
- https://www.facebook.com/641915669282915/photos/p.649562841851531/649562841851531/?type=3&theater



Comets do not cause mirroed events . The event at day 1540 is almost like something was orbiting something else was then blocked as it transited in front of the object and then continued its orbit. Then for some reason simple vanished. If the object had been a smaller swarm of comets then the same dim in the light of KIC would been recorded from an earlier time frame as the comet swarm approached KIC.



Just because Schaefer took his suggestion to CNN doesn't mean he is BS'in. Suggesting an idea or theory is part of Free Speech. So deal with it because speculation helps bridge the gap in obscure evidence until all of the evidence presented does not leave any speculation but only fact.

I have also kept up with Jason Wright's blog and Tweets and nothing has been said by any of them that disputes Schaefer because no one knows what caused the dims to occur.

But what did not cause the dim was not comets because the effect of sublimation would have broken the swarm of comets into billions of chunks. The initial dim that was recorded caused about a .0050% dim in KIC or .9950. At .90 the size of the object would be the size of Jupiter that causes a .1% dim in light of our own Sun. The object is therefore at least .0950% smaller than Jupiter yet caused a 15% dim and the 22%.

It is possible that what was detected might have been the residue left behind after the Big Bang.

Something smaller than Jupiter exploding even a giant swarm of comets would not increase in size to cause a 15% or 22% dim. If so we would have seen the after debris even from comets.

 

[Dryson]

Another article to read through - http://www.universetoday.com/122865...62852-shattered-comet-or-alien-megastructure/

Being fragile types, comets can crumble all by themselves especially when passing exceptionally near the Sun as sungrazing comets. Or a passing star could disturb the host star’s Oort comet cloud and unleash a barrage of comets into the inner stellar system. It so happens that a red dwarf star lies within about 1000 a.u. (1000 times Earth’s distance from the Sun) of KIC 8462852. No one knows yet whether the star orbits the Kepler star or happens to be passing by. Either way, it’s close enough to get involved in comet flinging.

So much for “natural” explanations. Tabetha Boyajian, a postdoc at Yale, who oversees the Planet Hunters and the lead author of the paper on KIC 8462852, asked Jason Wright, an assistant professor of astronomy at Penn State, what he thought of the light curves. “Crazy” came to mind as soon he set eyes on them, but the squiggles stirred a thought. Turns out Wright had been working on a paper about detecting transiting megastructures with Kepler.

Astronomers find dead star destroying a planet - Very good article to read
The only problem is that KIC is not a white dwarf.

http://earthsky.org/space/astronomers-find-dead-star-destroy-a-planet


The objects around KIC though could have been a planetesimal or a type of mini planet formed from dust, rock and other material that like the object in the article that caused a dim of 40% of the light of the white dwarf when compared to the to KIC the planetesimal could cause a 15% dim due to being ripped apart by KIC on its first pass and then up to 22% on the second pass nearly two years later.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Comets do not cause mirroed events

They do if their tails are symmetrical.

Just because Schaefer took his suggestion to CNN doesn't mean he is BS'in.

Of course not. The fact that he took a COMPLETELY UNRELATED observation to CNN and then pretended it WAS related means he's bullshitting.

Suggesting an idea or theory is part of Free Speech.

So is bullshitting.

But what did not cause the dim was not comets because the effect of sublimation would have broken the swarm of comets into billions of chunks.

That doesn't normally happen to comets in OUR solar system, so why would it happen to comets near Tabby's Star?

The object is therefore at least .0950% smaller than Jupiter yet caused a 15% dim and the 22%.

A rain cloud weighs less than an aircraft carrier, but it blocks far more sunlight if its directly overhead. Think about that.

It is possible that what was detected might have been the residue left behind after the Big Bang.

Unlikely, but possible. Of course, it's also possible it was just a small formation of very active comets crossing in front of the star. A 22% drop in luminosity isn't all that much if the star is shining through a cometary debris field that covers its entire disk (one would expect it to be higher than that).

