The Mysterious Star
Between 2009 and 2013 the Kepler spacecraft recorded unusual data about KIC 8462852. An F class star 1,480 light years away in Cygnus, KIC 8462852 displays major but aperiodic drops in magnitude. These drops are not due to an internal factor but something (or a host of things) orbiting the star.
On March 5, 2011, the star's brightness fell by as much as 15%. About 750 days later, it fell by up to 22%. Dimming of that magnitude wouldn't have resulted from a planet transiting the star. Even giant Jupiter would've only caused a drop of 1%.
Nor are the drops due to dust. Dust would absorb the star's light, warm up and then reradiate the energy in the infrared. Spectroscopic studies, however, reveal no heightened IR in the vicinity. Clouds of gas and dust, typical of star formation, are a possibility, but the star seems well past the early phase associated with such clouds.
The difficulty of finding a natural explanation has fueled speculation about a Dyson system i.e. huge solar panels built by an advanced civilization. Aliens may be capturing the star's energy. The best explanation, however, may be comets, sent toward KIC 8462852 by a red dwarf companion 885 AU away. Assuming KIC 8462852 has an Oort cloud, its companion could wreak havoc with it, in the process obscuring the brighter star occasionally with masses of debris.
Naturally, the mystery has attracted much scientific attention, and an answer should be forthcoming soon.
On March 5, 2011, the star's brightness fell by as much as 15%. About 750 days later, it fell by up to 22%. Dimming of that magnitude wouldn't have resulted from a planet transiting the star. Even giant Jupiter would've only caused a drop of 1%.
Nor are the drops due to dust. Dust would absorb the star's light, warm up and then reradiate the energy in the infrared. Spectroscopic studies, however, reveal no heightened IR in the vicinity. Clouds of gas and dust, typical of star formation, are a possibility, but the star seems well past the early phase associated with such clouds.
The difficulty of finding a natural explanation has fueled speculation about a Dyson system i.e. huge solar panels built by an advanced civilization. Aliens may be capturing the star's energy. The best explanation, however, may be comets, sent toward KIC 8462852 by a red dwarf companion 885 AU away. Assuming KIC 8462852 has an Oort cloud, its companion could wreak havoc with it, in the process obscuring the brighter star occasionally with masses of debris.
Naturally, the mystery has attracted much scientific attention, and an answer should be forthcoming soon.
posted by starman at 7:30 AM
48 Comments:
It's an interesting phenomenon. I would say that comets are the most likely causal factor. However, I won't rule out the possibility that alien activity might be causing it. It will be interesting to see what additional research will reveal.
I incline toward a natural explanation. But conceivably this is the first real evidence for advanced aliens, unassociated with the UFO phenomenon.
hi Tim I want to comment but a program is blocking me, I'll do it by email
Roger
Yes, I have proposed that we humans will be constructing such gigantic structures in the future thousands of years from now as our capabilities and ambitions grow; but if so, then I would have expected us to observe them around other stars, and it may be that the reason we haven't observed them is mostly just that only recently have our telescopes gotten powerful enough.
But the idea that comets could blot out so much of the star's light is difficult to accept since it is so vastly beyond anything the comets in our sun's Oort cloud could do. But we also know from experience that there are stars out there that ARE vastly out of the ordinary. If so, then maybe it is just as likely that it's caused bu gas and dust clouds despite the star being oleder than that in general.
But I also am accustomed to not seeing much evidence of extraterrestrial life, other than the UFO stories which aren't too convincing to me, that I find it hard to believe that this new is alien intelligence at work.
I think one reason we haven't detected evidence of Dyson systems (up til now?) is that, to be detectable by current means, they'd have to pass in front of stars. But what if most orbit at right angles to our line of sight, or just barely miss stars?
So you don't think a swarm of comets (etc) could dim KIC 8462852 by 15-22% occasionally? Aren't Oort clouds vast?
I can certainly understand the last point. Over the years there have been many (nonUFO) claims of evidence for extraterrestrial life which haven't stood up. Remember the announcement about microbes in a meteorite from Mars? There were other examples.
True, at least one bit of (nonUFO) evidence for ET may never have been debunked--the so called WOW signal. But it hasn't been duplicated to my knowledge.
So UFO reports aren't convincing? Because evidence is often limited or ambiguous, or cases are often mucked up by silly claims--which I suspect are deliberate disinfo? If you recall my book I addressed much of that.
I hope I get time to reread the part of your book where you explain why you find ET- UFO reports convincing. To me the most convincing thing about them is that there are so many of them with such variety and scattered non-randomly thru time and space, but not in a way that necessarily suggests some sort of collective popular mania either. But it still does seem to me that there is plenty of room for doubt although again I acknowledge that it's hard to exclude the possibility that at least a tiny percentage of the reports are true, so my own conclusion is that these incidents are caused by rogues disobeying the rules of the Galactic Federation; there is no single report of their hijinks that absolutely HAS to be believed.
