It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kepler's 'Alien Megastructure' Star Just Got Weirder

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

It's hundreds of light years away and we don't have the tech to image anything so small at that distance.

The best outcome at the moment is Tabby's idea to study the light emissions when it does its dance and see what it tells us. If there's some artificial behemoth blocking the star's light, it'll show in the results. If it's the star guttering in some long death throe, it'll tell us that too.

Thinking about it...perhaps the gentlest introduction to LIFE out there is something 1500 light years away and way back in our past. It doesn't get much safer!


ETA - I came back to post about this exoplanet that's been photographed. Thought I was truly Mandelad when it didn't show up in search immediately! It's a whopper and orbits a star some 1300ly away.

A Planet With A 27,000 Year Orbit & That’s Just Where The Strangeness Begins.

Labelled image
edit on 8.10.2016 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Wolfenz

You didn't quote something I think is important, talking about the "triple signals".


Schaefer’s work was immediately called into question. However, with so few astronomers who have an expertise in these plates, no one seemed able to settle the debate. That is until Montet and his advisor Josh Simon realised that an answer might be hidden within the Kepler data.

They found that for the first 1000 days of the Kepler mission, Tabby’s star decreased in brightness at roughly 0.34 per cent a year – twice as fast as measured by Schaefer. What’s more, over the next 200 days, the star’s brightness dropped another 2.5 per cent before beginning to level out. It was a much more rapid change than before.

That means the star undergoes three types of dimming: the deep dips that first made it famous, the relatively slow decline observed by Schaefer and verified by Montet and Simon, and the intermediate rapid decline that occurred over a few hundred days.


So, not only is the star dimming, it appears to do it in three different ways.


Well thanks for Pointing that out for me

but Ive read and thought of Posting But I was pretty sure of my Self
that it was already posted by some ATS member but ...


Seem to me , Nobody caught about that ...( before Hand ) on this Thread ...
that it Dimmed 3 different types ways AKA the #3 signal's

as most just see that it did, in different times wasn't really much of Numbers until then
more less wasn't seen as a pattern ..


some vids that are Interesting


the Telling from MICHIO KAKU

6 Things We Know About KIC 8462852 (Tabby's Star)
www.youtube.com...

Michio Kaku on Alien Megastructure Found (in depth 20mins)
www.youtube.com...





( going off the wild here for a bit )


Wonder if we would get something like this in the future from KIC 8462852)star!


www.youtube.com...


I know I know, a Conjecture Science fictional Wild Guess !

To BAD Carl Sagan wasn't around to see this ..this Event




edit on 32016WednesdayfAmerica/Chicago8222 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Imagine the energy crisis of a really advanced planetary civilization.
They've used up all their fuels, they depend on solar power.
An enormous amount of energy is generated by the local star,
but most of the star's light doesn't fall on their planet.
So perhaps, they would build a shell, to surround their star,
and harvest every photon of sunlight.

Such beings, such civilizations, would bear little resemblance to anything we know."
— Carl Sagan, describing the Dyson Sphere in a nutshell


tvtropes.org...


yes for sure...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: asen_y2kSo what do you guys think?


I'm going with "simplest explanation makes most sense".

That probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

The people who are talking about this thing from positions of authority are all people who make a living on space science. To put it plainly, these people pay their bills (or not) depending on whether or not society supports spending massive amounts of money on space.

So. What gets people excited about space? Well, way back when, it was enough to tell people you wanted to do something simple like going to the moon. That could probably still be viable for a lot of people. Many people are excited about going to Mars. But that's not really enough to really get people fired up.

What would be massive news would be if they could say they found aliens. Everyone knows this is the one thing everyone wants to hear. All they have to do is make it happen. They could completely lie about it and if the truth ever comes out, they could just say they made a mistake.

Now I'm not saying they're not seeing something. What I'm saying is that we should be skeptical about whether or not what they're seeing is somehow man made.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: asen_y2k

Maybe, just maybe all stars go through a " dimming process " sometime during their life.

And maybe we are just lucky enough to have observed just this one star at just the right time that it is going through it's " dimming process "



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: asen_y2k

Maybe, just maybe all stars go through a " dimming process " sometime during their life.

