I suppose if we're going to be arbitrary about naming this star, I hereby declare it Req's star! Thread #3(or is it 4) incoming!
The main problem with the previous thread is that it seems to be undergoing an extreme dimming event so that it's not even observable any more.
Jason Wright – @Astro_Wright@EricMamajek Now that we have a TGAS distance & space motion, is it weird that TYC 8830-410-1 has a big IR excess?http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...15C …
Not strictly related but can anyone explain the significance of this new Tweet by Jason Wright?QuoteJason Wright – @Astro_Wright@EricMamajek Now that we have a TGAS distance & space motion, is it weird that TYC 8830-410-1 has a big IR excess?http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...15C …This is the only reference I can find and it's a little old.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015sofi.prop..130S
Well this is just a guess but; often when you are talking about a star's position and motion through the galaxy you are using it as a proxy for age. I would assume what he's alluding to is the space motion implies it comes from an old population, one which shouldn't be undergoing an LHB to keep the dust hot.
Eric Mamajek – @EricMamajek@Astro_Wright @steinly0 I'll be visiting your dept Wed am - can chat then on this object
The star KIC 8462852 shows a very unusual and hard to comprehend light curve. The dip d7922 absorbs 16% of the starlight. The light curve is unusually smooth but the very steep edges make it hard to find a simple natural explanation by covering due to comets or other well-known planetary objects. We describe a mathematical approximation to the light curve, which is motivated by a physically meaningful event of a large stellar beam which generates an orbiting cloud. The data might fit to the science fiction idea of star lifting, a mining technology that could extract star matter. We extend the model to d1519 and d1568 using multiple beams and get an encouraging result that fits essential parts of the dips but misses other parts of the measured flux. We recommend further exploration of this concept with refined models.
3. The ModelThe main aim of this paper is a physical model for the flux variation of the dip at day 792.The model is based on the idea, that a stream of matter leaves the star into space similar asobserved in solar flares. The difference is, the stream of matter is quite high and lifts thematter into a stable orbit. It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of thisevent in detail.
From the paper by Eduard Heindl at:https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08368Quote3. The ModelThe main aim of this paper is a physical model for the flux variation of the dip at day 792.The model is based on the idea, that a stream of matter leaves the star into space similar asobserved in solar flares. The difference is, the stream of matter is quite high and lifts thematter into a stable orbit. It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of thisevent in detail. Bold & underline is my addition.The beam model was briefly discussed in the "WTF" thread. The fit of the model to the data is interesting. The paper would have done itself a favor if it ended after section 5. The last 2 pages does exactly what it said was not the aim, which was to bring in the ETI hypothesis as the explanation for the mechanics of the dimming.It would be interesting to see how the paper gets reviewed if all reference to star lifting was scrubbed. It have the feeling it would be like the EM Drive threads where current work on EM drives show some resultant force without any basis in physics as is currently understood to offer an explanation of how it works.I think the paper may also suffer from some language barriers. The proposal of a lifted beam ( or CME) with a trail of "smoke" makes no sense. What becomes of a CME when it condenses, or is no longer ejected plasma?
Why would the author delete such sections when it's clear that's one of the topics he wants to discuss.Just because you may happen to not to agree with this hypothesis does not mean that such a debate should be stifled.
Quote from: Star One on 11/29/2016 05:54 AMWhy would the author delete such sections when it's clear that's one of the topics he wants to discuss.Just because you may happen to not to agree with this hypothesis does not mean that such a debate should be stifled.The author, Mr. Heindl, said that "It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of thisevent in detail",... and he then went about doing just that by including all the speculation on starlifting by ETI's. I'm OK with speculation on starlifting, I don't want to stifle anything, however his paper forfeits congruity by saying one thing and then doing another. I think the paper may be more interesting if he would have focused on demonstrating the strong fit of modeling a "beam" of matter extended from the stars surface as the mechanism of the dimming, and leave out all ETI speculation. The paper will likely be dismissed by serious academics for including these claims that would better off bifurcated & discussed separate from the ETI hypothesis.It is logically more palatable to just make supportable proposals as to what the source of the dimming might be, when the more controversial argument is the cause. (i.e ETI's) The same goes for J. Wrights proposal for ISM/bok globules. The body of knowledge regarding the internal structure of bok globules or other ISM is pretty sparse. However each proposal has to first demonstrate it can "model" the dimming, and then subsequent predictions for future observations can test the hypothesis.
Again you have not answered the point why shouldn't they at least discuss these matters other to confirm to some kind of institutional bias.
RADIO SETI OBSERVATIONS OF THE ANOMALOUS STAR KIC 8462852G. R. Harp1, Jon Richards1, Seth Shostak1, J. C. Tarter1, Douglas A. Vakoch1,2, and Chris Munson1Published 2016 July 13 • 2016. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 825, Number 2
These limits correspond to isotropic radio transmitter powers of (4–7) 1015 W and 1019 W for the narrowband and moderate band observations. These can be compared with Earth's strongest transmitters, including the Arecibo Observatory's planetary radar (2 1013 W EIRP). Clearly, the energy demands for a detectable signal from KIC 8462852 are far higher than this terrestrial example (largely as a consequence of the distance of this star). On the other hand, these energy requirements could be very substantially reduced if the emissions were beamed in our direction.