Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Astronomy & the Night Sky
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Astronomy & the Night Sky Astronomy news & discussions, Astrophotography, Telescopes, Star Charts, & more. Galaxies, Stars, Planets & Moons, discuss it all here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-16-2015, 11:37 PM   #31
Cairan
Donator
Default

Using 2 online calculators, I got an orbital distance of 1.8 AU from the star with a period of 750 days. Using the star's luminosity and temperature, I get a planetary equilibrium temperature of 279 K... If anyone wants to crush the numbers, please do... i find these values... fascinating.
Cairan is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-17-2015, 07:05 AM   #32
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
 
Quick_Nick's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cairan View Post
 Using 2 online calculators, I got an orbital distance of 1.8 AU from the star with a period of 750 days. Using the star's luminosity and temperature, I get a planetary equilibrium temperature of 279 K... If anyone wants to crush the numbers, please do... i find these values... fascinating.
That would be the right orbital distance.
For equilibrium temperature, I got something much lower but did get around 279 W/m^2 (probably coincidence?). I don't know how/why you used temperature of the star though, rather than just luminosity.
At 20% of the Earth's solar irradiance, I could see why the aliens might have need for a Dyson structure.

Last edited by Quick_Nick; 10-17-2015 at 07:10 AM.
Quick_Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2015, 08:25 AM   #33
Cairan
Donator
Default

One calculator used luminosity, the other the star's radius and temperature... will updatewith links when I'm on my computer.
Cairan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2015, 08:59 PM   #34
steph
Orbinaut
 
steph's Avatar
Default

What light dip is this for ? The 22% one? Since they're not exactly cyclical....
steph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2015, 10:37 PM   #35
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artlav View Post
 A lot of technology is dictated by the laws of physics.
The shapes and brands might be different, but basic ideas would very likely be similar.
And pretty much all technology is dictated by energy. The more tech, the more energy you need so, one of the best places to get energy from is the star which is why solar collectors and dyson spheres are popular ideas.

Anyway, for this star could it not be a mass of objects in an orbit similar to the oort cloud but perhaps bigger?

Could it not be a destroyed planet? There are so many potential explanations that to go "aliens!" is a bit silly
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-19-2015, 12:23 AM   #36
Cairan
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steph View Post
 What light dip is this for ? The 22% one? Since they're not exactly cyclical....
The 22% one is, per the article, on an approximately 750 day cycle. The whole bunch of random dips are not cyclical.
Cairan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2015, 01:19 AM   #37
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
 
fsci123's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyw View Post
 And pretty much all technology is dictated by energy. The more tech, the more energy you need so, one of the best places to get energy from is the star which is why solar collectors and dyson spheres are popular ideas.

Anyway, for this star could it not be a mass of objects in an orbit similar to the oort cloud but perhaps bigger?

Could it not be a destroyed planet? There are so many potential explanations that to go "aliens!" is a bit silly
Wouldnt a destroyed planet show a constant dip in light rather than several intense peaks. Unless it fractured into chunks and that seems to be impossible from my knowledge.
fsci123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2015, 01:35 AM   #38
Cairan
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fsci123 View Post
 Wouldnt a destroyed planet show a constant dip in light rather than several intense peaks. Unless it fractured into chunks and that seems to be impossible from my knowledge.
Not only that, but the paper underlines that they don't think it's that, because of the lack of a planetary christmas tree lit up in infrared in the system one would expect from a massive collision.
Cairan is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-19-2015, 09:33 AM   #39
steph
Orbinaut
 
steph's Avatar
Default

I was reading a topic on this on the AboveTopSecret forum (tinfoil crowd, I know, but I was curious about how they react) and someone mentioned how nice it would have been if Carl Sagan were still alive now to witness this.

Then again, just wait until the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking get a hold of this news.
steph is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-19-2015, 11:09 AM   #40
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

I was also wondering what would Carl Sagan say.

I suspect it would be a perfect balance of rational skepticism and excitement at the possibility.

Probably no one wanted to fill in the first entry of Encyclopedia Galactica more than him.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-19-2015, 09:06 PM   #41
Proximus
Orbinaut
 
Proximus's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cairan View Post
 Using 2 online calculators, I got an orbital distance of 1.8 AU from the star with a period of 750 days. Using the star's luminosity and temperature, I get a planetary equilibrium temperature of 279 K... If anyone wants to crush the numbers, please do... i find these values... fascinating.
So.... It's possibly in the Goldilocks zone, if that even applies here?
Proximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2015, 01:38 AM   #42
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

Kinda reminiscent of Percival Lowell's canals on Mars. Heady stuff for the time.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-29-2015, 11:45 AM   #43
steph
Orbinaut
 
steph's Avatar
Default

So....is it certain that we can rule out the Great Old Ones?





steph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2015, 06:45 PM   #44
Mister Kite
discipulus in perpetuum
 
Mister Kite's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steph View Post
 So....is it certain that we can rule out the Great Old Ones?
Most likely:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01606
Mister Kite is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 11-07-2015, 07:12 PM   #45
Cairan
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Kite View Post
Quote:
This report represents a first survey placing upper limits on anomalous flux from KIC 8462852. We expect that this star will be the object of additional observations for years to come.
They just put an upper bound on microwave emissions, that doesn't mean there is nothing there, just that we can rule out microwaves blasting out from this star...
Cairan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Astronomy & the Night Sky


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.