Merged Tabby's Star / One Scary Star

King of the Americas said:
Silly thread?

You clearly did not watch the video...
Click to expand...

Star don't just plop out of existence. Your friend's opinion is worth about as much as any random stranger's. That's not even what the video describes.

If I can give you a bit of advice, you could do better than to form opinions on the back of Youtube videos. We had a thread on this star a while back I think. People's inability to imagine an explanation is no reason to draw a conclusion of your liking.
 
Argumemnon said:
Star don't just plop out of existence. Your friend's opinion is worth about as much as any random stranger's. That's not even what the video describes.

If I can give you a bit of advice, you could do better than to form opinions on the back of Youtube videos. We had a thread on this star a while back I think. People's inability to imagine an explanation is no reason to draw a conclusion of your liking.
Click to expand...

Do you remember what it was titled?

I think my friend was correct...if indeed a star just disappeared, we SHOULD be scared.

I am a big fan of Ted Talks, and I found the research on this star particularly interesting.
 
King of the Americas said:
Do you remember what it was titled?
I think my friend was correct...if indeed a star just disappeared, we SHOULD be scared.

I am a big fan of Ted Talks, and I found the research on this star particularly interesting.
Click to expand...

The star is colloquially called "Tabby's Star" after Tabetha Boyajian, who 'discovered' it. The thread was on the first page of the Science forum when I posted this, with that name, because we're finally getting to watch it go through a dimming phase with a bunch of telescopes all at once.

Here's the Bad Astronomer's take on it:OK, it's still not aliens, but we're finally catching Tabby’s Star in the act
 
rjh01 said:
Agreed, but we would not detect a planet on another star before it is absorbed. It would be almost impossible to prove why a star is fluctuating in brightness. All we can say is that this matches theory.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I don't think this theory matches the data...

A Planet falling into a star would release massive fluctuations in energy, and the Tabby star is NOT emitting excess heat, or fluctuations. It's dimming.

When shoemaker-levy hit Jupiter there were massive heat filled explosions. You are talking about a planet falling into a star...?!

Holy bull butter bucket batman! I can in no way fathom the forces that might be at work therein.
 
I reviewed that paper on planetary consumption... (big maths = hard)

It is missing an element, a missing p^.

We know what kind of star the Tabby star is. We know how old they are (sorta) and we can estimate their output.

A planetary consumption would not look or act like a normally functioning star of any given age.

I guess it is less of a missing variable, and absolutely a missing baseline.

The only test they offered, was that if a slow steady dimming continue, their theory is shot.

This theory 'should' result is a massive (20%) dimming or brightening as debris rises and falls into the star.
 
King of the Americas said:
Ahhh, I don't think this theory matches the data...

A Planet falling into a star would release massive fluctuations in energy, and the Tabby star is NOT emitting excess heat, or fluctuations. It's dimming.

When shoemaker-levy hit Jupiter there were massive heat filled explosions. You are talking about a planet falling into a star...?!

Holy bull butter bucket batman! I can in no way fathom the forces that might be at work therein.
Click to expand...

Read the article I posted. The proposed explanation isnt that the star is eating a planet now, but that it ate one in the recent past, and in the process scattered debris in orbit around itself. The dimming would come from the debris passing in front, not from the planet eating itself.
 
King of the Americas said:
I reviewed that paper on planetary consumption... (big maths = hard)

It is missing an element, a missing p^.

We know what kind of star the Tabby star is. We know how old they are (sorta) and we can estimate their output.

A planetary consumption would not look or act like a normally functioning star of any given age.

I guess it is less of a missing variable, and absolutely a missing baseline.

The only test they offered, was that if a slow steady dimming continue, their theory is shot.

This theory 'should' result is a massive (20%) dimming or brightening as debris rises and falls into the star.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. The remaining debris is now in orbit, not falling in. There is no brightening because nothing hits the star now, only dimming from passing in front. The brightening from the planet impact itself is over, it happened a long time ago (in human terms), we never had a chance to see it.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Do you remember what it was titled?

I think my friend was correct...if indeed a star just disappeared, we SHOULD be scared.

I am a big fan of Ted Talks, and I found the research on this star particularly interesting.
Click to expand...

Re: para 2: Why should we be scared that they could kill us if they were our star? Stars do all sorts of things but we can do not a single thing about it so worrying is pointless. Just observe and learn!!!
 
Ziggurat said:
Read the article I posted. The proposed explanation isnt that the star is eating a planet now, but that it ate one in the recent past, and in the process scattered debris in orbit around itself. The dimming would come from the debris passing in front, not from the planet eating itself.
Click to expand...

I 'reviewed' the paper linked. The 'maths' are too heavy for me to even begin a muddling through.

That said, I was able to absorb the main idea.

Within the conclusion section you'll find their test to determine if indeed a plane fell into a star.

Tabby's star has been on a slow steady decline.

The theory postulated will require an extreme (+/-20%) dimming or brightening as the debris settles.
 
I've seen several videos, including Tabby's Ted Talk, and updates.

The dimming being witness now is inconsistent with planetary consumption.

IF we witness a 'massive & immediate' dimming or brightening (20%), planetary consumption will be confirmed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom