NASA may have solved the mystery of the Dyson Sphere, star KIC 8462852

originally posted by: Chadwickus

The blind, ignorant NASA hate is so immature.

Well, so are insults, agreed?

I never actually mentioned nasa, my comment was aimed at those who would control such a disclosure.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Kinda like this?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Aliensun

Whatever is blocking it's light, is orbiting it, so how can something orbiting a star 1480 light years away be on a course towards our sun?

Even if it were, it would take thousands of years to reach it.

Who's really fantasising here?

And even then, it would be headed "here" to the point in space we are now occupying. However, the sun moves, so we won't be "here" in this point in space by the time it gets here to this point in space. The Sun would have moved on.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
swarm of comets.....my azz.......no one will buy that
there's no such thing as an aggregation of friggin COMETS....

Remember Shoemaker-Levy 9?
Comets are asteroid like objects that have a coma and tail of dust, gas and ions (don’t forget the ions!). The comas of several comets seen in our solar system were several orders of magnitude larger than the nucleus (solid part). Sometimes comas have been observed to be larger than the diameter of our sun. If I were to hazard a guess I would say this could very well dim the star to a noticeable degree.

Yes, comparing the hypothesizing about a comet swarm at Tabby's star to the disrupted Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 is instructive. In the latter we saw many fragments of debris along the path of the disrupted comet.
At Tabby's Star we see two major concentrations of material, with very little in between. One wonders how the two comet fragments became widely separated by 700 days in their orbit, given their mutual gravitation, and why no substantial material exists between them.
Comets, especially ones that are breaking up, can be expected to shed material along their orbits. This should be that much more obvious in a comet capable of dimming its star by up to 22 percent. By the way-- when comets in our solar system pass in front of the Sun that dim it barely at all.

a reply to: Ross 54
Are we sure that this is two objects? Could this be one group of objects in a 700 or 750 day orbit that cause a variation in the dimming of the host star?

when comets in our solar system pass in front of the Sun that dim it barely at all.

Has there ever been a comet observed during a solar transit? I know Venus and Mercury have yet I can't remember if a comet ever has.

I just speculating and I agree that it seems unlikely a comet could dim a star that much. I think it's much more reasonable than a Dyson Sphere though.

a reply to: Devino

We're outside the realm of "reason." Both a Dyson Sphere and aggregate swarm of comets are unprecedented.

Don't walk into this thinking "It's probably a comet", walk into this thinking "What could it be?" and let the data do the talking.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
I agree yet I was wondering how a "Dyson Sphere" became a possible scenario. This is way too far into science fiction for me.

a reply to: Devino

Because rejecting something out-of-hand isn't how real science works. Real science looks at the evidence, and draws a conclusion from that. The characteristics of a Dyson Sphere are being exhibited here. It could also be an aggregate swarm of comets, though I believe other people have already mentioned why that's unlikely.

What I'm trying to say is that while it could be a hitherto unseen natural phenomena... Why is a Dyson Sphere actually that unlikely? At worst its likelihood is equal to some natural phenomena. This isn't aliens visiting our planet, something that many people tend to reject out of hand, this is an alien structure at some random point in the universe. What makes it so unthinkable?

I was under the impression that the original person who reported this went through the normal list of things it could be and then asked around for ideas or whether she had missed something obvious. It seems to me that the others also discounted the obvious candidates as well due to various different reasons. That is why the Dyson thing was put up as a possibility.

I dont think this discovery has been just trotted out without a great deal of thought and consideration by serious astronomers etc. These guys doing it everyday are probably better informed than we are as to the different reasons why things have been ruled out as possibilities. After all, it is really a career-breaker to even suggest a sci-fi solution to an observed astronomical phenomena. No-one wants to do that without consulting a few others to give themselves a reality-check.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
I didn’t think I was rejecting anything out-of-hand. I simply think this is too far into science fiction but that’s just my opinion.

Real science looks at the evidence, and draws a conclusion from that

So then, what is the evidence here? I have read a little bit but I think I’m missing a lot.