Of course, the possibility that something much CLOSER to the solar system occulted the star hasn't been ruled out. A brown dwarf passing equidistant between the Sol and Tabby's, for example.

 

[Silvercrest]

I thought the entire universe was the residue left from the Big Bang.

 

[Dryson]

They do if their tails are symmetrical.


Of course not. The fact that he took a COMPLETELY UNRELATED observation to CNN and then pretended it WAS related means he's bullshitting.


So is bullshitting.


That doesn't normally happen to comets in OUR solar system, so why would it happen to comets near Tabby's Star?


A rain cloud weighs less than an aircraft carrier, but it blocks far more sunlight if its directly overhead. Think about that.


Unlikely, but possible. Of course, it's also possible it was just a small formation of very active comets crossing in front of the star. A 22% drop in luminosity isn't all that much if the star is shining through a cometary debris field that covers its entire disk (one would expect it to be higher than that).

Of course, the possibility that something much CLOSER to the solar system occulted the star hasn't been ruled out. A brown dwarf passing equidistant between the Sol and Tabby's, for example.

Reported for swearing.

It's obvious that Jason Wright and Tabetha Boyajarin do not know what caused the dim even as Jason has begun asking what people think it might have been.

A rain cloud weighs less than an aircraft carrier, but it blocks far more sunlight if its directly overhead. Think about that.
Actually no a rain cloud does not block more sunlight than an aircraft carrier does. A cloud is not a solid object like the aircraft carrier is. The cloud allows the sunlight to continue to pass through it. The aircraft carrier does not.

It wasn't comets.

So where is your proof Crazy that a comet caused the dim of KIC?

If anything it was a planetesimal that was ripped apart on two passes by KIC.

Unlikely, but possible. Of course, it's also possible it was just a small formation of very active comets crossing in front of the star. A 22% drop in luminosity isn't all that much if the star is shining through a cometary debris field that covers its entire disk (one would expect it to be higher than that).

You are forgetting the size ratio of KIC which is larger than our own sun. Jupiter being 139,822 km in diameter only causes a 1% dim when transiting across KIC. Just like Schaefer said in his article from CNN it would have taken 648,000 giant comets to cause the dim of KIC. You also have to remember that the events took place 1500 years ago and data has only been recorded regarding KIC for the last hundred or so years. The comet swarm would had to have been enormous. At 648,000 giant comets all traveling together that would sound like a planet to me or a planetesimal to say the least.

Explain this near perfectly mirrored image of a dim of KIC at day 1540 Crazy Eddie.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015...red_in_the_KIC_8462852-a-21_1445862529099.jpg

The numbers on the left hand side show the light of KIC. Jupiter causes a 1% dim to take place which would be .90 on the scale. Earth resides around the .99 to .98 range is very hard to discover. The time factor located at the bottom is days. Notice how the dim takes place every twenty to nearly thirty days? If the dim of KIC had been caused by a large swarm of comets then there would have only been on transit recorded as the swarm transited across KIC. On the chart starting at day 1520 these transits took place and ended at day 1568 nearly 48 days later. So for more than an Earth month these transits took place. Some lasting as long as five days and some around 2.5 days. It would have to think if the dims were caused by comets then the transit would be a lot faster.

It takes Jupiter about 33 hours to transit across the Sun. The objects causing the dims of KIC like I mentioned took between 2.5 and 5 days to complete their transit. The objects were slow moving, much slower than Jupiter travels.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/extrasol/lectures/transit_i/transit_i.html

Jupiter travel at 29,236 miles per hour around the Sun. I would have to say that the objects taking anywhere from 2.5 to 5 days to transit across KIC would be traveling around 12,000,15,000 miles per hour.

Jupiter revolves or orbits around the Sun once every 11.86 Earth years, or once every 4,330.6 Earth days. Jupiter travels at an average speed of 29,236 miles per hour or 47,051 kilometers per hour in its orbit around the Sun.

