I though the M dwarf was deemed as too distant and that it's recent movements have been calculated in that respect.
Assuming the fainter star is associated with the main F-star target, and the two stars that are separated by ~ 1.95", they are ~ 885 AU apart. At this separation, the second star cannot currently be physically affecting the behavior of the Kepler target star, though could be affecting bodies in orbit around it via long term perturbations. If such a star is unbound from KIC 8462852, but traveling through the system perpendicular to our line of sight, it would take only 400 years to double its separation if traveling at 10 km/s. So, the passage would be relatively short-lived in astronomical terms.
Quote from: Star One on 05/28/2017 07:58 pmI though the M dwarf was deemed as too distant and that it's recent movements have been calculated in that respect.Do you have a reference for this? I would be surprised if we had much constraint on its actual motion, AFAIK the only thing we know is the angular separation. It took followup with Keck AO to even confirm as a distinct source from KIC 8462852, so we don't have long term knowledge of its motion.
Comments: 5 pages, 3 figures. v2: Corrected an error regarding the interpretation of the May 2017 event. Main conclusions unchanged. Revised version submitted to MNRAS Letters
Notice the timing between this dip and the one in May. It's very close to the spacing of the complex of dips centred around D1540 in the Kepler data. A coincidence or more evidence this is in orbit?
If it were a 24 day orbit we would see them every* 24 days. There would also be IR excess.I was thinking perhaps multiple objects on roughly the same ~750d eccentric orbit that happen to cross our line of sight ~24d apart. *well there are edge cases, but doubtful here.
Having said that, remember the spurious 48.4 day period from the original paper? Well some of the shallower dips earlier on in the lightcurve that are usually glossed over fit cycles of 24.2 days.The duration between the 22% dip at D1519.6 and dip 1 and 2 in the original paper is 57 or 52 ~24.2 day cycles respectively. The duration between the other large dip near the end of the Kepler data at D1568.5 and these earlier dips is 59 or 54 cycles respectively.Interesting aside, perhaps the 750 day period is spurious and that the shallower events are secondary eclipses?
Quote from: Star One on 06/14/2017 09:32 amI believe some indicated with this that on the 17th July it should go into a major dip.Well, there we are. A line in the sand!
I believe some indicated with this that on the 17th July it should go into a major dip.
Still dipping ... apparently still ~1% down.https://twitter.com/brettmor/status/875224630666993664--- Tony
Some confusing and contradictory data on the Reddit thread.
Quote from: Star One on 06/15/2017 07:00 amSome confusing and contradictory data on the Reddit thread.I'm not too worried by that Reddit. First, detecting a 1% dip is beyond the capabilities of many on AAVSO (if nothing else because most don't have a continuous set of observations). Second, there are some pretty wild and unsubstantiated claims there ... I'll go with the people with access to large instruments :-)--- Tony
Update from Bruce:Preliminary result for Jun 15 (after 1.7 hrs). The fade feature that began a couple days ago is slowly recovering.KIC 8462852 Daily Normalized Flux, 2017 May 02 - Jun 15 - v7615
Paul Thompson @trailrunnerlife@Astro_Wright any update on when we might expect publication of GBT obs for Tabby's Star? Lots of hungry data scientists... 8:22 pm · 15 Jun 2017Jason Wright @Astro_Wright·8mReplying to @trailrunnerlifeIt turns out transferring and collecting and organizing 610TB of data on a brand-new data center takes time! Much longer than I had hoped.Jason Wright @Astro_Wright·7mWe're making slow progress. We do hope to make snippets freely downloadable so others can chew on it and suggest analyses for us to run!Paul Thompson @trailrunnerlife·4mthat's great news, thanks!