And maybe we are just lucky enough to have observed just this one star at just the right time that it is going through it's " dimming process "




Not likely. This is rare of rare find. We would have seen what you mention for sure.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: asen_y2k

Maybe, just maybe all stars go through a " dimming process " sometime during their life.

And maybe we are just lucky enough to have observed just this one star at just the right time that it is going through it's " dimming process "




Not likely. This is rare of rare find. We would have seen what you mention for sure.


Not necessarily.

Stars have life spans of billions of years. Catching their dimming process during the short period of time we have been observing the sky would have odds of millions if not billons to one.

However there is the possibility of observing one star dimming ( if that's what they do ) This maybe the one.
There is still far more that we don't know about the universe than what we do know.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Wolfenz

You didn't quote something I think is important, talking about the "triple signals".


Schaefer’s work was immediately called into question. However, with so few astronomers who have an expertise in these plates, no one seemed able to settle the debate. That is until Montet and his advisor Josh Simon realised that an answer might be hidden within the Kepler data.

They found that for the first 1000 days of the Kepler mission, Tabby’s star decreased in brightness at roughly 0.34 per cent a year – twice as fast as measured by Schaefer. What’s more, over the next 200 days, the star’s brightness dropped another 2.5 per cent before beginning to level out. It was a much more rapid change than before.

That means the star undergoes three types of dimming: the deep dips that first made it famous, the relatively slow decline observed by Schaefer and verified by Montet and Simon, and the intermediate rapid decline that occurred over a few hundred days.


So, not only is the star dimming, it appears to do it in three different ways.


There's a black hole orbiting it in a highly eccentric orbit that sucks off some stellar material every time they are close together. So you get three phases; approaching, where the star dims slowly; close up, where the star dims rapidly, and departing, where the star dims slowly. Maybe the whole system is precessing as well, and is on a tilt relative to Earth, so all those combined together generate an irregular pattern.



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Wolfenz

You didn't quote something I think is important, talking about the "triple signals".


Schaefer’s work was immediately called into question. However, with so few astronomers who have an expertise in these plates, no one seemed able to settle the debate. That is until Montet and his advisor Josh Simon realised that an answer might be hidden within the Kepler data.

They found that for the first 1000 days of the Kepler mission, Tabby’s star decreased in brightness at roughly 0.34 per cent a year – twice as fast as measured by Schaefer. What’s more, over the next 200 days, the star’s brightness dropped another 2.5 per cent before beginning to level out. It was a much more rapid change than before.

That means the star undergoes three types of dimming: the deep dips that first made it famous, the relatively slow decline observed by Schaefer and verified by Montet and Simon, and the intermediate rapid decline that occurred over a few hundred days.


So, not only is the star dimming, it appears to do it in three different ways.


There's a black hole orbiting it in a highly eccentric orbit that sucks off some stellar material every time they are close together. So you get three phases; approaching, where the star dims slowly; close up, where the star dims rapidly, and departing, where the star dims slowly. Maybe the whole system is precessing as well, and is on a tilt relative to Earth, so all those combined together generate an irregular pattern.


Not quite Sure about that,, a Orbiting Black Hole around a Star ... ???


Well...
Spanish researchers discover the first black hole orbiting a “spinning” star
The newly discovered black hole orbits a star that spins so fast that its surface speed exceeds 620,000 mph (1 million km/h).
www.astronomy.com...


but a Object of some kind for sure

Lets say : Kic 8462852 is Triple star system an Active Star with 2 others that are like Brown Dwarfs
Orbiting ( elongated ) Rapidly at a Enormous Rate of some kind .. every 100 day s just a hunch .. for one Brown D
and 1000 days for the other Brown D

but I assume Scientist already ruled that out !

but Michio Kaku had discuss this .. so IDK


Lets All Say it ....

for... Every Action... there is a Reaction

What’s Orbiting KIC 8462852 – Shattered Comet or Alien Megastructure?

Article Updated: 23 Dec , 2015
by Bob King
www.universetoday.com...



