/sci/ - Science & Math

> Are cometfags still BTFO?
Oh was it the aliens ? Can you post the link ?

>>8209098
>Tabby's Star.
>Googled it.
http://www.space.com/32929-alien-megastructure-tabbys-star-kickstarter-campaign.html
>Becomes interested.
Tell me more?

no news, probably won't be any for a while

we're pretty much waiting until the next dimming event

in the meantime people are pointing all sorts of shit at it and finding nothing but to be honest they're kind of useless
>no evidence of pulsed optical signals
>no evidence of directed radio wave signals
well no fucking shit, no hypothesis strongly supported the presence of either of those signals being detected

>tfw the James Webb telescope goes online in 2018
>tfw it will be able to detect whether the objects are natural and irregular or structured and artificial
>tfw we have to wait two years to find out

Fuck...

>>8210126
>>tfw it will be able to detect whether the objects are natural and irregular or structured and artificial
how do you know this?

>>8210149
we already know the resolution of it (if everything goes right)

>>8210126
>tfw it breaks up over the Atlantic during launch due to miscarried 1.

>>8210367
FUCK

>>8209098
>Any news on Tabby's Star? Are cometfags still BTFO?

Comet explanation is still shit. Still waiting for new and spectroscopic data to find out what the hell is going on.

It's caused by the telescope panel error you idiots. We've been over this 50000 times.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07314

> Flawed data just makes that alien megastructure even more unlikely

> A statistical analysis of the accuracy of the digitized magnitudes of photometric plates on the time scale of decades with an application to the century-long light curve of KIC 8462852

They also used different telescopes and measuring equipment since they started observing the star (1885 - 1993 - 2016).

Now take this ayylmao tier thread back to >>>/x/

>>8210923

This paper refers exclusively to the all sky survey photographic plates, which is not how they noticed this star. The Kepler Space Telescope data is the original source of interest in KIC 8462852, and the Kepler data is rock solid.

>>8210923
why u destroy my dreams ?
I just wanted to assume it was aliens :'(

>>8210938

Aliens aren't out of the running, but we need to know which frequencies of light drop in brightness with the next occlusion. If all of them drop, we'll know that it's an opaque body. If it's only a few, we'll know that it's diffuse and have some idea what the material is. The odds of it being an artificial structure increases if the light is shown to be blocked by an opaque body.

>>8210944
> trying this hard to justify it to be aliens
> too pussy to come out and say it cuz he's people will see the tinfoil
hello /x/tard

>>8210949

>>8210954
> b-b-but m-muh aliens
go away /x/tard

>>8210938
Why would you even assume aliums ? Theres literally nothing pointing to anything artificial. There isn't even a dimming pattern there are just two completely different dimmings happened in different times with different durations.

>>8210975
>Why would you even assume aliums ? Theres literally nothing pointing to anything artificial. There isn't even a dimming pattern there are just two completely different dimmings happened in different times with different durations.

The lack of a clear period in the dimming events is a big part of the mystery. The suggestion of Aliens comes from the percentage of light blocked (~22% peak) and the apparent absence of natural bodies with sufficient volume to block that much light from what would otherwise appear to be a very ordinary star. Other than the seeming absence of something resembling an orbital period, the data does fit an independently proposed hypothesis for the light curve signature that would be left by artificial, stellar scale constructs. This is not proof of aliens, which is why I have avoided saying that the dips in brightness are caused by aliens. However, the possibility has not been excluded, because none of the additional information that's been gathered so far has provided a compelling explanation.

>>8210983
>the data does fit an independently proposed hypothesis for the light curve signature that would be left by artificial, stellar scale constructs
When its interpreted by nutjobs who completely dismiss asteroids, other planets passing by or simply any celestial body occluding the light.

