The merged and improved (?) KIC 8462852 thread

[Silvercrest]

But I can prove he's being scientific! I've got transit charts here and everything!

Oh, wait ... that's the bus schedule.

Okay, fine, I will claim no such thing.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

In any case, since when was it acceptable to use "dim" a noun as well as a verb or an adjective? I think the appropriate noun is "dimming." In British English, "the dim" is generally taken as short for "the dim people", similar to "the rich" or "the poor".

I don't have a theory for either the dimming or the dim.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you can provide your own data proof Crazy E. that proves Dr. Schaefer is wrong then go on national T.V.

Why? Schaefer didn't go on national TV and his paper hasn't even been peer reviewed. I might as well try to get a spot on the Tonight Show just to refute YOUR ridiculous claims.

The simple fact is, nobody really cares. Schaeffer's wrong, and I think he KNOWS he's wrong, but he posted that bullshit anyway because he wanted to get in on this whole "alien megastructure?" thing in the last news cycle for publicity purposes. The best way to deal with an attention whore is to ignore him, and that's probably for the best.

Light Chart of KIC 8462. In the image below I have labeled the chart at the top that corresponds with the spreadsheet data.

Clearly I gave you too much credit.

I went back and looked up the original paper anyway, and here is the caption for that chart:

Transcribed for your easy reading:

Four details of the KIC 8462852 light curve.

Top left: The high frequency "noise" is likely due to either rotationally modulated surface inhomogeneities [basically, sunspots], but the two deeper events at days 216 and 262 are due to something else. There is also additional variation at the 0.05% level that persists throughout the light curve, which may be due to typical F-star granulation.

Top right: A shorter, complex event.

Bottom left: a deep, isolated asymmetric event in the Kepler data for KIC 8462. The deepest portion of the event is a couple of days long, but the long "tails" extend for over 10 days.

Bottom right: a complex series of events. The deepest event extends below 0.8, off the bottom of the figure. It is unclear if the event at day 1540 might be related to the event at day 2016 from the upper right, which is almost 10 times shallower but has a similar shape and duration. This shape is not repeated elsewhere in the light curve. Note the differences in scales among the panels.

From this very same paper, on the very same page these charts come from:

To explain the events as transits, one must apparently invoke a large number of individual transiting objects. The durations of the events and lack of repetition require the objects to be on long-period orbits. A depth of 22% for the deepest event implies a size of around half the stellar radius (or larger if, like a ring system, the occulter is not completely opaque). The asymmetries imply that either the star or the occulter deviate significantly from spherical symmetry. The elementary event at (BJD=2454833)=733 in figure 2 typified all three of these qualifications.

The complexity of the light curves provide additional constraints: for a start with a uniformly illuminated disk and an occulter with a constant shape, the shape of the occulter determines the magnitude of the slope during ingress or egress, but not its sign: a positive slope can only be accomplished by material during third and fourth contact, or by material changing direction multiple times mid-transit (as, for instant, a moon might). The light curves of KIC-8462 clearly show multiple reversals (see events between (BJD-2454833)=1500 and 2508 in figure 2) indicating some material is undergoing egress prior to other material experiencing ingress during a single "event." This implies either occulter with star-sized gaps, multiple overlapping transit events, or complex non-Keplerian motion.

The large number of events requires there to be a large number of these occulter -- at least 8, just from the events shown in Figure 2, plus an uncertain number of lower-level events (but at least another 8).

Explanations involving large ring system are appealing, but the deepest events of KIC 8462 are separated by years (with no periodicity). Also, unlike, for instance, ISWASP J1407, the KIC-8462 events do not occur symmetrically in time as one would expect from a giant ring system as the leading then trailing parts of the ring occult the star. In addition, explanations invoking rings and disks would seem to be excluded by the stars lack of IR excess, lack of emission consistent with accretion, and large kinematic age.

Boyajian et al suggest several explanations, but settle on a "family of exocomet fragments, all of which are associated with a single previous breakup event" as one "most consistent with the data."

Emphasis mine.

