Quote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:00 pmIf this is dust to some degree then something must be replenishing it otherwise the star's solar wind would clear it from the system.It's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:00 pmIf this is dust to some degree then something must be replenishing it otherwise the star's solar wind would clear it from the system.It's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.
If this is dust to some degree then something must be replenishing it otherwise the star's solar wind would clear it from the system.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.
It's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.If there were the only star we were watching, yes. But given the number of stars being monitored, it's entirely possible (indeed very likely) that we are seeing some phenomenon that's very short-lived in astronomical terms.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.If this were the only star we were watching, yes. But given the number of stars being monitored, it's entirely possible (indeed very likely) that we are seeing some phenomenon that's very short-lived in astronomical terms.
Exactly. And we were drawn to this star BECAUSE of this behavior, thus nulling the odds.It's like you look at a population of 1,000,000 people, and specifically hunt for crazy behavior. Then you find one, and my god! the man is crazy! What are the odds?
Quote from: Mongo62 on 07/01/2017 10:46 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.If this were the only star we were watching, yes. But given the number of stars being monitored, it's entirely possible (indeed very likely) that we are seeing some phenomenon that's very short-lived in astronomical terms.Exactly. And we were drawn to this star BECAUSE of this behavior, thus nulling the odds.It's like you look at a population of 1,000,000 people, and specifically hunt for crazy behavior. Then you find one, and my god! the man is crazy! What are the odds?
But it wasn't apparently the only star that Kepler looked at that seemed to be behaving oddly. It's just it has had the follow up the others haven't.
Quote from: Mongo62 on 07/01/2017 10:46 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.If this were the only star we were watching, yes. But given the number of stars being monitored, it's entirely possible (indeed very likely) that we are seeing some phenomenon that's very short-lived in astronomical terms.Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, but concluded that since a most unlikely alignment is needed, it only lasts a few days, and it never repeats, "there is no great chance of observing this phenomenon". He was correct that the needed alignment is very rare, but microlensing surveys get around this by monitoring millions of stars for many years. So per star, it's very unlikely, but if you watch enough stars, you'll see it.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 07/02/2017 12:11 pmQuote from: Mongo62 on 07/01/2017 10:46 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 05:08 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 07/01/2017 05:05 pmIt's possible that we won the cosmic timeline lottery and are watching a shortlived phenomenon while it's active.But odds would say that's unlikely though.If this were the only star we were watching, yes. But given the number of stars being monitored, it's entirely possible (indeed very likely) that we are seeing some phenomenon that's very short-lived in astronomical terms.Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, but concluded that since a most unlikely alignment is needed, it only lasts a few days, and it never repeats, "there is no great chance of observing this phenomenon". He was correct that the needed alignment is very rare, but microlensing surveys get around this by monitoring millions of stars for many years. So per star, it's very unlikely, but if you watch enough stars, you'll see it.The problem with this argument is you could just as easily apply to ETI, yet people are more willing to accept a natural explanation when in fact they are both equally unlikely or likely depending on your viewpoint.
Here is the combined light curve for dates June 1 - July 2 using daily average data from both the OGG and TFN sites. Often times there is agreement between sites with the "adjacent" observations, taken ~12 hours apart. On the other hand, we can possibly see variability on timescales less than a day, too (look at data taken between days ~44-48). Neat!
Have these tiny light fluctuations of the last month or so (less than 0.5% of the flux) been going on for all of the past year while news from the star has been virtually zero? Or was the star pretty dead in terms of light fluctuations until the May dip suddenly kick started a new period of small scale variability?
Question:Have these tiny light fluctuations of the last month or so (less than 0.5% of the flux) been going on for all of the past year while news from the star has been virtually zero? Or was the star pretty dead in terms of light fluctuations until the May dip suddenly kick started a new period of small scale variability?What I'm trying to get at is people are now suddenly getting daily updates from Gary Bruce and others about every minute fluctuation, and coming up with all kinds of questions and theories about it. But before that, all we were really waiting for were the 8%, 15% and 22% dips. Were the small fluctuations simply not getting much attention until recently, or did they only start increasing in frequency after the May dip, which started the current cycle of interest in the star?
This star just gets stranger now it appears there might be pulsations in the signal. So is the star variable.If this is real it must be the star as dust is not known to pulse.