Among more Weirdness in the Comos

Star Caught Circling Black Hole at Record-Breaking Speed
By Megan Gannon, News Editor | March 20, 2013 10:29am ET
www.space.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Imagine the resources needed if it was a true dyson sphere though..or even a halo. it would be staggering how many planets and even entire nearby solar systems would have to be ground up and converted into simple building materials to complete such a structure. Even nearly paper thin it would take mass amounts of materials..and I would suspect such structures would have to be quite thick even if made from advanced carbon nanostructures.

I dont think we will ever see such structures..and by we, I mean the galaxy. such an advanced race of beings capable of doing such a feat would most likely just ascend into some pure energy being anyhow long before the tech evolved to allow such buildings..and at that point, there is no value in such things unless it was just some sort of art project for lesser beings to be mystified over..or perhaps as some sort of biological entity playground/zoo/ark I suppose.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
This might be a stupid question, but we we keep talking about building a Dyson Sphere, why are we building one when we can grow it?

Let's look at how our biotech is growing. We're getting to the point where we will be abler to create "life" that grows and acts to our specifications. The sun gives off energy, more than enough for organic matter to grow and expand.

Why are we building a Dyson Sphere when we can convert the sun's energy into organic matter and instead grow one?

We could in theory grow whole worlds this way. I mean, maybe I'm just nuts, but, why can't it be done?
edit on 8/11/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I suppose that's because we can't make a thing with only energy, even life needs building materials.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Good luck with all this, while I don't dismiss, I assure you that you have a political anthill to cross, which won"t be undone anytime soon.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Well, yes, we can't (yet) make a thing with only energy. But, hypothetically speaking, IF there is an alien civilization doing something in this star system that is causing the dimming, why do we have to then restrict them to our technological limitations? What if they have figured out how to convert energy to matter and vice-versa?

Or, even more interesting (yet more fantastical) what if they not only can convert ordinary energy to matter and vice-versa, but also dark matter and energy to ordinary matter or energy and vice-versa? Now you have a much more abundant source of materials.

OK, I think I made my head hurt now...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

But isn't matter just another form of energy? Aren't we all just star dust?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I feel the whole premise of the Dyson Sphere hinges on the faulty premise that current technological understandings could be extrapolated far into the future for the purpose of prognosticating potentials. In a way its like cavemen imagining advanced alien races making use of massive bonfires to heat their cities (in that it feels woefully anachronistic to suggest primitive technology would be the solution far into the future).



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Imagine the resources needed if it was a true dyson sphere though..or even a halo. it would be staggering how many planets and even entire nearby solar systems would have to be ground up and converted into simple building materials to complete such a structure. Even nearly paper thin it would take mass amounts of materials..and I would suspect such structures would have to be quite thick even if made from advanced carbon nanostructures.



That what i practically said too!

but .....

if it was a Dyson Sphere ... I would assume it was some kind Rotating Ringed Sphere

seeing We can See it!! with disruptive signatures aka ( Signals ) every 100 and too 1000 days !

but then again ... it could be as most scientist had said planets bigger in size then Jupiter

passing in front of the star... or as Ive mentioned a multiple star system but the Blocking could be Brown Dwarfs ..



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: asen_y2k

What I think is they now starting to see vanishing stars and that there are civilizations that suck these stars dry for energy consumption. He'll, it could just be an lifeform that's so large that it hunts stars in in packs to eat them,like we eat eggs for lunch to gain energy. .

But I think that deathstars really exist, and civilizations that use this for waging wars with other civilizations to conquer regions of the galaxy to control.

I once had this small program with fractals that simulated chaos control.

And I think that's how everything works..


edit on 0b25America/ChicagoThu, 11 Aug 2016 15:27:25 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 11 Aug 2016 15:27:25 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Well, yes, we can't (yet) make a thing with only energy. But, hypothetically speaking, IF there is an alien civilization doing something in this star system that is causing the dimming, why do we have to then restrict them to our technological limitations?

Because otherwise there is no limit to what we can say, as we don't have to follow any rules. We may even say that the reason for the dimming is the giant space chickens created by the advanced aliens crossing a road from the star to their own planet.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
But isn't matter just another form of energy?

I don't know.


Aren't we all just star dust?

Dust is matter.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join