The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Dryson]

No, this is simply clapping so Tinkerbell lives.

If Earth resides in the 8% of habitable worlds that are present then based on NASA's findings the 7% of planets that came before Earth that are habitable will have life on them. If you want to discount NASA then support your claims with more than Tinkerbell replies.

I ran a small simulation using Super Planet Crash. I added two Giant Planets. One just on the outside of the Goldilocks Zone and one half way between the Goldilocks Zone and the 2.0 AU boundary. If we assume for the moment that each planet including the Earth sized planet all have a ring network orbiting them within a 100 year time span all three planets orbit close enough to each other so that when they transit across the Sun their alignment along with their interlocking rings might cause dims of KIC to occur.

http://www.stefanom.org/spc/#

The three planets came into alignment at approx year 39, 70 and then 76 and then again at year 85 where their alignment could cause dims to occur.

Here is an image taken from Super Planet Crash where each of the three planets have a ring network orbiting them and align in such a manner where the ring networks as well the planets overlap each other that from the viewing point of the telescope would cause a large and dim based on the planets and the ring ring network.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/utqi8l5dtihk381/Your Mom Was Here 2016 2.PNG

 

[{ Emilia }]

If Earth resides in the 8% of habitable worlds that are present then based on NASA's findings the 7% of planets that came before Earth that are habitable will have life on them.

Not necessarily. A habitable planet doesn't necessarily have to develop life.

 

[Dryson]

Not necessarily. A habitable planet doesn't necessarily have to develop life.

That is true Emilia but one thing that I have learned about life sustaining habitats is that there is a balance where microbes will create oxygen as a bi-product. With microbes thought to be present wherever there is liquid or frozen water microbes would have more than enough resources to create a balanced environment in which life would evolve into. I think the keep spark for evolution to sentient thought and sentient life is the ability to progress past the need to remain complacent. For example there are many dinosaurs that have small arms and up to three fingers on each hand. Why didn't such dinosaurs evolve to use their fingers to break a tree in half with then using a lost tooth wrap the tooth with some vines from the jungle to hunt its prey with? Or why move large boulders around to create a wall that could be used to herd livestock into that could then be eaten later on without too much effort in hunting? Being complacent and not wanting to change their lifestyle in my opinion is the reason why. If a dinosaur had in fact evolved along such a line of using tools it's brain would have gotten larger and larger and would have developed like a human brain would have.

"Great all we need are T-Rex building castles and trebuchets."


The following is a template for KIC - 11 : http://www.stefanom.org/spc/?np=6&m...=-0.01508346&speed=1&dt=0.25&system=Kepler-11

 

[Silvercrest]

That is true Emilia but one thing that I have learned about life sustaining habitats is that there is a balance where microbes will create oxygen as a bi-product. With microbes thought to be present wherever there is liquid or frozen water microbes would have more than enough resources to create a balanced environment in which life would evolve into.

You're assuming microbes must be present in such an environment. No life = no microbes.

I think the keep spark for evolution to sentient thought and sentient life is the ability to progress past the need to remain complacent. For example there are many dinosaurs that have small arms and up to three fingers on each hand. Why didn't such dinosaurs evolve? Being complacent and not wanting to change their lifestyle in my opinion is the reason why. If a dinosaur had in fact evolved along such a line of using tools it's brain would have gotten larger and larger and would have developed like a human brain would have.

That's the Lamarckian view of evolution and it's totally wrong. Coming up with new ideas does not make your brain evolve. Evolution does not work that way.

 

[Silvercrest]

Coming up with new ideas does in fact make your brain evolve. God does not make your brain bigger. Having ideas creates new processes in the brain that then allow for more evolved interaction between each part of the brain. If someone never has any ideas then those parts of the brain are never used and never evolve.

You are misusing the word "evolve". That's not what it means. It is not the same as "develop".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Transit is the amount of time that it takes a planet or object to pass across in front of a Sun not an orbit.

Yes... but VIEWED FROM WHERE? We cannot view the transit of Earth across the sun, for example, because we are STANDING on the Earth and moving with it; we cannot view the transit of Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune because none of those planets ever pass between Earth and the sun.

The transit of Jupiter takes considerably longer when viewed from the surface of Ganymede than from the surface of Io, which in turn is shorter than the transit when viewed from the surface of pluto but longer than the transit time when viewed from Saturn (which is between 24 and 30 hours, depending on their relative orbits).

The transit of Earth takes about 6 hours from the surface of the moon, and between 8 and 12 hours from the surface of Mars.

And there's the little fact you continue to ignore that the transit event of an object doesn't actually tell you anything about the object's orbit. A Martian watching the transit of Earth during an Earth-Mars orbital conjunction would see the Earth move very slowly in front of the sun, then stop, and then move very slowly back in the other direction as Earth overtook it in its orbit.

Belief is not fact.

I was AGREEING with you, but you're right, I probably should be more careful when doing that.

 

[Dryson]

You are misusing the word "evolve". That's not what it means. It is not the same as "develop".

If a person does not evolve then they do not develop new ideas and solutions that are then implemented. Evolution and Development go hand in hand. Evolution is not a "handed down" existence from a higher being.

That's the Lamarckian view of evolution and it's totally wrong. Coming up with new ideas does not make your brain evolve. Evolution does not work that way.[/QUOTE]

Coming up with new ideas does in fact make your brain evolve. God does not make your brain bigger. Having ideas creates new processes in the brain that then allow for more evolved interaction between each part of the brain. If someone never has any ideas then those parts of the brain are never used and never evolve. Most of the time the parent will try and educate their children based on how they were educated because to the parent how they were educated seems to be be okay to survive on or just doing the basics and nothing more. Evolving past the parental generation involves the child learning and adapting to new situations where ideas that the child has would promote their lifestyle separate of the parents lifestyle, upbringing and education.

If the giraffe is no longer able to reach its food high in the tree or cannot find any food on the ground it will have to evolve its thinking or ideas on how to get the leaves it needs for food higher up in the tree. The solution comes to the giraffe one day as it leans against a tree with the leaves it needs for food causing the tree to fall over allowing it to eat. The giraffe then comes across another tree that it cannot fell. Another giraffe seeing what the first had done leans against the tree as does the first giraffe thus causing the tree to fall. An idea had by the second giraffe compounded with the first giraffe to solve the problem.

Day 1540 - The question remains is this though. Prior to the 15% dim in light there is a dim and an increase in the light of KIC 8462. After the 15% of KIC the smaller dim and the increase in light occur again, basically mirroring itself. At day 1540 the dim in light does the same thing again. First the dim takes place then increases then decreases into a much greater dim then increase again, dims one more time before returning to a relatively normal brightness. This would sound artificial to me because there would not be two objects that would cause the increase and then dim that would take place on the other side of the 15% dim. Look at the top chart in this link. At day 500 the last dim takes place. Right before the dim at day 500 there is an increase of light. There is roughly 300 days from the last dim at day 500 before the 15% dim takes. Moving 300 days to the right after the 15% the dim at day 500 occurs again with the increase in light following. You can also see the mirrored dim at 1540 as well. When a planet transits it creates a steady dim across the surface of the sun. These dims are up and down could be large rings of material orbiting planets or the interaction of equipment harvesting KIC 8462 for it's energy. The data at day 1540 is almost as is something is orbiting the object that caused the dim over a period of 20 days where for ten days on either side of the central object the orbiting object caused the dim. Then as it orbited it's parent in front and between Kepler caused the light to increase and then emerged on the other side to cause the next ten day dim of KIC. What is odd though is that the parent object only caused a five day dim of KIC 8462. http://www.americaspace.com/wp-cont...ar_alien_dips.png.CROP_.original-original.png

Transit is the amount of time that it takes a planet or object to pass across in front of a Sun not an orbit.
Yes... but VIEWED FROM WHERE? We cannot view the transit of Earth across the sun, for example, because we are STANDING on the Earth and moving with it; we cannot view the transit of Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune because none of those planets ever pass between Earth and the sun.