One thing that's not clear is how the possibility of the dimming being due to dust and gas clouds is diminished by the fact that there seems not to be any re-radiation in the infrared, but later it says that one reason for discounting the likelihood of such gas/dust clouds is that the star is older than the age at which those are common. It's like, are there two different kinds of gas/dust clouds, or do both reasons apply to any and all kinds of dust/gas clouds?
Yeah, I am sure that all the things in the Oort cloud put together could not dim the Sun by even a tenth of 1%. How am I so certain is maybe because if they were so big and numerous, they would periodically blot out the light coming to Earth from all the other stars in the sky.
First, about the Oort cloud, it's distributed through a vastly greater volume of space than the inner solar solar system. I'd hardly expect it to block much light from stars. But what if the companion of KIC 8462852 sent much of it close to the star? We know there are many exoplanets that orbit very close to stars. They may have been sent inward by encounters with other bodies. Of course stellar heat would quickly cook away the volatiles of comets, but we may be observing swarms just sent toward the star--which may also account for the uniqueness of the phenomenon. Swarms of comets may not, however account, for aperiodicity of dimming.
I've mentioned the Iron Law of Plausible Deniability--no UFO report is without problems, or is incontrovertible proof of ET. But I've written that aliens themselves are slowly familiarizing us with them. It's a long delicate process. To avoid general acceptance too early, they deliberately limit available evidence or cloud it in various ways. UFO reports often have strong points but also "compensatory" weak ones.
I have a feeling that this phenomenon is something abnormal going on, How many times has this severe dimming been observed? It might not be cyclical at all, just a single catastrophic event. Will the astronomers keep us posted on further future variability of this star?
Yes, your explanation of the UFO phenomenon's uncertainties is plausible to me, although I am not convinced that it is the only possible explanation, as I still think my hypothesis of the UFOs being rogues disobeying Global Federation rules is plausible too. I gather that you don't so I'll be interested in your explanation of why not if you want to explain that?
Yes astronomers are watching KIC 8462852 closely and may soon announce if the orbiting objects are solid, or gaseous like a comet shedding volatiles as it nears a star. Sure it could be just a single catastrophic event e.g. the star's companion sending a mass of Oort material toward it, which will soon dissipate.
In my books--and I continue to work on a new edition--I've noted the extraordinary discipline of the phenomenon. No ET ever broke certain apparent rules. Even after several decades, not one saucer or ET wiped out a city or landed in plain sight in front of thousands of people, like in Times Square. No alien was ever interviewed on TV. The visitors appear to be the antithesis of rogues. Had there been rogues, somehow tolerated by a Federation--in the midst of a vital mission--by now one or more of them would've done something to conclusively (and PUBLICLY) prove the reality of aliens.
Okay, this is interesting reasoning. I agree, that if there were any large number of rogue groups, it does seem most likely that SOME of them would flagrantly violate Galactic Federation rules, even if MOST of them internalized the GF morality that--until we are ready for them--any interventions by aliens must be both minor and benign, in order to allow us Earthlings to develop to our own fullest potential. But as I recall, that was quite different from your main thread in your book. Incidentally, I just last night came across your book again for the first time in several years due to cleaning up my cluttered apartment where everything tends to get overlaid by my endless succession of projects. Hopefully will try to get time to reread relevant parts of it. What are you changing in your new version?
I have long predicted that, after we reach a certain scientific/technological threshold--essentially consummate knowledge--the ETs will intervene massively, to consolidate a new wholist system. But that's probably decades away. You may recall I have always predicted the Mideast will be the first of the three major upheavals to overturn present government and values. The ETs will be the last. But if the Mideast is currently a shambles, so it'll be quite a few years before there's a big muslim-Israel war, consummation of the whole process may not even be for my lifetime...
The new version has more, and more up to date info, and some added insights.
It seems to me that it's coming sooner than that because I think we are at the start of WW III because ISIS, I believe, is spearheading an effort to change the whole world order, it's not just Islam vs Israel, it's Islam vs the West, where Islam has the potential of finding allies among ALL who know that the existing world order is evil...which will be a fast-growing number if and as the global economy disintegrates de to the current governments' relentless mismanagement of it. Have I said this before? Forgive me if I repeat myself I admit I'm obsessed with it all! And would still like to hear your response even if you may have responded to similar thoughts of mine in the past...
I don't think ISIS is out to change the whole world, just the Mideast. And I don't think it's a matter of Islam against the West. ISIS killed some Americans, and attacked France etc, to retaliate for foreign intervention against it. Right wing commentators see al-Qaida and ISIS attacks as war between Islam and the West but I don't buy it. Al-Qaida struck on 9/11 because of Western POLICY in the Mideast. The same goes for ISIS attacks.
Look how the present vendetta got started. Back in 2014, after a Shiite led government in Iraq came to power (following US meddling) it alienated the Sunnis. Many turned to ISIS, and in 2014 ISIS made quick gains in Iraq. Obama then intervened, even though this was an internal Iraqi war, and ISIS to that point had done nothing against the US. US jets and drones started hitting ISIS vehicles and troops, killing many. ISIS then killed US hostages, angering Obama who escalated the fight and brought other nations into it. But this isn't a general West vs Islam war--the vast bulk of Muslims are against ISIS.
I think the present mess will gradually sort itself out, and the arab-Israel conflict become the focus again. The recent stabbings prove the Arab-Israel conflict isn't over, and could escalate if or when Israel expels the Palestinians from the territories. An economic breakdown is coming, but to really trigger it, there must be an oil supply interruption or withdrawal of muslim funds from western banks--due to US support of Israel in a future war.
Putin's actions indicate east-west rivalry hasn't ended either and that'll mean WWIII someday, but not until after the Mideast IMO.
Both of us have reiterated our views; no harm in an occasional reminder. :)
Yes, that's good and I can more clearly see where the roots of some of our disagreements are. For one thing, I see these conflicts as going much farther back than you seem to. For example, ISIS is rooted not in 2014 but in seething Sunni resentment dating back to 2003--it just took 10 years for it to get organized enough to come to our attention. And the Arab/Muslim-Israeli fight goes back to 1948 and has only been quiescent because the Arab/Islamic side was too weak to do anything about it but I know from personal experience that these grievances when allowed to go on unrelieved just build and build below the surface.
I think you're right that most Muslims now are against ISIS but I think that as the West keeps escalating the conflict, Muslim sympathy for ISIS will grow. And the West WILL, I am sure, keep escalating it, remember that Obama--who is probably actually among the mildest of our gov't leaders, has vowed not to defeat ISIS but to destroy it and he isn't going to give up on that but keep hitting back harder and harder and harder with each round, damned fool and far from the worst--wait till Hillary gets elected, or perhaps any of the Republicans!
The economy is gradually disintegrating too behind the scenes. Consunmer confidence dropped from 99 in October to 90 now, which surprised the "experts" who are being fooled by the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are added each month so they think it's a strong economy and it's not--those are crummy, low-paying jobs.
More soon...till then have a happy Thanksgiving and let's keep discussing this although it's kind of out of place in this blog...
Lol, yeah, remarkable how some threads stray so far from the original subject. We started out talking about KIC 8462852 and are now talking about ISIS. But I don't mind.
I was well aware of the roots of these conflicts. The Arab-Israel one for example, actually goes back to well before 1948. Down to the time of the US "surge" of 2007, radical Sunnis were in al-qaida, until many Sunnis of the "Awakening" movement crushed them with US help. The remnants regrouped as ISIS. It is noteworthy btw, that the forerunner of ISIS was smashed almost totally in 2007 but the same group, essentially, revived big time seven years later. That, I'm afraid, may say something about the futility of purely military solutions, so popular these days...
It's amazing and disappointing that almost nobody is willing to negotiate with ISIS, in light of realities on the ground. Despite the best efforts of the Iraqi government, Iranian advisors and US aircraft, I've yet to hear of the fall of Ramadi, even though few ISIS fighters are holed up there. Even if Ramadi is taken today, imagine how tough it'll be to take Mosul!
As for economics, you may recall my predictions of a machine takeover in the workplace and its political effects. The scenario is still credible even if my original prediction for it happening in 2010 was off. 2050 may be nearer the mark, for that and a final Mideast showdown.
I agree again with most of what you say, but I don't know how much attention you pay to popular US politics--I am always reading letters to editor and comments on online news stories, and the impression I get overwhelmingly is that the public is absolutely brainwashed on ISIS, negotiating with them is the farthest thing from their minds, war is the only thing they think about at all, so I am not really surprised when the Gov't "follows" along--or is it the gov't--Obama et al--that is doing the brainwashing? Do you suppose that Obama et al perhaps honestly in all idiotic sincerity do not know any history or think that history just dates back to 911? . . . Today's news was that 4,000 people marched in London in hopes of keeping Britain from joining the war on ISIS which Cameron is itching to do.
You know, a great deal of the economic problems that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2008 are due to automation, and I believe that this will also contribute strongly to the next Great Depression which may already be setting in, with mfg now declining in the US (and the gov't ignoring that, so the problem will probably continue to grow); so in that sense your prediction is true already although I don't recall whether you went so much into the way automation would cause economic collapse? What other political effects did you foresee from it? The Luddites were right to smash the machines of their day; but why didn't that early automation cause a Great Depression? My theory is that it did cause much of the poverty throughout the 1800s but colonial-imperialism kept bringing in enough wealth and markets from Asia and Africa to keep European and US economies growing until it finally caught up with them in 1929. What do you think?
BTW I just read your newest blog, very interesting but I don't know if I can comment on it yet . . .
I agree absolutely: the public and popular media have completely demonized ISIS, and want them dead. But they still oppose a major reintroduction of US ground forces ("boots on the ground") to do it.
In the past, whenever I predicted automation would radically transform society, by causing mass, private sector unemployment, somebody would always counter by pointing out that past automation (for example assembly lines and robots) didn't lead to mass unemployment as humans were needed to build and service the machines. More recently however I've heard of self directing and self repairing software, which may be a watershed...A future workplace may have very little need of humans.
I always thought economic COLLAPSE (albeit temporary) would result from rising debt, a cutoff of foreign oil supplies and withdrawal of money from western banks. Automation would cause mass (private sector) unemployment and an increased role for the State, which would become dominant, in part because many people will end up in the military and militarization isn't democracy friendly--but is conducive to State power. Both automation and collapse will, in my scenario, doom present democratic government.
I'll be very glad if you DO comment on my latest blog post, on Murtagi and Gamasy. I can't believe Pollack didn't see through Gamasy's deception, even though he implied a different view on page 595 of ARABS AT WAR and included O'Ballance's book in the bibliography. I emailed Pollack for his take on this but didn't get a reply (yet?).
Yeah, people are mass-deluding themselves. You can't destroy or even defeat ISIS without boots on the ground. There's an obvious horrible exception to that, which would be to nuke them, with a few hundred Hiroshima-Nagasaki type bombs; or maybe the equivalent of Tokyo/Dresden type devastation. I know that's going to occur to some people, just as it did in the Vietnam war. It's crazy, but I don't see how else those who say we're going to DESTROY ISIS could expect this to end.
I guess now I'm thinking as I'm writing, the best way to understand this is that the politicians are just shooting off their mouths. I didn't expect them to do that because I follow TR's rule, speak softly and carry a big stick, but Obama and all them are just the opposite.
You know, automation (along with right-wing Republican economics) wrecked the economy culminating in the Great Depression of the 1930s...Don't forget that it was only the mass mobilization, job-creation, and redistribution of wealth of WWII that replaced the Depression with the post-war prosperity--which led many people to the delusion that it was Capitalism that brought us the Golden Age affluence 1945-75, which caused many people to lose the understanding that automation really will destroy the economy over a 30-60-year period. It was a big factor--again along with Reagan-Bush's right-wing economics (continuing under Obama), that brought about 2008, which was only prevented from turning into a Depression by the gov't spending trillions it did not have.
I pretty much agree with your scenario to the point of WW III but I believe that Mankind will learn from that experience and establish good, democratic, almighty World Government after WW III. Do you really think the war will last forever?
Looking forward to having the time to get back to your current blog in a few days :)
Right now the only effective boots on the ground are Kurdish peshmerga forces. They're politically very problematic though. If the Kurds are called upon to do the bulk of the fighting, such as taking Raqqa and even Mosul, inevitably they'll feel entitled to a reward, specifically a state of their own (not just an autonomous area). If such a state is an implied promise, however, it'll alienate the Turkish and Iraqi governments, who don't want Kurds getting ideas and breaking away. Already the Turks have struck Kurdish positions in Iraq as well as in their own country. Of course WWIII won't last forever. I'm not rehashing Orwell. :) But in my scenario, authoritarianism will already exist before WWIII and be consolidated--to a considerable degree--by it. The flying saucers will then put the finishing touches to the process of restoring Caesarism, this time on a global scale. A democratic World Government strikes me as oxymoronic. Many nations won't surrender their sovereignty without coercion. Only a militarized, dictatorial great power can coerce on a continuing basis. All great empires have been nondemocratic. Intelligent people shouldn't worry if a system is nondemocratic provided it is meritocratic. Legions of highly intelligent people are languishing today because, no matter how good their ideas, they cant get elected dogcatcher.
And I look forward to your return here. Are you sure you can't also comment on the Murtagi post?