Please stop so desperately trying to insert your ayylmao autism with zero sense or evidence. No respectable hypothesis even mentions aliens and it's not even in the list of probably dimming causes

now back to >>>/x/

>>8211019
Data can fit multiple hypothesis mate. The point is nothing can be ruled out with the information we have

>>8211025
Nothing insensible can be ruled in either. We already know what the possible causes for it might be,(which does not include ayliums) we just don't know which one it is.

>>8211032
Aliens literally are one of the possible causes. Not a particularly likely one, but not impossible either

>>8211034
> Aliens literally are one of the possible causes
>>>/x/

>>8211019
>completely dismiss asteroids, other planets passing by or simply any celestial body occluding the light.

Let's consider the star itself, at 1.58 solar radii. An equivalent circle with 22% of the area has a solar radius of [math]/approx0.741[/math] solar radii, which is about the same as 61 Cygni A. Stellar companions have been excluded from KIC 8462852 below a ten year orbital period by radial velocity measurements. An infrared excess that would be associated with a comet or other form of debris cloud has not been observed with the star either. Massive companions and dust clouds do not suffice, which is why we've been left with comets as the most reasonable remaining (but still unconvincing) natural explanation for the observed dips.

>>8211019
>When its interpreted by nutjobs who completely dismiss asteroids, other planets passing by or simply any celestial body occluding the light.

Let's consider the star itself, at 1.58 solar radii. An equivalent circle with 22% of the area has a solar radius of [math]\approx0.741[/math] solar radii, which is about the same as 61 Cygni A. Stellar companions have been excluded from KIC 8462852 below a ten year orbital period by radial velocity measurements. An infrared excess that would be associated with a comet or other form of debris cloud has not been observed with the star either. Massive companions and dust clouds do not suffice, which is why we've been left with comets as the most reasonable remaining (but still unconvincing) natural explanation for the observed dips.

>>8211059
Celestial bodies are not debris and comets. They are also large asteroids, other planets and anything else you can stumble on between the 14001881550136950 kilometers of enormous empty space.

>>8211070
>They are also large asteroids, other planets and anything else you can stumble on between the 14001881550136950 kilometers of enormous empty space.

For comparison, Jupiter would block 1% of this star's light. Asteroids aren't even going to be a blip unless there's enough of them to show up as a big, conspicuous glow in the infrared. As I mentioned before, no such conspicuous blip is visible in the available data. If I recall correctly, the shape and duration of the Kepler light curve makes an interstellar occluder basically impossible.

>>8209098
if the light from some alien civilization messing around with their star has reached us, wouldn't their radio emissions also have reached us? (simultaneously?)

since no such radio emissions have been detected, this is a clear cut case of retards gettng conned by pop-scientists who want to ride the rapids of retards dreaming of intelligent life somewhere in the galaxy.

>>8210923
>We've been over this 50000 times
kek
yet you you still dont understand the significance

>>8211019
>aliens are implausible

>>8211092
> Jupiter would block 1% of this star's light.
And ? Not to mention how much it would block is relative to the occluders distance and you're probably calculating it from the longest distance possible, which is wrong. The sun is incredibly huge compared to earth and moon is incredibly tiny compared to earth but it's enough to occlude 100% of its light. Also since a star that big can come about, so can anything that can occlude it, or even bigger ones. (even though 1/3 of its size would be enough to cause %20 dimming)

>>8211042
are you retarded? are you saying aliens are impossible?

>>8211124
> omg how can you not consider a childish autistic idea with zero evidence where as there are thousand other logical things that makes sense !!!1!
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/

>>8211144
does your argument go beyond stupid strawmanning or do you have a point to make as to why you think aliens arent plausible? Do you think we are special snowflakes created by god?

>>8211154
Catalog m8

>>8211154
> accuses of strawman when he's told its retarded to consider it without evidence
> resorts to strawmans and mad-hominems
you are a posterboy of >>>/x/. now leave before you drop your tinfoil hat.