The question is irrelevant and flaming because just like you have stated its obvious that we cannot see the transit of the Earth across because we are standing on Earth. So why do you continue to flame the post when you already know that the position viewed cannot be the Earth? Regardless of where we standing at the planet will transit in the same amount of time. If we are standing on Neptune and looking at the Earth, the Earth will transit the Sun in 13 hours compared to standing on the Moon the transit will still take 13 hours.

And there's the little fact you continue to ignore that the transit event of an object doesn't actually tell you anything about the object's orbit.

That is wrong. It take Venus on average 6 hours and 40 minutes to transit the Sun. It takes Earth around 13 hours to transit the Sun. Venus also orbits the Sun at a faster rate than the Earth does. Kepler's Law for comets also applies to planets as well. The closer a planet is to a sun the faster its orbit will be as will be the transit across the sun.

This equates to that since transits across KIC's surface have been recorded between 2.5 and 80 days in duration the objects are very far from KIC and are slow moving. Otherwise based on Kepler's Law then the transits would have been faster if the objects were closer to KIC.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Based on Kepler's Law if the objects had been comets even a large swarm of comets the swarm would had to have been close to KIC in order to sublimate causing cometary tails to form that would have caused the dim of KIC. Since Kepler's Law states that comets when closer to the Sun move faster and the recorded data shows transit days of 2.5 to 80 days then the objects causing the dims was not a large swarm of comets.

Unless, AGAIN, the transiting objects were in a highly elliptical orbit with an apopsis closer to Earth. A comet moving on an ellipse with a velocity of 50km/s or higher appears to be completely motionless when it's moving directly towards you. What's more, by the time it reaches apopsis it's orbital velocity momentarily reduces to almost zero before it starts the inward leg of its orbit again; if you viewed the transit from a time a few days to immediately before apopsis, the object would be moving VERY slowly.

Only circular orbits maintain full orbital velocity throughout the revolution. Local math guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is elliptical orbits only maintain the MEAN orbital velocity over the totality of the ellipse.

even a large swarm of comets would need to be grouped together and be around the size of Jupiter to be detected.

No, just their tails and debris clouds, which is actually very common for comets. Comet McNaught and Holmes both had tails several AUs long, and Holmes in particular once sported a coma 20% larger than the diameter of the sun. A single comet like 17/P Holmes could have accounted for one of the dimming events all by itself.

The reason they postulated a "swarm" of comets isn't because of the size of the dim, but because it happened more than once over a short period of time. This suggests multiple objects in similar orbits moving across the star at roughly the same time. A single comet could explain a transitory dip, but multiple dips a few days apart means a "swarm."

 

[Silvercrest]

Dryson, you still don't know what the word "evolve" means. You misuse it every time. And your post structure (and quotes) are becoming incoherent ... as much as they were coherent in the first place. Why on Earth did you delete your post #385 and re-post the contents later?

I think it's time to stop arguing with you and go back to the jokes. They're more rewarding.

 

[Dryson]

No, just their tails and debris clouds, which is actually very common for comets. Comet McNaught and Holmes both had tails several AUs long, and Holmes in particular once sported a coma 20% larger than the diameter of the sun. A single comet like 17/P Holmes could have accounted for one of the dimming events all by itself.

You don't have cometary tails which is called sublimation unless the comet comes close enough to the sun in order for sublimation to occur. Comet tails are only common when the comet comes close enough to the sun. Comet tails are not present with the comet when it is far away from the sun.

Comets do not cause a dim in light they cause light to be reflected.

The comet's coma—mostly microscopic particles—shines by reflecting sunlight. - See more at: http://www.space.com/4643-incredible-comet-bigger-sun.html#sthash.ZR3rzrI5.dpuf

If comets had been present around KIC and had been close enough where sublimation took place then the result would have been increases in light seen by Kepler as the light from KIC reflected off of the particles in the cometary tail and not dims in light.