Why is a Dyson Sphere actually that unlikely?

Because it’s fictional. Remember unlikely doesn’t mean impossible.

If this were a Dyson Sphere then how come we can see any light at all from this star?
If this were a Dyson swarm then why the irregular dips in brightness?
If this were artificial construction why hasn't SETI picked up any signals?

We have a long way to go in understanding our own star let alone stars that are over 1400 light years away. Could this be an unknown variability, strange planetary accretion, asteroid or comet cluster behaving in an unusual fashion or problems/errors in the Kepler equipment?

a reply to: qmantoo
From what little reading I have done on this subject I get the impression that not a lot of data is available from this star.
WISE looked at this area in 2010.
Kepler has been observing this star for four years yet I don't know how much data has been collected.
The two unusual incidents were in 2011 and 2013.
Spitzer observed this star, KIC 8462852, in 2015.

WISE and Spitzer looked for dust yet they were no where near the dates in question.
NASA

originally posted by: qmantoo
After all, it is really a career-breaker to even suggest a sci-fi solution to an observed astronomical phenomena.

Who proposed the Dyson Sphere idea?

Oh, and by the way...
according to the OP's source;

So the presence of a Dyson sphere is unlikely.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
I didn’t think I was rejecting anything out-of-hand. I simply think this is too far into science fiction but that’s just my opinion.

Real science looks at the evidence, and draws a conclusion from that

So then, what is the evidence here? I have read a little bit but I think I’m missing a lot.

Why is a Dyson Sphere actually that unlikely?

Because it’s fictional. Remember unlikely doesn’t mean impossible.

If this were a Dyson Sphere then how come we can see any light at all from this star?
If this were a Dyson swarm then why the irregular dips in brightness?
If this were artificial construction why hasn't SETI picked up any signals?

We have a long way to go in understanding our own star let alone stars that are over 1400 light years away. Could this be an unknown variability, strange planetary accretion, asteroid or comet cluster behaving in an unusual fashion or problems/errors in the Kepler equipment?

If megastructures are the cause of the dimming of Tabby's Star, they obvious don't form a complete Dyson swarm. It could either be under construction, in a state of abandoned decay, or perhaps a partial swarm meets the energy requirements of those who built it.
The dips in brightness may not be altogether irregular. A periodicity of about ten days has been discerned in some of the dimming records. This suggests the possibility of structures regularly spaced to avoid colliding with each other in space.
There has so far been only one attempt to receive radio signals from Tabby's Star. This was done with the modest and relatively insensitive Allen Telescope Array. Further--only about half of the array's 42 dish antennas were used in this search, which was quite brief in duration. More sensitive and/or diligent radio searches may turn up something.

All proposed explanations have been considered, and were found to be too unlikely to deserve much attention, save one. Even this one-- swarms of disrupted comet fragments, seems quite a reach. Dr. Jason Wright, a major figure in the investigation of Tabby's Star, has called this explanation 'contrived'.

We do not know that any plausible arrangement of comet fragments could produce enough dust to dim a star by up to 22 percent. Given the known thinness of cometary dust clouds, this seems unlikely.

My understanding of Dyson Sphere application would possibly suggest that whomever created said sphere may have wished to keep whatever star and/or planets (and planetary populace) within safe from interference from external manipulation or external contact from other civilizations....or, conversely, keep the rest of the universe safe from them within.

Hypothetical here:

1.) The original constructor of said sphere did it to keep that sector and it's populace (should it exist) safe from externals (comets, asteroids, wayward nosy other life forms) that would destabilize it's inhabitants because of rogue curiosity, etc.

2.) The theoretical populace (should it exist) is hostile and has been contained within for reasons we can only speculate.

3.) There is simply no evidence to support that the theoretical populace within created the sphere themselves and thereby, it is unreasonable to assume that if said hypothetical populace exists that that are even evolved enough to have space travel capabilities, much less the sort sought after by this microwave study.