You are quoting a paper that says "It was probably comets" and using its data to claim "It's not comets." That makes no sense. Especially since the people who CREATED this chart disagree with almost all of your conclusions:
1) The occulter had an irregular shape and was very large, probably at least the diameter of the star if not more
2) The occulter was probably not entirely opaque
3) The occulter was in irregular motion as it transited
4) The occulter was in a highly irregular orbit and the transit events were only observed once
5) The occulter is probably a composite of multiple objects (at least 16 different pieces) that crossed the star at different times
6) The occulter is cool enough that it does not have a significant IR signature that would stand out from the star's glare.

IOW, the paper you're citing basically concedes "it was probably comets." More importantly, the PURPOSE of the paper is to explore the possibility that the occulter was an artificial structure in origin in comparison to the probability of a occurring object. To that end they concluded that it COULD have been an artificial structure of some kind, and that:

KIC-8462852 shows transit signatures consistent with a swarm of artificial objects, and we strongly encourage intense SETI efforts on it, in addition to conventional astronomical efforts to find more such objects (since, if it is natural, it is both very interesting in its own right and unlikely to be unique).

Most importantly:

The images on the bottom are used to show both the Earth's and Jupiter's transit's across our own Sun and the amount of dim caused.

No they're not. All four of these charts are Kepler's observations from Tabby's star. NONE of them show the transit of Earth or the transit of Jupiter.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dryson]

Understanding the light curve of transit data. In the image below you can see how a planet creates a curve in the light of a planet. The top image show the planet transiting across a star if you where looking at the planet and sun straight on. The bottom image shows the planet and sun from the top with the planet transiting across the same sun. The down ward curve at the beginning of the transit is where the planet or object is blocking the light of sun as it transits across the sun where a curve in light results because of the planet and sun being viewed where an angle is created or where the transit begins. The same curve is present at the end of the transit as well.

 

[sojourner]

23 pages in to this thread do you really think there is someone that doesn't know this by now?

 

[Dryson]

The images on the bottom are used to show both the Earth's and Jupiter's transit's across our own Sun and the amount of dim caused.
No they're not. All four of these charts are Kepler's observations from Tabby's star. NONE of them show the transit of Earth or the transit of Jupiter.

Sorry Crazy E. But you are wrong.

I said a comparison of where the data for Earth would and Jupiter would reside at on the chart so that other people might be able to understand how large the objects causing the dim would be.

I did not say that the Earth and Jupiter were part of the charts.

It's obvious that you have 100% NO IDEA of what is taking place and you are implying that a comparison between the charts and data would be wrong. You are trying to imply semantics as a proof of science. Semantics is nothing more than the delusional trying to CREATE reality with words.

The Normalized Flux and Time Period meters are a standard form of chart used to measure the brightness of all sun. The chart starts at zero from both points and then has a linear value where the dims of light from KIC and other suns are then measured.

Earth causes a .01/.9900 % dim to our Sun. Jupiter causes a 1/.9000% dim to our Sun which I showed on the above chart as a comparison relative to a planets size associated with a standard already determined to be known to cause dims relative to the amount of light blocked.

No they're not. All four of these charts are Kepler's observations from Tabby's star. NONE of them show the transit of Earth or the transit of Jupiter.
You don't know what you're talking about.

The images on the bottom are used to show both the Earth's and Jupiter's transit's across our own Sun and the amount of dim caused.

I never stated that the chart had the transits of Earth and Jupiter on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.03622