Other scientists, however, suggested that comets and the trails of dust they leave behind might have been the culprit – a theory which was quite prevalent among astronomers for a period of time. Now additional evidence has surfaced showing that this theory is basically an impossibility.

http://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/10935-comets-aren-t-what-s-causing-kic-8462852-to-dim

....but Occam's Razor must be applied. The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation. In this case the simplest explanation would be God caused the events of KIC to take place. That is not even wrong. So what is the next simplest explanation? Comets. Not even possible.

The next explanation would have to be something taking place at the core of KIC 8462 that would translate to equal event at the surface of KIC. The explanation after the core and surface if not proven would have to be large planets with ring networks aligning precisely at the same moment with their rings interlocking to block out the light. The last explanation would to have to be alien interaction.

 

[Silvercrest]

Comets do not cause a dim in light they cause light to be reflected.

If comets had been present around KIC and had been close enough where sublimation took place then the result would have been increases in light seen by Kepler as the light from KIC reflected off of the particles in the cometary tail and not dims in light.

Suuuuure. If a reflective object passes between a star and an observer, the star appears to get brighter. Suuuure.
Did you know that the moon is reflective? Guess what happens when the moon passes between us and the sun. Go ahead, take a guess.

 

[Dryson]

Suuuuure. If a reflective object passes between a star and an observer, the star appears to get brighter. Suuuure.
Did you know that the moon is reflective? Guess what happens when the moon passes between us and the sun. Go ahead, take a guess.

The difference between the Moon and a comet with a cometary tail is that the Moon is solid and the coma is not. The light penetrating the coma of the comet would reflect off of the surfaces of the particles in all angles that would then interact with other angles of the particles causing the light to be reflected as well.

 

[Silvercrest]

Yep, reflected; i.e. sent in other directions. If had it continued along the original path, then it obviously wasn't reflected. If we agree that some of the light was reflected, then obviously not all of it continued on the original path. Resulting in a dim to any observer along the original path; i.e. us (and Kepler).

Or are you going to say that the light in question will get reinforcements from someplace and somehow become brighter?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You don't have cometary tails which is called sublimation unless the comet comes close enough to the sun in order for sublimation to occur. Comet tails are only common when the comet comes close enough to the sun. Comet tails are not present with the comet when it is far away from the sun.

And for an F-type star like Tabby's, I would expect sublimation would start to occur at least within about 4 AUs. Around the orbit of Jupiter, if not farther.

Comets do not cause a dim in light they cause light to be reflected.

So do clouds.

See how that works?

If comets had been present around KIC and had been close enough where sublimation took place then the result would have been increases in light seen by Kepler as the light from KIC reflected off of the particles in the cometary tail and not dims in light.

No, because the tail doesn't reflect more light than it receives; even if the tail was completely transparent to visible light, the result would simply be the star's brightness being unchanged.

The tail reflects certain amount of light (which would be relevant if the tail was BEHIND the star instead of in front of it) but more importantly, it also ABSORBS a significant amount of light, far more so than it actually reflects.

....but Occam's Razor must be applied. The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation. In this case the simplest explanation would be God caused the events of KIC to take place...

Which is a very good reason why "Occam's" Razor is basically irrelevant.

The difference between the Moon and a comet with a cometary tail is that the Moon is solid and the coma is not. The light penetrating the coma of the comet would reflect off of the surfaces of the particles in all angles that would then interact with other angles of the particles causing the light to be reflected as well.

No, because cometary particles are not perfect reflectors (or even NEAR perfect reflectors) and actually absorb a significant amount of that energy. What you're describing is basically scattering, the same phenomenon that causes stain glass windows and frosted glass to allow SOME light through them without being completely transparent.