I just haven't had time...I do expect to reread and comment on the Murtagi post in a few days :)
Interesting ideas about the Kurds. I think that aid could ease Turkish and Iraqi opposition to the formation of a united Kurdish state (Syria and Iran would also be affected by that ideal, I think, but if the Kurds are peaceful towards all those countries as well as ISIS, our offer of aid might make such a deal possible. All countries want to develop. But as I've noted before, due to bad mismanagement of the economy, the rich countries like the US have no aid to give, so it's just all going to be an awful mess until one side crushes the other.
I agree that it will take a great deal of coercion--war--to get most countries to yield any of their sovereignty to a democratic world government. Most of that war as I foresee it should happen through a global class struggle in which poor countries like Mexico, China, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Africa, seize land and wealth from the rich countries like the US, Australia, and Europe. It is a good question, What would democracy really mean under such a world government, and one obvious thing would be taxes, the poor people of the world would vote for redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor countries. Since they will have already seized so much land and wealth from them, it should not be hard to collect the taxes. My scenario is that once this principle has been established through war, and if it works out pretty well for all, satisfactorily even for the rich countries, (which assumes that it would be the 1%, rather than the 99% middle-class and poor people in the rich countries who would have to bear the tax burden) democratic decision-making should be possible for the lesser secondary issues on the world scale. Yet I don't really disagree with you very much, I am just being probably overly optimistic because I keep imagining that I myself or other humanistic people will be able to play a significant role in establishing this future world order. I have to admit that that does not seem too probable. And yet, you do seem to consider meritocracy to be a real possibility. How would you propose to bring it about?
Did you hear Obama's stupid speech last night? I am thinking about posting a thousand fliers reading like "THE WAY TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISM IS TO STOP WAGING UNJUST WARS. Beg forgiveness and offer to make reparations." What do you think of that?
I doubt Turkey, Iraq or Iran would cede territory to a Kurdish state for aid or allow such a state to arise in the first place. For decades, all three have occasionally fought to thwart Kurdish aspirations.
As I wrote only a NONdemocratic system would be able to fight to coerce other nations into giving up their sovereignty. Few if any past hegemons or Empires were democratic. You've read my scenarios--first the US becomes dictatorial, after economic setbacks, then it unifies the world, then ET helps keep it that way. :)
I don't think China or India are poor countries in the sense of being undeveloped, or they or the others will be able to seize much more the US or Europe.
Yeah for both of us, trying to win support and advance our agendas has been a decades long, seemingly futile quest, that may not bear fruit for many more years, yet the clock is ticking. We aren't immortal....
Meritocracy should be possible once democracy is gone. 20th century totalitarian systems like the USSR were fairly meritocratic.
As for the flier, if you want to have any influence at all, don't include that second sentence...Nearly everybody will reject it as "too wimpy." I'd rephrase the first sentence to read "The way to protect America from terrorism is to end our involvement in foreign wars." Or "....get out of the Iraq-Syria quagmire." The second sentence might read: "Let foreigners (or lunatics) fight their own battles."
I certainly look forward to your comment on the Murtagi post!
I finally had time to comment on the Murtagi blog. How much blame do you think Gamasy and Murtagi should take? It just seemed to me that they could hardly be blamed because the communications had broken down?
I think that the reason Turkey and Iraq and all oppose a Kurdish state is mainly just that it would remove territory, land, wealth, and tax revenues from their own governments. That's why I think that aid--enough aid to compensate them for these losses, would eliminate their opposition and make the Kurdish state possible. Why else do you say that these governments have "fought to thwart Kurdish aspirations"?
I believe Africa will be able to conquer substantial parts of Europe. It could only be at a terrible cost in human lives, though, obviously, in order to obtain the war materiel they would need. Probably a "rational" African leader would not attempt such a horror--an African Hitler madman would be required, but he would not actually be insane because this is essential if Africa is to achieve equality with Europe. Imperative for there to be any hope for a better world. The better way of doing it would be for Europe to give giant amounts of foreign aid and/or allow Africans to freely migrate into large swaths of its territory. But they're not going to do that alas obviously.
I can't see the US unifying the world, except though I see what you are saying, it would require a total change in America's mentality, which I agree could come about through the economic collapse and revolution.
I'm still working on the flier, I understand your points and will let you know what I wind up with although one thing is that really I want the bastards to really CRAWL to "beg forgiveness" they deserve utter humiliation, but the US as a whole may not need to beg forgiveness, maybe just punish the war criminals, hand them over to Arabian courts for their trial or something.
I was glad to see your comment on the Murtagi post and reply. I agree; Murtagi and Gamasy can hardly be blamed first, because they were misled, and second, when they finally realized the truth, their orders couldn't get through.
I think retention of Kurdish territory is far more than an matter of economics. No state wants to lose territory and prestige like that.
It seems to me Africa is developing and many Africans have gone to Europe and elsewhere.
