Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 691 to 704 of 704

Thread: Up to 22% Dips Detected in Starlight 1,500 LY Away

  1. #691
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    384
    I understand that at least one astronomer observing KIC 8462852 was notified of the discovery of this supposed dip in light output some time ago, via Reddit. That seems to compensate for the 'overlooked' possibility.

    A lack of response there, even a negative one, in light of a former willingness to communicate, suggests that a simple refutation might not have been considered appropriate. Perhaps the question of the dip's significance can not be scientifically resolved at this time. Alternatively, perhaps something potentially significant was discerned, but requires further analysis, before speaking openly of it.

  2. #692
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Ross 54 View Post
    I understand that at least one astronomer observing KIC 8462852 was notified of the discovery of this supposed dip in light output some time ago, via Reddit. That seems to compensate for the 'overlooked' possibility.
    I did notice that a few days ago. I believe that you were the person who brought it up, and you didn't really get a positive or negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross 54 View Post
    A lack of response there, even a negative one, in light of a former willingness to communicate, suggests that a simple refutation might not have been considered appropriate. Perhaps the question of the dip's significance can not be scientifically resolved at this time. Alternatively, perhaps something potentially significant was discerned, but requires further analysis, before speaking openly of it.
    I think we can agree that we can't make any definitive conclusions about it. So I think it's completely appropriate to discuss it in the context of "if this ends up being true, then..." I was a bit concerned (maybe wrongly so) that some people seemed to be discussing it as if it were a definite finding that had to be explained.
    As above, so below

  3. #693
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Ross 54 View Post
    If one wants to consider technological possibilities, carbon is beginning to be recognized as a advanced construction material. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that stellar engineering, or megastructures, wherever they might exist, make use of carbon nanotubes in various forms.
    That might be true, but what you're doing it taking the latest early 21st century thing and projecting it into a future that seems a bit further along. So maybe there's something else, even better than carbon, that is being used at that time.
    As above, so below

  4. #694
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Ross 54 View Post
    Particles that preferentially absorb green light should be around 510 to 550 nanometers in size. Since carbon nanotubes are on the order of 1 nanometer in diameter, complex structures built up from these could assume dimensions capable of preferentially obscuring green light.
    That may be true, but then you could say that for any size. Is there any reason that complex structures would be 510 to 550 instead of say 200 or 300 or 700? To me, that's like saying, "there is a building 100 feet long, and bricks are a foot long, so it must be a brick building."
    As above, so below

  5. #695
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I did notice that a few days ago. I believe that you were the person who brought it up, and you didn't really get a positive or negative response?




    I think we can agree that we can't make any definitive conclusions about it. So I think it's completely appropriate to discuss it in the context of "if this ends up being true, then..." I was a bit concerned (maybe wrongly so) that some people seemed to be discussing it as if it were a definite finding that had to be explained.
    Yes, I brought the matter up on Reddit. A moderator then decided to bring it to the attention of Dr. Boyajian, who besides actively observing KIC 8462852, is also a moderator there. I am not aware that she has given any response.

    There is nothing definite about the supposed Nov.--Dec. 2016 dip in light output. It merely looked to me as if a reasonable case could be made for it, and that it was worth pursuing, in the absence of more obvious dips.
    Last edited by Ross 54; 2017-Mar-06 at 02:48 AM.

  6. #696
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    That might be true, but what you're doing it taking the latest early 21st century thing and projecting it into a future that seems a bit further along. So maybe there's something else, even better than carbon, that is being used at that time.
    Hard to know how long a given technology will remain useful. Humans discovered fire at least half a million years ago, and still find it has many valuable applications, some not so very different from the original ones.

  7. #697
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    That may be true, but then you could say that for any size. Is there any reason that complex structures would be 510 to 550 instead of say 200 or 300 or 700? To me, that's like saying, "there is a building 100 feet long, and bricks are a foot long, so it must be a brick building."
    I had been working with the suggested premise, that absorption of light from the star in the V band could be due to carbon compounds. It seemed unlikely that enough of these would be present in comets or the intervening interstellar medium to dim the star by 4 percent.

    With the idea of carbon still in mind, I recalled the work that has begun with carbon nanotubes. Seeing that they are much smaller than the wavelength of V band light, complex assemblies of them suggested itself. The connection with the original suggestion about the Swan bands of absorption by relatively simple carbon compounds is admittedly tenuous.

  8. #698
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    I (as a contributor) have just received a report on KIC 8462852 by Boyagian from Kickstarter.

  9. #699
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I (as a contributor) have just received a report on KIC 8462852 by Boyagian from Kickstarter.
    So what does it say?
    As above, so below

  10. #700
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    So what does it say?
    The report is supposed to be for the people who contributed money to the campaign...I just thought I'd give a heads up to people who don't follow their email much. I am one of those people, BTW, it is just a fluke that I was checking my email for something else a few minutes after the report arrived.
    I could copy and paste the report, but I'm not sure that would be "cricket".

  11. #701
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,028
    My understanding (from the thread you started on reddit!) is that there was reference to a dip in 1978 (but I have no idea what the observational data is from), and also that they are requesting time on the HST to do imaging. Again I don't know what data they would get from the HST.
    As above, so below

  12. #702
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    In the last few weeks there were a couple articles on KIC 8462852 on Dream of the Open Channel:
    https://disownedsky.blogspot.com/

  13. #703
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    In the last few weeks there were a couple articles on KIC 8462852 on Dream of the Open Channel:
    https://disownedsky.blogspot.com/
    Don't suppose you'd care to highlight some goodies?

  14. #704
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Don't suppose you'd care to highlight some goodies?
    He does a lot of data analysis with the AAVSO observations. There seems to be some statistical basis for a slight dimming over the time the AAVSO has been observing this star, but there needs to be more data to confirm it, so he plans to update the results in a few months.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •