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 08-09-2016, 02:18 PM   #61
Ravenous
Donator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 The skeptical mindset nowadays prevalent in the scientific community is characterized by being extremely harsh on people making false positive (type 1) errors combined with extreme leniency on people making false negative (type 2) errors.
I don't want to get into the rest of the debate, but the above is an extremely good point.

Anyone remember what happened to some of the senior people at OPERA a few years ago? (The case of the anomalous arrival times of neutrinos.) They published the anomalous results to attract possible explanations (I read their conclusion very carefully and it was pretty neutral in tone). When an explanation did appear they were roasted for publishing.

So anyone publishing a hypothetical "big result" in this case will be in serious trouble if there is any mistake...
Ravenous is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2016, 03:13 PM   #62
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenous View Post
 I don't want to get into the rest of the debate, but the above is an extremely good point.

Anyone remember what happened to some of the senior people at OPERA a few years ago? (The case of the anomalous arrival times of neutrinos.) They published the anomalous results to attract possible explanations (I read their conclusion very carefully and it was pretty neutral in tone). When an explanation did appear they were roasted for publishing.

So anyone publishing a hypothetical "big result" in this case will be in serious trouble if there is any mistake...
Now the big question is: Who did roast whom for which reason?

Of course the team required getting criticized by scientific community, because their experiment set-up was deeply flawed and the strange results caused directly by it. It was nearly a beginners error that happened there.

But the biggest damage was caused by also getting into the media with the results - they really published it, not just for finding out what might be wrong.

Now, you have to publish your results before somebody else does. That is part of modern US dominated science: Publish early, publish often. Many scientists here hate it, because of many problems, like the above. But also it too often results in a large number of insignificant publications. Instead of having one good publication done with careful quality assurance before publication already, you now have to produce a small paper for every other conference. And maybe one paper at the end, that is halfway useful for other scientists to cite. And along the way, many papers with such errors as above.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2016, 05:27 PM   #63
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Slate - Bad Astronomy: I Still Still Don’t Think It’s Aliens, but Tabby’s Star Keeps Getting Weirder
orb is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2016, 10:36 PM   #64
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
 
Andy44's Avatar
Default

Well, there's really only one solution: build a starship and let's go see what's going on out there!
Andy44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 02:45 AM   #65
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
 
MaverickSawyer's Avatar
Default

Agreed.

Now, where'd I put those Orion Pulsedrive blueprints?
MaverickSawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 06:37 AM   #66
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy44 View Post
 Well, there's really only one solution: build a starship and let's go see what's going on out there!
We come in peace.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 12:10 PM   #67
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
 
Andy44's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 We come in peace.
I think it's time to re-read The Mote in God's Eye...
Andy44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-11-2016, 03:20 PM   #68
steph
Orbinaut
 
steph's Avatar
Default

Have they looked at all/most electromagnetic radiation coming from there? I know there was a radio survey a while back... Are there any historical radio bursts who might have come from that direction?
steph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2016, 11:06 PM   #69
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

New Scientist: ‘Alien megastructure’ star may be explained by interstellar junk
orb is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-20-2016, 01:43 AM   #70
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
 
Kyle's Avatar
Default

I find it difficult to believe that just one star in that region of the sky would experience such a dimming if it's really due to interstellar dust.
Kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2016, 02:29 AM   #71
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

Except it's not one, but two as the article says.

Last edited by boogabooga; 09-20-2016 at 02:40 AM.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-20-2016, 08:51 AM   #72
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 Except it's not one, but two as the article says.
Still - just two with such a behavior is pretty rare in a huge sky. But it is a nice theory for the next months until additional observations prove it wrong again...

EDIT: Actually it is not even a good theory. It is Russels Teapot for professionals. "Maybe there are interstellar comets, but we fail to see them."

Last edited by Urwumpe; 09-20-2016 at 08:54 AM.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2016, 02:51 PM   #73
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
 
Kyle's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 Except it's not one, but two as the article says.
Unless I'm mistaken, the other star in question is EPIC 204278916, which isn't directly related or in the FOV of Tabby's Star. EPIC 204278916 is a very young red dwarf with a directly resolved circumstellar disk (and an IR signature for it) that is producing dips of up to >60%. Tabby's Star is an older, F-class main sequence star with no such resolved circumstellar disk.
Kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-20-2016, 06:11 PM   #74
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

An F-star would be a very odd choice for a dyson sphere...
jedidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2016, 09:17 PM   #75
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
 
Kyle's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedidia View Post
 An F-star would be a very odd choice for a dyson sphere...
A dyson sphere in general seems like a very odd choice.
Kyle 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 02:56 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.