Merged Tabby's Star / One Scary Star

King of the Americas said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the timescale for that would be in the thousands of years. So don't expect to see it.
 
King of the Americas said:
*We have a theory to explain what's happening, but you won't be able to see any results, within any lifetime.

That's entering woo-space, sir.
Click to expand...

No, that's what happens when you look at galactic timescales. The universe does not make events happen for our convenience.
It's lucky we see it at all in a star close enough to observe.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
No, that's what happens when you look at galactic timescales. The universe does not make events happen for our convenience.
It's lucky we see it at all in a star close enough to observe.
Click to expand...

I think you are mischaracterizing both the results they expect to see, and the volatile nature of a planetary consumption.
 
King of the Americas said:
*We have a theory to explain what's happening, but you won't be able to see any results, within any lifetime.

That's entering woo-space, sir.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you wouldn't be able to see anything. I said you wouldn't see the debris get swallowed. Future measurements with more powerful telescopes might reveal quite a lot more than we see now.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
It is volatile.
We can see the results within maybe 1000 years. Maybe 10000.
On a galactic scale that is near-instantaneous.
Click to expand...

That not what the paper linked postulated.

They expected to see a dramatic dimming OR brightening.

If we continue only to see a gradual dimming, planetary consumption is ruled out.
 
King of the Americas said:
That not what the paper linked postulated.

They expected to see a dramatic dimming OR brightening.

If we continue only to see a gradual dimming, planetary consumption is ruled out.
Click to expand...

They said that it would brighten if it swallowed another planet. But that isn't required. No brightening means no more swallowed planets, it doesn't mean that there was no planet swallowed in the past.
 
Ziggurat said:
They said that it would brighten if it swallowed another planet. But that isn't required. No brightening means no more swallowed planets, it doesn't mean that there was no planet swallowed in the past.
Click to expand...

Here's the quote-

"This hypothesis could be tested with IR or mm observations during an obscuration event (§5.4). Indeed, flux dips up to ∼ 20% should be readily detectable from ground-based monitoring, enabling such a triggered observational programme. Also note that our model predicts that KIC 8462852 could in principle experience a comparatively rapid brightening, should an additional planet-impact event occur."

So, yes, I was in error.

Their 'test' *cough* seems extremely self-insulary.

---

Another quote-

N-body calculations based on an extrapolation of our own solar system architecture through the AGB and white dwarf phase suggest that explaining the inferred metal accretion rates of young white dwarfs require asteroid belts with masses exceeding those in our solar system by a factor of 1000 (e.g., Debes et al. 2012).

How big was this impact?

"Although in principle the dimming of KIC 8462852 could be explained as the disruption of a Jupiter-mass planet ∼ 104 years ago, for reasons of economy regarding the total required mass we are pushed towards instead invoking a large number of smaller objects, such as km-size moon-massed bodies (Table 1)."

Did EVERYONE read that...

"104 years" NOT some event that happened 1000+ years ago.

"As a final point, we note that planet-star impacts should give rise to luminous optical and X-ray transients (e.g., Bear et al. 2011; Metzger et al. 2012). For Jupiter or higher mass planets, these transients may approach luminosities comparable to classical novae, placing stringent constraints on the Galactic rate of such events; however, for lower mass planet-star interactions the luminosities would be substantially dimmer and such events could more easily be missed."

So what should we 'expect' if a planet was consumed? An eventual brightening, as the debris finishes its fall into the star.

No such brightening has or is occurring.
 
King of the Americas said:
Did EVERYONE read that...

"104 years" NOT some event that happened 1000+ years ago.
Click to expand...

And how long ago would the impact have been if the impacting object was larger?

So what should we 'expect' if a planet was consumed? An eventual brightening, as the debris finishes its fall into the star.

No such brightening has or is occurring.
Click to expand...

The debris might never fall into the star. It might stabilize in orbit.
 
King of the Americas said:
Did EVERYONE read that...

"104 years" NOT some event that happened 1000+ years ago.
Click to expand...
The cut and paste hid the actual number:
Although in principle the dimming of KIC 8462852 could be explained as the disruption of a Jupiter-mass planet ∼ 104 years ago, for reasons of economy regarding the total required mass we are pushed towards instead invoking a large number of smaller objects, such as km-size moon-massed bodies(Table1)
Click to expand...
10,000 is > 1,000.
 
King of the Americas said:
A shorter period, because- gravity.
Click to expand...

No. You have badly misunderstood the paper if you think this. The larger the mass of the absorbed body, the bigger the change in luminosity. That luminosity will decay back towards equilibrium over time, with the rate of dimming decreasing over time until it reaches no dimming at equilibrium. So a larger body will have more dimming after the initial increase, and won't reach the current rate of dimming until a longer time after impact.

So the larger the impact body, the longer ago it must have happened.

You are incorrect, again, because- gravity.

Maybe checkout Newton. Interesting concept.

^*Currently rethinking that response...^
Click to expand...

Yes, please do rethink it.
 
King of the Americas said:
A shorter period, because- gravity.

You are incorrect, again, because- gravity.

Maybe checkout Newton. Interesting concept.

^*Currently rethinking that response...^
Click to expand...

Upon "falling"

All objects fall at the same rate, on that body. Dropping an object on the moon would have a different result than dropping that object on earth. Everything is attracted to everything else, depending on size and distance. Get too close to something too big, get ready for a big kiss!

These gravity wells require energy to escape, so if you didn't bring it to the party, you are staying...

In order to hit a star, and still have enough energy to escape it would require the perfect combination of size and trajectory.

That said, I am NOT an astrophysicist, and I can't find a good source yet...
 
Ziggurat said:
No. You have badly misunderstood the paper if you think this. The larger the mass of the absorbed body, the bigger the change in luminosity. That luminosity will decay back towards equilibrium over time, with the rate of dimming decreasing over time until it reaches no dimming at equilibrium. So a larger body will have more dimming after the initial increase, and won't reach the current rate of dimming until a longer time after impact.

So the larger the impact body, the longer ago it must have happened.

Yes, please do rethink it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am still working...
 
King of the Americas said:
These gravity wells require energy to escape, so if you didn't bring it to the party, you are staying...
Click to expand...

That's not really true. This isn't a two-body problem. In a many-body problem, energy isn't a conserved quantity for any single body. That's how gravitational slingshots work: your space probe gains kinetic energy which it extracts from a planet that it passes by. Similar dynamics are in play here: the stuff which escapes the sun trades kinetic energy with the stuff that gets swallowed.
 
Scary starry night
ETs building a Dyson Sphere
Klingon warships cruising near
In shadows of a giant asteroid
No way to avoid
Comets meeting a fiery fate
C-Beams near Tannhauser Gate
Directed by Darth Vader's dread command
Now I understand
What you're trying to say to me
And how you've suffered for your sanity...
 
Myriad said:
Scary starry night
ETs building a Dyson Sphere
Klingon warships cruising near
In shadows of a giant asteroid
No way to avoid
Comets meeting a fiery fate
C-Beams near Tannhauser Gate
Directed by Darth Vader's dread command
Now I understand
What you're trying to say to me
And how you've suffered for your sanity...
Click to expand...

:D Excellent start. Please continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom