Quote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 03:02 pmI wonder if these papers have taken us as far as we can go in the study of this star with our current technology. That the unknowns will have to remain until better technology is available for its study.Not at all. The papers discuss future observations and what can be tested by them. Also, this work provides a foundation for theorists to come with more specific models, which will very likely motivate new observations.One of the main points in Jason Wrights blog posts (now public http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2017/12/26/what-weve-learned-about-boyajians-star/, http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2017/12/26/what-weve-learned-about-boyajians-star-ii/) is that more detailed theoretical work is required to understand whether they can really fit the observations.
I wonder if these papers have taken us as far as we can go in the study of this star with our current technology. That the unknowns will have to remain until better technology is available for its study.
Quote from: notsorandom on 01/03/2018 03:26 pmQuote from: Stan-1967 on 01/03/2018 02:12 pmYep, I'm glad to see some progress in explaining it all, but I still find it extremely easy to invoke ETI to still be consistent with what has been learned. Even ETI's might make a bit of pollution while making their structures. See how easy that was! I think they are doing a good job of chasing those aliens away! When the dips were first noticed once of the causes that fit the data back then was an optically thick and cold object. Which would have been weird. That scenario fit with some proposed ETI explanations. We now know that it is dust that is causing the dips and not something else so we can rule out some of the initially proposed ETI scenarios. The data thus far is inconsistent with a Dyson sphere, ring, or swarm being the cause of these latest dips. Something is generating dust and there doesn't appear to be anything yet observed that would favor an artificial source for it over a natural source. Also if I had a giant energy collecting structure I wouldn't want dust anywhere near it!That’s a rather skewed analysis.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 01/03/2018 02:12 pmYep, I'm glad to see some progress in explaining it all, but I still find it extremely easy to invoke ETI to still be consistent with what has been learned. Even ETI's might make a bit of pollution while making their structures. See how easy that was! I think they are doing a good job of chasing those aliens away! When the dips were first noticed once of the causes that fit the data back then was an optically thick and cold object. Which would have been weird. That scenario fit with some proposed ETI explanations. We now know that it is dust that is causing the dips and not something else so we can rule out some of the initially proposed ETI scenarios. The data thus far is inconsistent with a Dyson sphere, ring, or swarm being the cause of these latest dips. Something is generating dust and there doesn't appear to be anything yet observed that would favor an artificial source for it over a natural source. Also if I had a giant energy collecting structure I wouldn't want dust anywhere near it!
Yep, I'm glad to see some progress in explaining it all, but I still find it extremely easy to invoke ETI to still be consistent with what has been learned. Even ETI's might make a bit of pollution while making their structures. See how easy that was!
Quote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 03:55 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 01/03/2018 03:26 pmQuote from: Stan-1967 on 01/03/2018 02:12 pmYep, I'm glad to see some progress in explaining it all, but I still find it extremely easy to invoke ETI to still be consistent with what has been learned. Even ETI's might make a bit of pollution while making their structures. See how easy that was! I think they are doing a good job of chasing those aliens away! When the dips were first noticed once of the causes that fit the data back then was an optically thick and cold object. Which would have been weird. That scenario fit with some proposed ETI explanations. We now know that it is dust that is causing the dips and not something else so we can rule out some of the initially proposed ETI scenarios. The data thus far is inconsistent with a Dyson sphere, ring, or swarm being the cause of these latest dips. Something is generating dust and there doesn't appear to be anything yet observed that would favor an artificial source for it over a natural source. Also if I had a giant energy collecting structure I wouldn't want dust anywhere near it!That’s a rather skewed analysis.No it isn't. The material blocking the star light is dust with particle sizes of 0.0015 to 0.15 μm. Its not any sort of hard totally opaque material which is what an artificial alien structure would be. The dips would have had to be achromatic for them to be caused by solid alien structures. Dr. Wright also said that the long term dimming also appears to be chromatic meaning dust is the culprit there too.
Why would an artificial object be a huge structure it could just as easily be a swarm of tiny objects. If we as humans are proposing to send nano probes to another star then I don’t see how that option can be taken off the table.
Quote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 05:56 pmWhy would an artificial object be a huge structure it could just as easily be a swarm of tiny objects. If we as humans are proposing to send nano probes to another star then I don’t see how that option can be taken off the table.The original ETI hypothesis was a Dyson swarm made up of objects larger than optical wavelengths. That hypothesis no longer fits what we know about the star. It was a goo hypothesis because it was falsifiable. It has unfortunately been falsified. I also doubt that it is a Dyson swarm made of nanoparticles. The dust particles are so small that the radiation pressure from the star would push them away over very short timescales. The swarm would get dispersed over a just a few days as Deeg et. all point out if not continually replenished. It doesn't really make much sense to build an energy collection device that is continually getting pushed away from its energy source.
3) Rafik Bourne did it again! About three weeks ago he successfully predicted that the "December Surprise" dip would recover at about the end of December! (His earlier successful prediction was a long timescale brightening in October, made a couple months earlier.) He also has a model upon which this is based. For the record, the "December Surprise" dip is the 5th dip deeper than 1.0 % since everyone began frequent observations in early May, 2017. The additional drop of 0.8 % (centered on Dec 09) has the pattern of a "short dip in the middle of a broad dip" (somewhat similar to the one seen Aug 09). A recovery of the short dip occurred (Dec 26) and the broad dip recovery is almost complete. Here's the Nov/Dec dip that I'm referring to:
Quote from: notsorandom on 01/03/2018 07:26 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 05:56 pmWhy would an artificial object be a huge structure it could just as easily be a swarm of tiny objects. If we as humans are proposing to send nano probes to another star then I don’t see how that option can be taken off the table.The original ETI hypothesis was a Dyson swarm made up of objects larger than optical wavelengths. That hypothesis no longer fits what we know about the star. It was a goo hypothesis because it was falsifiable. It has unfortunately been falsified. I also doubt that it is a Dyson swarm made of nanoparticles. The dust particles are so small that the radiation pressure from the star would push them away over very short timescales. The swarm would get dispersed over a just a few days as Deeg et. all point out if not continually replenished. It doesn't really make much sense to build an energy collection device that is continually getting pushed away from its energy source.Agree I was really just playing devils advocateMy money is currently on Bruce Gary’s solution especially now his predictions are starting to pan out.Quote3) Rafik Bourne did it again! About three weeks ago he successfully predicted that the "December Surprise" dip would recover at about the end of December! (His earlier successful prediction was a long timescale brightening in October, made a couple months earlier.) He also has a model upon which this is based. For the record, the "December Surprise" dip is the 5th dip deeper than 1.0 % since everyone began frequent observations in early May, 2017. The additional drop of 0.8 % (centered on Dec 09) has the pattern of a "short dip in the middle of a broad dip" (somewhat similar to the one seen Aug 09). A recovery of the short dip occurred (Dec 26) and the broad dip recovery is almost complete. Here's the Nov/Dec dip that I'm referring to:http://www.brucegary.net/ts5/
Quote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 07:32 pmQuote from: notsorandom on 01/03/2018 07:26 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/03/2018 05:56 pmWhy would an artificial object be a huge structure it could just as easily be a swarm of tiny objects. If we as humans are proposing to send nano probes to another star then I don’t see how that option can be taken off the table.The original ETI hypothesis was a Dyson swarm made up of objects larger than optical wavelengths. That hypothesis no longer fits what we know about the star. It was a goo hypothesis because it was falsifiable. It has unfortunately been falsified. I also doubt that it is a Dyson swarm made of nanoparticles. The dust particles are so small that the radiation pressure from the star would push them away over very short timescales. The swarm would get dispersed over a just a few days as Deeg et. all point out if not continually replenished. It doesn't really make much sense to build an energy collection device that is continually getting pushed away from its energy source.Agree I was really just playing devils advocateMy money is currently on Bruce Gary’s solution especially now his predictions are starting to pan out.Quote3) Rafik Bourne did it again! About three weeks ago he successfully predicted that the "December Surprise" dip would recover at about the end of December! (His earlier successful prediction was a long timescale brightening in October, made a couple months earlier.) He also has a model upon which this is based. For the record, the "December Surprise" dip is the 5th dip deeper than 1.0 % since everyone began frequent observations in early May, 2017. The additional drop of 0.8 % (centered on Dec 09) has the pattern of a "short dip in the middle of a broad dip" (somewhat similar to the one seen Aug 09). A recovery of the short dip occurred (Dec 26) and the broad dip recovery is almost complete. Here's the Nov/Dec dip that I'm referring to:http://www.brucegary.net/ts5/I thought the theory of a brown dwarf orbiting is an interesting one. I hadn't heard that one before.Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
Personally, I'd back it again
Quote from: jebbo on 01/05/2018 06:52 amPersonally, I'd back it againYou're not alone The "OMG aliens" factor may be gone, but there's certainly a pool of engaged people who are still interested in solving a scientific mystery. (Some of us were pretty sure it wasn't going to be aliens the first time around...)
Quote from: hop on 01/05/2018 06:55 pmQuote from: jebbo on 01/05/2018 06:52 amPersonally, I'd back it againYou're not alone The "OMG aliens" factor may be gone, but there's certainly a pool of engaged people who are still interested in solving a scientific mystery. (Some of us were pretty sure it wasn't going to be aliens the first time around...)That sails dangerously close to looking like oh look at me I never believed it was aliens in the first place, it was only those other people who believed that.Anyway just because megastructures are ruled out it says nothing about other ETI scenarios like starlifting. So I am afraid your declarations are incredibly premature.Especially when one of the offered natural alternatives is that nonsense on Jason Wright’s blog about a transiting black hole and it’s dust disc.
Quote from: Star One on 01/05/2018 10:17 pmQuote from: hop on 01/05/2018 06:55 pmQuote from: jebbo on 01/05/2018 06:52 amPersonally, I'd back it againYou're not alone The "OMG aliens" factor may be gone, but there's certainly a pool of engaged people who are still interested in solving a scientific mystery. (Some of us were pretty sure it wasn't going to be aliens the first time around...)That sails dangerously close to looking like oh look at me I never believed it was aliens in the first place, it was only those other people who believed that.Anyway just because megastructures are ruled out it says nothing about other ETI scenarios like starlifting. So I am afraid your declarations are incredibly premature.Especially when one of the offered natural alternatives is that nonsense on Jason Wright’s blog about a transiting black hole and it’s dust disc.So a black hole with dust disk is somehow obviously nonsense while starlifting isn't?I find it sad so that many people only seem to be interested in the star because of the ETI angle. I was hoping that there'd be more interest in just plain old astronomy...
It’s not the science but the attitude displayed by some that bugs me, and here’s me thinking science was supposed to operate with an open mind.
Quote from: Star One on 01/05/2018 10:47 pmIt’s not the science but the attitude displayed by some that bugs me, and here’s me thinking science was supposed to operate with an open mind.You don't get to take this position while simultaneously putting your own confirmation bias on full display in greater than 50% of the posts you create.
Can someone please let me know what "Starlifting" refers to ?CheersMick