Over the duration of the Kepler mission, KIC8462852 was observed to undergo irregularly shaped, aperiodic dips in flux of up to ∼20\%. The dipping activity can last for between 5 and 80 days. We characterize the object with high-resolution spectroscopy, spectral energy distribution fitting, radial velocity measurements, high-resolution imaging, and Fourier analyses of the Kepler light curve. We determine that KIC8462852 is a typical main-sequence F3 V star that exhibits no significant IR excess, and has no very close interacting companions. In this paper, we describe various scenarios to explain the dipping events observed in the Kepler light curve. We confirm that the dipping signals in the data are not caused by any instrumental or data processing artifact, and thus are astrophysical in origin. We construct scenario-independent constraints on the size and location of a body in the system that is needed to reproduce the observations. We deliberate over several assorted stellar and circumstellar astrophysical scenarios, most of which have problems explaining the data in hand. By considering the observational constraints on dust clumps in orbit around a normal main-sequence star, we conclude that the scenario most consistent with the data in hand is the passage of a family of exocomet or planetesimal fragments, all of which are associated with a single previous break-up event, possibly caused by tidal disruption or thermal processing. The minimum total mass associated with these fragments likely exceeds 10−6~\mearth, corresponding to an original rocky body of >100~km in diameter. We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system.

planetesimal fragments....This is most likely the cause as comets would have to have come close to the sun in order to sublimate causing any amount of dim to take place. There is not any data that has proven that a large group of exocomets has ever caused a dim of a sun passing through a solar system.

Planetesimal fragments or clumps of stellar chunky debris would have more total area to cause the dims of KIC 8462 than a large swarm of comets ever would.

4) The occulter was in a highly irregular orbit and the transit events were only observed once.

If the object were comets then like Haley's Comet that orbits the Sun once every 86 years then the events at KIC 8462 would have been recorded more often and on a consistent basis seeing as how the data from KIC 8462 has taken 1,500 years to travel to Earth.

The transit events were only observed once from Kepler even though KIC 8462 has been observed for that last 100 years or so.

I am going to have to say that objects that caused the dims of KIC 8462 were planetesimals.

http://www.universetoday.com/35974/planetesimals/

I was also looking at this article of the recent asteroid that came close to Earth.
http://www.universetoday.com/127215/small-asteroid-to-pass-earth-on-march-5th/

On October 6th, 2013, the Catalina Sky Survey discovered a small asteroid which was later designated as 2013 TX68. As part Apollo group this 30 meter (100 ft) rock is one of many Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that periodically crosses Earth’s orbit and passes close to our planet. A few years ago, it did just that, flying by our planet at a safe distance of about 2 million km (1.3 million miles).

Asteroid 2013 TX68 passed by the Earth in 2013. The same asteroid will pass by Earth again in 2017. Asteroid 2013 TX68 will not pass by again until 2046 and 2097.

Starting in 2013 the data shows that asteroid TX68 took four years in its first orbit of Earth but will take 29 years for the next orbit and then 51 years on its next orbit. Comets do not fluctuate in their orbits like we see the data of KIC 8462 fluctuating.

With this recent article I would have to say that a large planet like Jupiter with a network of rings around it is present in the KIC 8462 solar system. With the erratic dims of KIC 8462 and the erratic orbital patterns of asteroid 2013 TX68 a system wide swarm of large asteroids in KIC would be present in the solar system where their long period of orbits would suggest that the objects are moving out of the solar system.

Hopefully this is the cause of the dims of KIC 8462. Suggestively based off of the TX68 asteroid orbiting Earth there could be not only a Jupiter sized planet but also an Earth like planet in orbit around KIC 8462.

 

[Silvercrest]

You're not going to convince anyone simply by declaring that they're 100% wrong and then throwing out a bunch of hamfisted quotes and gibberish. This isn't the Dogma forum. If you want any real exchange of information, someday you'll need to learn to listen to other people.

 

[Draculasaurus]

It's probably an alien mini-structure inside the telescope!

 

[Dryson]

You're not going to convince anyone simply by declaring that they're 100% wrong and then throwing out a bunch of hamfisted quotes and gibberish. This isn't the Dogma forum. If you want any real exchange of information, someday you'll need to learn to listen to other people.

If you want someone to listen then you first have to tell everyone where you got your education from in order to be trusted that you not running a scam. None of you can ever say who you really are so your educational background can be investigated for legitimacy. Until you provide your education background then NO ONE should listen to what you or Crazy E has to say.

This is a science fiction forum Silvercrest.

The first RULE of science is to never listen to someone else but instead read and conduct your own research first. Listening to someone else without reading and learning for yourself makes you a FOOL.