I agree that bastards ( Wolfowitz was he worst IMO) deserve utter humiliation. In fact he and other neocons should've gotten the death penalty. Their stupid influence of 2001-3 led to the terrible mess of today.
Yeah, my new version of the flier reads "THE WAY TO PROTECT AMERICA IS TO STOP WAGING UNJUST WARS. Send the warmongers (Bush et al) to the World Court for trial, and offer reparations to victims of past US aggression." As you mention, Wolfowitz was one of the worst, but then there are people like Colin Powell and all the Congressmen who voted in favor, and Paul Bremer and all them, the guilt spreads far and wide and though many deserve death I really believe in tempering justice with mercy and wouldn't kill any of them, just a few years in jail is all indeed I would not have killed Hitler if we'd captured him, for one thing it's possible that Stalin and Mao, though well-intentioned, committed even worse crimes against their own people and went totally unpunished. I also need to look up the World Court, my impression is that they do not have any jurisdiction (yet!) over US officials.
Wouldn't Turkey's international prestige actually increase if they allowed their Kurds to form part of the new Kurdish state, just like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, et al are highly thought of for supporting decolonization?
Even though many (millions?) of Africans have gone to Europe etc., Europe is still blocking the entry of millions more; Africa as a whole is still desperately poor and even with rapid development shows no signs (despite the amazing surprising success at achieving some of the Millennium Development goals) of overcoming their poverty and unemployment and backwardness, even if most of them now have smartphones, they mostly still live in grinding squalor and do not have any hope of a better life in the future, although true that does depend on the global economy. If the world economy booms, Africa probably will share in it, but the Second Great Depression I foresee will quickly smash the hopes of hundreds of millions.
I suggest "stop waging costly and/or futile wars" would be better than "unjust" wars. Many Americans tend to be hard nosed and pragmatic, and you have to put out a message they can relate to. Just like Machiavelli said, results are what counts.:)
No I doubt Turkey's prestige would increase by ceding territory to a new Kurdish state. It's one thing to give up overseas possessions another to surrender one's own national territory. Ankara would look pretty wimpy indeed.
Africa has made no progress? I was under the impression there has been a great deal of economic gain even if poverty remains a major problem in many countries. Also, much of the blame for poverty should go to internal corruption not the developed countries.
It's great to see your comments to my recent posts and look forward to more. :)
yes, you may be right and I will think some more about my flier. But the terrorists don't attack us because the wars were costly or futile, but because they were unjust...so I go round and round, I'm feeling kind of futile myself about this project, maybe I just need to wait until the terrorists are doing us major damage, killing thousands month after month. Or maybe I will wait until the time is ripe for my Secession project. Or maybe I could just post my fliers without any expectation of starting a movement but only of perhaps educating the small number of people who may be open to reason, far too few to have any impact on policy :(
I think a lot of countries are going to have to give up some of their territory, like Ukraine, Syria, like the USSR did in 1989-90, like we hope the US will do when we try to secede, and did I mention the need for Australia to yield most of its land to desperate South and Southeast Asians? Maybe it will become so common that it won't be judged harshly, and yet maybe in each case it won't happen without war(except for Russia, which the world was grateful did not try violently to hold onto its conquered territories).
Africa has made a lot of progress but since hundreds of millions have been excluded from those gains, they may be available for recruitment by African Napoleons bent on getting even with Europe. Even a corrupt ruler to blame for his own country's poverty might join his nation to an Africa-wide war on Europe.
Yeah, I'm enjoying this too!
Do you think you can influence more people if you wrote letters to the editor instead of fliers? I recall you did that in the past.
Australia is big but much of its territory consists of the "outback" --desert/semi-desert. I don't think it has worthwhile territory to cede, even if it were willing.
Syria is another matter. Even if IS is crushed I don't know if it would be wise to restore the Sykes Picot borders. The slow progress at Ramadi, requiring coalition air strikes, suggests the Sunnis will be subdued only at great cost. It may be more practical to let them have their own state across Syria and Iraq.
New African dictators may rise to power by promising to end corruption, and actually doing it to an extent. No doubt many Nigerians would be better off if oil revenues weren't hoarded by a handful of powerful people, concerned only with enriching themselves. I can't see black Africa becoming militarily powerful enough to fight Europe.