>>8211154
It could be flying pink unicorns as well you know. we have no evidence against it so it's not impossible at all :^)

>>8210367

>>8211159
>resorts to strawmans and mad-hominems
You dont even know what that means, I figure. I never resorted to this. I just pointed out, that your dismissal of alien lifeforms is not very convincing if your only argument is "if u believe aliens, you are /x/ and tinfoil hat".
You also keep avoiding the question. Why is life in other systems implausible? I know there is no evidence yet, but in order to say there isnt life out there you would have to assume we are absolutely unique special snowflakes of the universe.

>>8211165
You cant really use your anti-god arguments with this one, buddy

>>8211159
>>8211165
There isnt evidence for anything yet. By your logic assuming it is comets or a debris field is equally retarded as saying "god did it".
But it isnt, because some things are more likely and consistent with our current models

>>8211111
>wouldn't their radio emissions also have reached us? (simultaneously?)

Why would a hypothetical alien civilization have radio signals of sufficient power to be detected from Earth at a distance of 1,454 light years? We've moved to low power point to point communications because it's way more efficient and opens up more bandwidth for communications.

>>8211122
And ? Not to mention how much it would block is relative to the occluders distance and you're probably calculating it from the longest distance possible, which is wrong. The sun is incredibly huge compared to earth and moon is incredibly tiny compared to earth but it's enough to occlude 100% of its light. Also since a star that big can come about, so can anything that can occlude it, or even bigger ones. (even though 1/3 of its size would be enough to cause %20 dimming)

I went through a lot of shit to check on this one, and found out some interesting numbers. For a Jupiter sized object placed right in front of KIC 8462852 to occlude 22% of its light, it would need to be 457 light years from the Earth. At distances this extreme, parallax is basically irrelevant.

>>8211159
literally r.eddit: the post

>>8211172
>>8211175
>>8211181
tinfoilers please leave
>>>/x/

>>8211175
>You cant really use your anti-god arguments with this one, buddy
The absence of evidence relating to both god and aliens are equally explicit

>>8211247
>being this desperate
wow, good point.

>>8211265
ayyliens belong to >>>/x/

>>8211256
The existence of alien lifeforms is more plausible than god or pink unicorns drifting through space.
Aliens arent some spooky voodoo witchcraft, they are just living organisms on a different planet and this is extremely likely

>>8211270
top kek
How many times do you want to link to /x/? Why do autists like repetition so much?
If you believe we are something special in the universe, you belong to /x/ my man

>>8211271
Funny how you're repeating the same thing for the 500th time with zero evidence :^)

>>8211276
people who bullshift without evidence belong to /x/
let me check who that might be
hmm..
oh its you
and now you should go back to >>>/x/

>>8211276
(You)

>>8211279
this. show me your evidence for aliens or fug off

>>8211276
Who claimed there was evidence?
Please learn to read and comprehend the point

>>8211302
> I have no evidence
brainlet finally admitted

now back to >>>/x/

This interview took place last week.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KIC8462852/comments/4siat1/my_interview_with_dr_joshua_pepper_july_11_2016/

>>8211307
see
>>8211271
>>8211274

But wouldn't it be rad IF it DID eventually show that it's aliens!?

I think so!

Honestly based on the most recent interviews no professional astronomer is ruling out aliens.

>>8211391
Australiens?

It's definitely aliens. All the alternatives have been virtually ruled out. Any fag who says otherwise is just a fag.

>>8211446
But anon, didnt you read the thread? Aliens are literally impossible to exist

>>8211446
>>8211453
>>>/x/

>>8210154
The resolution of JWST is approximately the same as HST. It has a larger mirror but it is only diffraction limited at longer wavelengths.

>>8211655
JWST has a mirror that is about 7times as big as hubbles. It will also primarily operate in infrared and it "orbits" at L2.
While it has similar angular resolution, it will be able to collect much more data and "look deeper"

>>8211507
Kill yourself, faggot.

>>8212330
>>>/x/

>>8212337
>>>>/x/