The Earth orbits, on average, 93 million miles (149,600,000 km) from the Sun (this distance is defined as one Astronomical Unit (AU)), taking one year to complete an orbit. The Earth revolves around the Sun at a speed of about 18.5 miles/sec (30 km/sec).

The Earth will block about 0.000084 of the Sun's disk,
and the transit will last about 13 hours.

Jupiter will block about 0.0106 of the Sun's disk,
and the transit will last about 33 hours.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/extrasol/lectures/transit_i/ans_earth_jup.txt

These objects were traveling slow.

Comets are still a no go.

 

[sojourner]

Swearing isn't a reportable offense on TBBS.

 

[scotthm]

If anything it was a planetesimal that was ripped apart on two passes by KIC.

If anything? Are you suggesting that the dimming might have been caused by nothing?

Anyway, now that you "know" it was caused by a disintegrated planetesimal should we conclude that you're done with the speculation?
---------------

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

According to Dryson, clouds don't block light. He's obviously never experienced an overcast sky or even a cloud passing in front of the Sun.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Swearing isn't a reportable offense on TBBS.

You're bullshitting me?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually no a rain cloud does not block more sunlight than an aircraft carrier does. A cloud is not a solid object like the aircraft carrier is. The cloud allows the sunlight to continue to pass through it. The aircraft carrier does not.

And yet the cloud has a surface area several thousand times greater than the carrier, despite the smaller mass. Which means even being partially transparent, it will still block more sunlight. If you're standing beneath it.

Surface area is far more important than mass. A cloud of gas that blocks 5% of sunlight but covers the entire disk of the sun will block more sunlight than a solid object that only covers 2% percent of the sun's disk.

If anything it was a planetesimal that was ripped apart on two passes by KIC.

Strictly speaking, a "planetesimal" isn't all that different from "a comet."

You are forgetting the size ratio of KIC which is larger than our own sun. Jupiter being 139,822 km in diameter only causes a 1% dim when transiting across KIC.

Strictly speaking, Jupiter transiting across Tabby's Star would cause a 100% dip in luminosity, since you wouldn't actually be able to SEE the star (it would block it out entirely). I don't know what you think you read about this factoid, but it isn't true; Jupiter's angular diameter is several hundred times greater than Tabby's, so if Jupiter crossed in front of it, you wouldn't be able to see it at all.

The neccesary area and density for a debris cloud or cometary tail needed for this event depends on many things, particularly how close the occulting object was when it passed in front of the star, how dense the field was, and what it's overall shape was. Brightness works on the universe square law, so if the comets were farther from Tabby's than the Kepler crew estimated, they could get away with being both less numerous and less dense and still create an appreciable dip in brightness.

Just like Schaefer said in his article from CNN it would have taken 648,000 giant comets to cause the dim of KIC...

The century-long dim Schaefer claims to have detected is not what Kepler observed and was never believed to have been caused by comets. More to the point, Schaefer Event has not even been confirmed to exist.

Explain this near perfectly mirrored image of a dim of KIC at day 1540 Crazy Eddie.

It's not perfect. It's not even ALMOST perfect. No explanation needed.

It takes Jupiter about 33 hours to transit across the Sun. The objects causing the dims of KIC like I mentioned took between 2.5 and 5 days to complete their transit. The objects were slow moving, much slower than Jupiter travels.

That or they were moving on a highly elliptical orbit that takes longer to transit near apahelion.

The Earth will block about 0.000084 of the Sun's disk

Actually, the Earth blocks 100% of the sun's disk. It does this every day, in fact, when the sun sets below the horizon.

Perhaps you mean that Earth blocks 0.000084 of the sun's disk from an observer in a different solar system? That's entirely possible. But be aware that the sun would block considerably more than that if it were placed in a farther orbit from the sun; say, out near the orbit of Saturn, where it's relative angular diameter increases substantially.