 

[Dryson]

Yep, reflected; i.e. sent in other directions. If had it continued along the original path, then it obviously wasn't reflected. If we agree that some of the light was reflected, then obviously not all of it continued on the original path. Resulting in a dim to any observer along the original path; i.e. us (and Kepler).

Or are you going to say that the light in question will get reinforcements from someplace and somehow become brighter?

As the light is reflected inside of the coma the coma becomes brighter until the light passes through the coma when it doesn't come into contact with any particles that would reflect the light.

As comets approach our Sun [within about 450 million kilometers (280 million miles)], they heat up and the ice begins to sublimate (change from a solid directly to a gas). Since KIC is slightly larger than our own Sun the distance to sublimation would be around 300 million miles approximately.

As comets move close to the Sun, they develop tails of dust and ionized gas. Comets have two main tails, a dust tail and a plasma tail. The dust tail appears whitish-yellow because it is made up of tiny particles — about the size of particles of smoke — that reflect sunlight. Dust tails are typically between 1 and 10 million kilometers (about 600,000 to 6 million miles) long. The plasma tail is often blue because it contains carbon monoxide ions. Solar ultraviolet light breaks down the gas molecules, causing them to glow. Plasma tails can stretch tens of millions of kilometers into space. Rarely, they are as long as 150 million kilometers (almost 100 million miles). A third tail of sodium has been observed on Comet Hale-Bopp.


Cloud theory is another misconception

Myth #5: If it's cool or cloudy outside, you don't need sunscreen.

Reality: According to the SCF, up to 80 percent of the sun's UV rays can pass through clouds. This is the reason people often end up with serious sunburns on overcast days if they've spent time outside with no sun protection. Even in the winter months, you need to beware: Snow can reflect up to 80 percent of UV rays, increasing exposure. This is especially true if your family's on a ski vacation-- the higher your altitude, the greater your UV exposure.

Clouds on Earth do not have any relative value to a cometary tail.

 

[Silvercrest]

What are you talking about? Yeah, I know your real name — it's no secret. But this is the only place I post.

If a different person is calling you out on your nonsense somewhere else, that should be no surprise.

Edit: Ah, I see it's been retracted.

....but Occam's Razor must be applied. The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation. In this case the simplest explanation would be God caused the events of KIC to take place. That is not even wrong. So what is the next simplest explanation? Comets. Not even possible.

Which is a very good reason why "Occam's" Razor is basically irrelevant.

It's also inapplicable. Occam's Razor is only invoked when all the evidence is equal, and THEN you pick the simplest explanation. Do we consider the evidence equal?

On the other hand: Since we're apparently giving equal weight to fact, fantasy, personal opinion, and aliens, than I'm going to maintain that a wizard did it. An alien wizard with tentacles and two heads. He lives over in Andromeda.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As the light is reflected inside of the coma the coma becomes brighter until the light passes through the coma when it doesn't come into contact with any particles that would reflect the light.

And not all of the light that interacts with the coma passes through or is reflected. Some of that light -- a significant portion, in fact -- is absorbed and drives chemical reactions. For instance, when Solar ultraviolet light breaks down the gas molecules, causing them to glow. That is a form of fluorescence, a process that doesn't actually produce an INCREASE in luminosity except under very specific conditions.

Although, the idea that the crystals in a comet's tail could be used as the gain medium in a gigantic solar-flare-pumped x-ray laser definitely appeals to my inner trekkie...

 

[Dryson]

And not all of the light that interacts with the coma passes through or is reflected. Some of that light -- a significant portion, in fact -- is absorbed and drives chemical reactions. For instance, when Solar ultraviolet light breaks down the gas molecules, causing them to glow. That is a form of fluorescence, a process that doesn't actually produce an INCREASE in luminosity except under very specific conditions.

Although, the idea that the crystals in a comet's tail could be used as the gain medium in a gigantic solar-flare-pumped x-ray laser definitely appeals to my inner trekkie...

Chemical reactions that freeze instantly due to the extreme cold of space compared to the extremely warmer climate that the clouds on Earth are part of.