 

[Dryson]

It's probably an alien mini-structure inside the telescope!

Maybe not inside of the telescope but it could be alien in nature. For those who think aliens are rubbish can you even prove that God exists?

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Maybe not inside of the telescope but it could be alien in nature. For those who think aliens are rubbish can you even prove that God exists?

Well I see this thread has jumped the shark. Even your imaginary god could not save it.

 

[sojourner]

If you want someone to listen then you first have to tell everyone where you got your education from in order to be trusted that you not running a scam. None of you can ever say who you really are so your educational background can be investigated for legitimacy. Until you provide your education background then NO ONE should listen to what you or Crazy E has to say.

So, what are your credentials? why should anyone listen to you?

This is a science fiction forum Silvercrest.

Nope, this is the Science and Technology forum. Not a place for fiction.

The first RULE of science is to never listen to someone else but instead read and conduct your own research first. Listening to someone else without reading and learning for yourself makes you a FOOL.

You've made that abundantly clear.

 

[Dryson]

You say that you are scientists, more like Scientologists,

Now back on topic...

On October 6th, 2013, the Catalina Sky Survey discovered a small asteroid which was later designated as 2013 TX68. As part Apollo group this 30 meter (100 ft) rock is one of many Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that periodically crosses Earth’s orbit and passes close to our planet. A few years ago, it did just that, flying by our planet at a safe distance of about 2 million km (1.3 million miles).

Asteroid 2013 TX68 passed by the Earth in 2013. The same asteroid will pass by Earth again in 2017. Asteroid 2013 TX68 will not pass by again until 2046 and 2097.

Starting in 2013 the data shows that asteroid TX68 took four years in its first orbit of Earth but will take 29 years for the next orbit and then 51 years on its next orbit. Comets do not fluctuate in their orbits like we see the data of KIC 8462 fluctuating.

With this recent article I would have to say that a large planet like Jupiter with a network of rings around it is present in the KIC 8462 solar system. With the erratic dims of KIC 8462 and the erratic orbital patterns of asteroid 2013 TX68 a system wide swarm of large asteroids in KIC would be present in the solar system where their long period of orbits would suggest that the objects are moving out of the solar system.

Hopefully this is the cause of the dims of KIC 8462. Suggestively based off of the TX68 asteroid orbiting Earth there could be not only a Jupiter sized planet but also an Earth like planet in orbit around KIC 8462.


A comet or large swarm of comets would not cause dims of up to 15% and 22% because there was not a cometary tail present that would have trailed behind the large swarm of comets. The large swarm of comets have created a large dim at first and as the comet transited KIC 8462 the cometary tail would have created a dim comparable to the size of the comet swarm itself that would have lasted far longer over the time period that the large swarm of comets transited.

A large swarm might cause a dim comparable to Earth or possible Jupiter but not a dim of 15% and 22%.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

2mm tolerance is huge. I think they could have managed that in the 17th century.

 

[sojourner]

I think he's trying to say he's an auto mechanic.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

You say that you are scientists, more like Scientologists,

I doubt even Scientologists would be willing to claim you.

 

[Dryson]

Sorry to burst your little Comet Bubble....

Still more proof that planets larger than Jupiter, many times larger exist and have been discovered.

There are exoplanets smaller than Mercury, and others many times bigger than Jupiter.
http://www.space.com/31982-eying-exomoons-in-the-search-for-e-t.html

Based on the article saying that exoplanets many times larger than Jupiter exist we can satisfactorily say that a planet many times larger than Jupiter could have caused the dims of KIC 8462.


An enormous alien planet — one that is 11 times more massive than Jupiter — was discovered in the most distant orbit yet found around a single parent star.

The newfound exoplanet, dubbed HD 106906 b, dwarfs any planetary body in the solar system, and circles its star at a distance that is 650 times the average distance between the Earth and the sun. The existence of such a massive and distantly orbiting planet raises new questions about how these bizarre worlds are formed, the researchers said.

HD 106906 b - http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...scovered-in-most-distant-orbit-ever-seen.html

A enormous planet orbiting KIC 8462 that would have massive gravity that would affect other celestial objects between KIC and the planet.