It's always great to see your comments, but why not put them in the newest, Murtagi thread? They may be off-topic but no more so than here. :)
Yes, I wrote half a dozen or so letters to LA Times in the 1990s that they published, but in the 2000s they seemed to stop publishing anything I wrote. I suspect that the reason may be that usually I am pointing out the need to tax the rich and corporations, and since the Times like all media is owned by the rich, they naturally don't want to help me spread my message. So I haven't sent them any letters in the last ten years, another reason is that their pro-war editorials and op-eds are so stupid and rotten I don't seem to find the patience to respond civilly! I don't think there's any use sending letters to Time Magazine or the like because they probably only publish a minuscule percentage of the letters they get and also, of course, you have to be brief, while I feel the need to explain more complex ideas. But also, I get the impression that maybe the types of people I need to reach to organize and march in demonstrations are not generally the sorts who read letters to the editor. More active vs more sedentary, perhaps? More committed to the cause vs more interested in debating, perhaps? Ordinary people, my impression is that they don't read letters to editor because they don't read, period, or if they do read, it's celebrity trash magazines (few read newspapers anymore, just us geezers), but they MIGHT, I hope, read something posted on a pole. Do you write LtE?
I believe that with a great deal of hard work, the desert can be made to bloom--and one thing the South-SE Asians are good at is hard work for low pay, which is exactly what's needed to start farming Australia. There's a lot of water in the NE, which could be sent to the interior by aqueduct, for example. I think that once they had done the really hard work of establishing the necessary canals or whatever, a million square miles of the Outback could become the breadbasket of a prosperous continent. That reminds me too, did I tell you about my theory that China is overpopulated relative to its land area, so we should offer them Alaska, just as the USSR should have offered Germany a million sq km of liebensraum? The hard-working/low-wage Chinese could also I believe, although I have to admit that I do not KNOW this, make agriculture flourish in Alaska (1 obvious thing being greenhouses yet there may be many other solutions).
Yeah it would definitely be best for the Sunnis to have their own state in what is today Iraq and Syria. Obama and them are probably thinking that after they destroy ISIS, they will find a bunch of "moderate" Sunnis and give them their own homeland where ISIS is now. What a waste really all this war for nothing.
Black Africa would need allies and their first and most important ally will have to be the Muslims of North Africa. There are already links, that can be built upon, between the Islamic world and LatinAmerica. Then they can get China, India, and Russia on their side (how? you may well ask...well , I'm working on that) and then with their enormous natural resources, their 800 million to a billion people, and a ruler as ruthless as Stalin, Black Africa should be able to get even with Europe, IMO. I will grant you that this is likely just wishful thinking on my part. Africa has to rise up if there is to be any hope for a better world in the future.
OK after you respond to this, I will move to the Murtagi thread! :)
PS I was thinking of Stalin as the example of the leader who rapidly built up his nation's productive capabilities, particular of steel, weaponry, ammunition, etc., everything needed for war, because even though he was taken by surprise when Hitler invaded, it is part of Communist mythology that the capitalist countries are liable to attack you at any time. Africa would need that same sort of crash MIC program. (I remember having heard the USSR being described as one great Military-Industrial Complex.)
See Murtagi thread, where my answer is. :)
Roger and everyone else: I just saw some additional news on this. Louisiana State University astronomer Robert Schaefer checked Harvard records and discovered that KIC 8462852 has been experiencing irregular dimming for a century (1890-1989). His data casts doubt on the comet hypothesis because it would take 648,000 comets of 200km length to produce the observed effects and that's implausible.
Correction: the LSU astronomer's name is Bradley Schaefer and the story is from businessinsider.com.
Yeah, it was amazing to read that they were able to use records dating back to 1890! Another idea that I'd like to read your and scientists' thoughts on is the possibility that the star had eaten something that disagreed with it. Could it have swallowed a small black hole or a neutron star? Or even a white dwarf or some other dense non-hydrogen object that put non-fusile materials into its core displacing the hydrogen?(like a gigantic rocky planet, which really ought to exist even though I have never heard of any such. Suppose the star itself was the result of a collision of say a few hundred Earths-like and/or Jupiters like, that could include enough H2 to ignite fusion but not enough to sustain it for oh say more than 1,000 to 10,000 to 100,000 years?
How would swallowing a neutron star or white dwarf cause aperiodic dimming? I wonder if the explanation could be something simple. Fairly often, some undetected object in the same line of sight as KIC 8462852 but tens of light years away, just obscures it a bit.
Oh btw Roger, I just added another comment to the Murtagi post, partly about a book I'm reading.
Wow, sorry but I am not a good enough astrophysicist, thank you anyhow :) to answer how swallowing a neutron star or white dwarf would cause aperiodic dimming but it would be by interfering with the star's own nucleus, getting in the way of the hydrogen that it relies on for its own energy; I mean do you have any reason to think that the meal would NOT interfere with its digestion? Also is it certain that the phenomenon is DIMMING and not BRIGHTENING? I find it hard to believe that anything in the line of sight could cause the effect because such an object would have to be gigantic bigger than a million stars, wouldn't it? And/or it would have to magically remain right in that line of sight for centuries while all objects that are that far away from each other are always moving with respect to each other. How about a giant gas/dust cloud containing condensations of the sort that may eventually result in new star births?