For the record: the only reason the Kepler team concluded it was a "swarm" of comets is because their observations indicated the occulting object must have been in a highly elliptical orbit, which is a characteristic normally attributed to comets. It could just as easily be a single MASSIVE comet (something the size of Ceres or Vesta) but that would be harder to account for since we've never observed such large bodies on whacky orbits in our own solar system.

 

[Dryson]

According to Dryson, clouds don't block light. He's obviously never experienced an overcast sky or even a cloud passing in front of the Sun.

http://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/astronomen-wollen-raetsel-um-kic-8462852-loese20160125n/

If a cloud blocked the sun then all you would see would be a black area where the cloud was located that did not allow the sunlight to pass through.

An aircraft is solid steel and does not allow sunlight to pass through. Quite playing semantics because you won't win.

If there was a single large comet then why were there multiple transits?



Show me proof anywhere in recorded history where the proof of a swarm of comets has dimmed a sun by 15% to 22% where the sun is the size of KIC. The proof cannot come from some off name website either. The proof has to come from a website such as NASA, Space.com or any other reputable site. Sure a normal comet would cause the light of a white dwarf to dim by up to 40% but then again a white dwarf is just a little bit larger than Earth.

Jason Wright ‏@Astro_Wright Jan 13
Jason Wright Retweeted Prof. Abel Méndez

"This…dimming is completely unprecedented" OK, who's got any theories about #TabbysStar left? @tsboyajian @steinly0

If KIC has been being studied for the last 100 years then where is the debris left behind by a large swarm of comets? KIC might have only have been studied for the last 100 years the data however is over 1500 years old. In those 1500 years if there had been a large swarm of comets a MASSIVE swarm then that massive swarm of comets would have left behind chunks of debris that would either have disintegrated or formed an orbit around the sun if far enough from the sun.

Unless the super massive comet came close enough to KIC to cause a cometary tail to form then a super massive comet would not have registered as anything because unless the super massive comet swarm was twice as large of Jupiter there would not have been any dim caused by the swarm of comets.

Based on the data that I looked which involves the light charts of KIC the objects take anywhere from 2.5 to five days to transit across KIC. That is a slow ass object seeing as how it takes Jupiter only 33 hours to transit across our Sun and Earth only 13 hours.

A 2.5 to 5 day transit would put the object closer to somewhere between a transit that resides between Saturn and Neptune. A 2.5 to 5 day transit across KIC where a cometary tail would be formed would be close enough for KIC to basically evaporate much of the massive comet swarm to cause a cometary tail.

A comet tail—and coma—are features visible in comets when they are illuminated by the Sun and may become visible from Earth when a comet passes through the inner Solar System. As a comet approaches the inner Solar System, solar radiation causes the volatile materials within the comet to vaporize and stream out of the nucleus, carrying dust away with them. Separate tails are formed of dust and gases, becoming visible through different phenomena; the dust reflects sunlight directly and the gases glow from ionisation. Most comets are too faint to be visible without the aid of a telescope, but a few each decade become bright enough to be visible to the naked eye.

..the dust reflects sunlight directly and the gases glow from ionisation.
With such a super massive comet there would have been an equally super massive amount of dust and gases present. Gas that would glow from ionization of which there was NO GLOW.

Just like Tabetha asks where is the Flux?
I ask where is the glow from the dust and gases relating to a massive comet swarm?

It's obvious that comets should be ruled out.

 

[Silvercrest]

Quite [sic] playing semantics because you won't win.

 

[Dryson]

Its interesting that the dim at day 220 takes place again at day 1540, 1320 days apart. What’s even more interesting is that the dim at day 220 and 1540 are nearly identical meaning that the same object caused the dims to take place both times.

Who created God Silvercrest?

 

[Silvercrest]

God Silvercrest created himself, of course. God Silvercrest has always existed and always will exist!
Best watch out, or God Silvercrest will smite you for your disrespect! Mua-ha-ha!!!!

I think I've found my new signature.