 

[Silvercrest]

So, what are your credentials? why should anyone listen to you? .

He's a welder.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I did not say that the Earth and Jupiter were part of the charts.

Then any comparison to the hypothetical occultation of Earth and Jupiter across this star is irrelevant. We don't have any data that would show what the light curve would look like in these circumstances and we have no basis for comparison.

Moving on...

It's obvious that you have 100% NO IDEA of what is taking place

Of course I do. I know exactly what the researchers know, and that's the fact that a swarm of comets (at least 16 nuclei) fit the data most reliably. That's all ANYONE knows at this point.

I never stated that the chart had the transits of Earth and Jupiter on it.

Again, given that you don't have the slightest idea what the light curve of an Earth or Jupiter-sized object in transit would look like for a star like this, you have no basis for comparison.

The comparison is irrelevant anyway. The light curve's pattern is entirely inconsistent with occultation by a small spherical body. It IS consistent with a large irregular semi-opaque body, which pretty much narrows it down to ring systems, accretion disks, and comets.

If the object were comets then like Haley's Comet that orbits the Sun once every 86 years then the events at KIC 8462 would have been recorded more often and on a consistent basis seeing as how the data from KIC 8462 has taken 1,500 years to travel to Earth.

No, because we've only been WATCHING it for luminosity changes -- or for that matter, had the capacity to detect minute luminosity changes with any precision -- for the past 10 years.

The transit events were only observed once from Kepler even though KIC 8462 has been observed for that last 100 years or so...

Kepler's only been in orbit for 7 years. If a previous transit occurred at any time before that we would have had no way of detecting it.

I am going to have to say that objects that caused the dims of KIC 8462 were planetesimals.

Planetesimals are inconsistent with the light curve data in almost every way.

If you want someone to listen then you first have to tell everyone where you got your education from in order to be trusted that you not running a scam.

I have a BS in computer science from the University of Pittsburgh and associates degrees in network administration and electrical engineering from two smaller community colleges. How about you?

Until you provide your education background then NO ONE should listen to what you or Crazy E has to say.

Then why should we listen to YOU?

Listening to someone else without reading and learning for yourself makes you a FOOL.

Again: why should we listen to YOU? Especially when we can plainly read the paper you're (mis)quoting from and see that it contradicts your theories in almost every way?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A large swarm might cause a dim comparable to Earth or possible Jupiter but not a dim of 15% and 22%.

Already covered in the original research paper, and I repeat again:
1) The occulter had an irregular shape and was very large, probably at least the diameter of the star if not more
2) The occulter was not entirely opaque
3) The occulter was in irregular motion as it transited
4) The occulter was in a highly irregular orbit and the transit events were only observed once
5) The occulter is probably a composite of multiple objects (at least 16 different pieces) that crossed the star at different times
6) The occulter is cool enough that it does not have a significant IR signature that would stand out from the star's glare.

The bolded properties give us clues to what it is and what it isn't
1) It is at least as large as the star itself; this rules it planets or planetessimals.
2) Partially based on #1, it is not totally opaque, so even when it completely occulted the star some light still shined through it. This rules out solid objects.
3) The irregularity of the light curve shows reversals, which means some parts of the occulter were moving in different directions as the whole mass moved across the star. This also rules out solid objects and indicates the occulter is a nebulous mass of smaller particles; this narrows it down to a ring, an accretion disk, or a cometary body.
4) The long duration of occultation indicates a long-period, highly elliptical orbit. This eliminates rings and disks and most types of planets.
5) Multiple separate occultation events that had similar characteristics but different magnitudes suggests this happened more than once while Kepler was watching. This eliminates conventional planets since it would have to be caused by multiple planets on the same orbit.
6) The occultator did not have a prominent IR signature. This rules out dusty/rocky bodies such as asteroids or dust clouds.

If you want to introduce something other than comets, you need to find some way to make your explanation consistent with the factors above, and stop making up new "should bes" or "wouldn't sees" from your own imagination.