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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A second Dyson sphere? Star EPIC 204278916 shows strange ‘flickering’ of up to 65 per cent

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Hello all, I came across this that may be of interest.....

A Second Dyson Sphere?


ONCE you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. There’s probably a hoard of things we haven’t thought of eliminating yet, but it seems we may now have two stars being masked by alien megastructures.
‘Tabby’s Star’ — KIC 8462852 — exploded out of obscurity in October last year when an amateur group of astronomers noticed it was doing something extremely odd.

It was flickering. Its brightness was changing by up to 22 per cent — a much greater degree than could be explained by any known possible cause. A separate look back at over a century of data also appeared to show it having dimmed by about 20 per cent in total.
MYSTERY DEEPENS: ‘Tabby’s Star’ just doesn’t add up

Science fiction fans (among whom are more than a few astronomers) suddenly took note: This was supposed to be a hypothetical sign of a hyper-advanced civilisation — one so desperate for power that it was encompassing its star in an array of solar panels.
Almost a year later, this highly improbable explanation is yet to be debunked.
And now it appears we may have found another.

Turns out the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany has been watching a star — named EPIC 204278916 — since 2014.
Like KIC 8462852, it falls within the field of view of NASA’s Kepler space telescope.

Like KIC 8462852, it’s been astonishing dips in the amount of light it has been casting our way.
And these ‘flickers’ are far more dramatic.

The team of astronomers led by Simone Scaringi say they have observed that, over a period of 78.8 days, EPIC 204278916’s light fluctuated erratically by up to 65 per cent over 25 consecutive days.
Like ‘Tabby’s Star’, this simply does not make sense.
Blocking out that much starlight requires something enormous.
Anything smaller and closer would likely be immediately apparent as it passes between us and other nearby stars.
So what could it be?
edit on 5-9-2016 by ATSmediaPRO because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I am curious how close to one another these stars are.
Lets say it was a artifical array doing this (dyson's ...array), if the stars in question are nearby, it could actually be signs of a interstellar civilization.

fun to think about anyhow. Imagine what resources would be needed. entire planets turned into material for the array



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I am curious how close to one another these stars are.
Lets say it was a artifical array doing this (dyson's ...array), if the stars in question are nearby, it could actually be signs of a interstellar civilization.

fun to think about anyhow. Imagine what resources would be needed. entire planets turned into material for the array


Good point!!

Though using star power has to be most civilizations starting point. So could be independent cultures even if they are relatively close.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno
Fixed link
I´ll have to look into the article, just finished reading.
But this:



Almost a year later, this highly improbable explanation is yet to be debunked.

We can´t debunk it as much as we can´t proof it, currently



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
If a civilization developed the technology to 'wrap' a star ... they wouldn't need a planet. Maybe if they wanted to go somewhere, they'd just use the star itself as the drive.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Would that not mean massive destruction everywhere they go and along the path? Because of the gravitional pull?
And would it not take up most of the energy to just move the star?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

More than entire planets. Just to manufacture a Dyson array with 75% coverage at 1 AU would take the rest of the Solar System's resources, from Mercury to the Oort Cloud.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno

How long have these fluctuations been noted? If it was merely an observation period of 78.8 days, it could be explained as occultation by a smaller body, such as a red dwarf, in our line of sight.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
65%
Erratic.
25 days.

Planetary occultation?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
Would that not mean massive destruction everywhere they go and along the path? Because of the gravitional pull?
And would it not take up most of the energy to just move the star?

I don't know, but Phage is in-thread now and he might give us his opinion.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl
It's weird.
In my opinion.

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just a thought. Erratic is a loose term. And occultation by a red dwarf close enough to us could block a significant amount of light.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The idea or the star? ^^



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But, I'm just spit balling. I'm not an astrophysicist



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
It also would; completely occult a distant star and others, be very close (with a 25 day period), not be erratic.



edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Phage

The idea or the star? ^^

Yes



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I see. Btw, I hope you did not got that post wrong where I wrote you were not my "friend". It was ment to be "we´re not in bed together against you" towards the other user. no hate intended.
edit on 5-9-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

If you see that I have no idea, you get it.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Thought something along those lines. Or see my update.




top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join