4.) It's a Dead Project from Eons past and no life present any longer.

Long story short, the universe is an impressively large and - at times - exceedingly hostile place.

But eh, what do I know.

I can't do math to save my life and Theoreticians are a dime a dozen nowadays.

I'll go back to baking cookies.

a reply to: Ross 54
Just in case you missed it, from the original post’s source;
Daily Mail

So the presence of a Dyson sphere is unlikely.

From my perspective it appears that you have ignored this and have since went on a speculation spree supplanting any real science with fiction.

Remember, "Real science looks at the evidence, and draws a conclusion from that." So, again, what is the evidence here?

A swarm of comics, hahaha of course not, that could not make it dim. They are just trying to cover up their eels. I still think it might be a Dysons fear. Any alien species advanced through millennium of generations should probably be capable of harnessing all manor of technologies, such that would make our ears water.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Ross 54
Just in case you missed it, from the original post’s source;
Daily Mail

So the presence of a Dyson sphere is unlikely.

From my perspective it appears that you have ignored this and have since went on a speculation spree supplanting any real science with fiction.

Remember, "Real science looks at the evidence, and draws a conclusion from that." So, again, what is the evidence here?

Things that were once deemed unlikely have turned out to be true, many times in the past. There is nothing unscientific about the possibility of a Dyson sphere. It bears the name of a respected scientist who openly wrote about the concept, Dr. Freeman Dyson.
One quite legitimate interpretation of the evidence at Tabby's Star is that a partial Dyson sphere is present there. This possibility has been, and will be investigated by science.
The evidence has been widely written about and discussed in various places, including this thread, and others at this website. In precis, it is that this particular star fluctuates in brightness in a manner unlike any other.
Most natural explanations have very good scientific arguments against them. The one remaining, fragmenting comets, is at least doubtful.

a reply to: Ross 54
Maybe you’re correct and this is some kind of intelligently designed structure. I’m a bit of a skeptic when it comes to such things though, as if you couldn’t tell-lol. I imagine all sorts of other possibilities including errors in the spacecraft and misinterpretation of data.

Think of how small a margin of error an object must have in order to transit its host star from our perspective (less than 1°?). How many solar systems’ orbital planes are facing ‘on edge’ towards us? How many planets’ orbits are small enough to be able to collect data? Jupiter’s orbit is almost 12 years, Saturn is a little over 29 years and Neptune is 165 years.

All of the planets in our solar system have orbital inclinations that would cause them to pass too high or too low for a transit to occur. These inclined nodes revolve so even if a solar transit did occur over time it would change and the alignment would no longer be seen.

Also consider how rare solar transits of our Sun are from the perspective of Earth. Look up the periodicity of Venus and Mercury transits (Mercury being much more frequent). I am unsure if there ever has been a transit of a comet in recent recorded history, unless you subscribe to the Venus comet theory proposed by Velikovsky.

Perhaps all of this evidence for statistical rareness for a stellar transit gives credence to this being an artificial construction.

a reply to: Ross 54
Take a look at this article;
Half of Kepler’s giant exoplanet candidates are false positives, study finds

Thread found here;
ATS

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: Ross 54
Are we sure that this is two objects? Could this be one group of objects in a 700 or 750 day orbit that cause a variation in the dimming of the host star?

when comets in our solar system pass in front of the Sun that dim it barely at all.

Has there ever been a comet observed during a solar transit? I know Venus and Mercury have yet I can't remember if a comet ever has.

I just speculating and I agree that it seems unlikely a comet could dim a star that much. I think it's much more reasonable than a Dyson Sphere though.

There is a video of a comet passing in front of the Sun in 2011. There is no discernible dimming of the Sun. The comet can barely be seen. About all that can be seen of it is a slight apparent brightening of the Sun's surface due to the glowing gasses in the comet.
If a comet can be expected to produce enough brightness to more than outweigh any dimming due to its dust, how could comet fragments dim Tabby's Star?
Link to the video:
www.eurekalert.org...