My recent response from Brad Schaefer.

Hi;
Yes, I totally agree with you. And as part of all this, we gotta consider all the possibilities, because there might be loopholes that Nature might have slipped through with. You pointed out two great reasons as to why the comets could not last 'long'; the comets will be evaporated and that other planets in the system would perturb the orbits of the comet family out of their tight grouping. Yes. Both of these mechanisms take perhaps centuries or millennia to work, depending critically on what the orbits actually are. So a loophole would be if the comet family was recently formed, say within the last orbit or within the last few years. Perhaps some poor super-giant-comet (say, like a large Kuiper Belt Object) randomly got hit and broken up back in 1982, and on its usual orbit the now-cluster of comet fragments is emitting enough dust (from the breakup) that when it passes in front of the star we see a dimming. Well, this has a lot of problems too. Well, this is the sort of logic (seeking loopholes, or seeking some sub-scenario) that might work.
Hmmm, but it still dips and dims. But you and I have refutations for all proposals on the table, including the extreme-speculation idea. So *something* is going on, and we have not spotted it yet. And that is why casting around for ideas is important. I'm thinking that there are only two types of solutions. The first is that there is some hidden loophole to one of our 'refutations', and Nature has quietly slipped into that loophole. The second is that there is some new fresh idea not yet thought of.
So let me propose a good likely means to make a big advance: We should get a spectrum of the star *during* a dip. From the spectrum, we might see absorption lines from any gas associated with the 'occulter', we might see a reddening that would point to the occulter being mainly dust, or we might see a color neutral dip that would point to a solid body. Thus, a spectrum would tell us the nature of the occulter, and this would greatly narrow down models. But dips in the KIC 8462852 light curve are uncommon, so we have to await the next big dip. Also importantly, we have to have some sort of an alert system to know when the star is undergoing one of its day-long dips. So someone has to keep monitorring the star, hour-by-hour, waiting for it to dip, then alert observers with spectrometers on big telescopes, and then they can get the spectra during a dip. Tabby Boyajian is leading a group of observers from the American Association of Variable Stars Observers (AAVSO) who are keeping the star under nearly continuous monitorring. These observers are worldwide and they are great, and they are of professional quality. Tabby also has lined up big scopes to fast switch over to her star whenever a dip is found. (This includes the Swift spacecraft.) Alas, so far, there have been no dips. But they will come sometime, and we'll get a spectrum in a dip, and learn the nature of the occulter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Chemical reactions that freeze instantly due to the extreme cold of space compared to the extremely warmer climate that the clouds on Earth are part of.

Exactly. It's a highly endothermic reaction occurring in the total vacuum of space; that's ALOT of energy being absorbed rather than reflected or scattered.

My recent response from Brad Schaefer.

Is enlightening for this one:

We should get a spectrum of the star *during* a dip. From the spectrum, we might see absorption lines from any gas associated with the 'occulter', we might see a reddening that would point to the occulter being mainly dust, or we might see a color neutral dip that would point to a solid body. Thus, a spectrum would tell us the nature of the occulter, and this would greatly narrow down models.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is actually one of the first things the Kepler team looked for. Tabby's Star is too bright to get a clear reading on the occulter, though, especially if we're catching it during a transit; you would have to find some way to separate the star's signal from that of whatever is near it in order to be able to distinctly tell them apart.

It's not a bad idea, it's just not really feasible (unless NASA ever completes the Jim Webb telescope, in which case it might JUST be doable).

 

[Dryson]

Why transits are important.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/venus/question4.html

I think there might also be some planets smaller than Earth that caused some of the transits.

At days 140, 208, 1209 and 1490 there are dims that occur with a value of .0038 - .0050 / .9962 - .9950. Earth causes a dim that measures at .01/.9900. The values listed are half or slightly lower than Earth's and could suggest planets ranging in size from a smaller Earth but larger than Mars and Mars sized planets orbiting KIC 8462.