Will soon check out your new Murtagi post
Always good to see you here Roger; I wish more people would come. If KIC8462852 swallowed a neutron star, displacing hydrogen from its very center, that obviously hasn't stopped fusion--the star still shines, so why would it dim occasionally? I don't think there's any doubt about the aperiodic dimming; records going back over a century attest to it.
Maybe junk from the neutron star occasionally bubbles up to the surface, causing it to darken a bit(?)
I don't know how big a distant object in the same LOS would have to be to cause this. You're probably right that it wouldn't have persisted in the same LOS this long. A gas cloud would be detectable; plenty are known.
Yeah, I wish there were more people here too, although just the 2 of us seems to keep me busy sometimes! I'm happy today because I suppose you've heard the news of the discovery (implied though not yet seen) of "Planet Nine"! Already dreaming of colonizing it! Wonder what our source of energy out there would be--perhaps residual heat from its formation? Microwave energy sent by laser from Mercury? Perhaps burning organic materials there with oxygen that might also be there? Incidentally from what we've been told so far, I derive that the length of the year on any world is proportional to its distance from the sun times the square root of its distance (i.e., D to the 3/2 power--perhaps you already knew that or don't consider it important to know?) and Planet Nine may be 700 to 1000 times as far from the sun as Earth, which means it would take sunlight a week or so to get there, so if we could travel at 1% of the speed of light, it would take 10 years to get there. Very interesting to me at least!
I know we observe lots of gas and dust clouds but I'm not sure how, exactly, or at what distance we can observe them other than according to their blocking of light from stars beyond. How else could we know their size and density? Their temperature and composition can be detected by their spectra but not their size or structure I don't think.
I would like to see the chart showing the star's brightness as it has varied over the last 125 years.
Yes, debris from a neutron star might bubble up to the surface or might block photons from the core during their long journey to the surface, you know it takes thousands of years I think for photons to make that trip.
Sure I heard of Planet Nine. Almost certainly its only energy source is internal planetary heat, which should be plentiful given its size. Heat
may rise to the surface via vulcanism. But a large planet like that would have excessive gravity. I very much doubt Planet Nine has life that can photosynthesize hence little if any free oxygen.
I don't have anything further to add to the KIC 8462852 issue right now. I suppose there will be further announcements.
Meanwhile the dry, snow free conditions here are almost over. Our luck this winter has run out; we're about to be clobbered with a snowstorm...
Its gravity would depend on its density, which I suppose is about 1.2-1.5, or about 1/4 of the Earth's density; in which case, in order to have ten times Earth's mass, its diameter would be 3-4 times Earth's, so its gravity would probably be LESS than Earth's--Saturn, you know, has lower surface gravity than Earth does due to its low density less than 1.0. I wonder if volcanic energy could be tapped, or how deep a hole you'd have to drill to get at the core's or mantle's heat--that would be an exciting area for technological progress. And you're obviously right about photosynthesis I presume, I can't seem to remember now where I thought oxygen might come from there but I wonder if any other chemical reactions might produce energy there.
Too bad I'll have to enjoy your snowstorm vicariously, I hope you get 4 feet of snow with 50-knot winds that would be fun :)
You're assuming Planet Nine is made of ice? Probably not a bad assumption for an Oort cloud object. :) Maybe it has a small rocky core surrounded by a liquid water or methane ocean(?) Sort of like Europa? Surely an object 10X as massive as Earth has substantial internal heat, and volcanism. Probably that far out, there's too little--if any--carbon for life.
The forecast in this morning's paper, which I got around 5:10 AM this January 23, calls for 4-8" of snow in our area. Just great.....but it could easily have been worse--look at Baltimore and DC. At least I get to use my new shovel and know it was a necessary, useful investment. :(
I think there could be quite a lot of carbon and/or carbon compounds, based on the large number of carbonaceous asteroids, also haven't they found carbon on Pluto and Neptune's atmosphere is full of methane. I am just thinking that when hydrogen combines with carbon to form methane, there might be a substantial release of heat, but I don't really know yet how to check that out and also I have to admit that carbonaceous compounds probably could not combine with anything but oxygen if heat is what we need, I wonder how I could check that out. The best bet I'm thinking now would be to use lasers to drill a thousand-mile-deep hole on Planet Nine to reach its geothermal energy. But I notice that they DON'T AFAIK use lasers to drill through rock, do you know why?
That reminds me, we were talking about energy for Alaska and I have not been able to find out anything about solar energy there, which might mean that it's not a good energy source there. But I read another article that points out the enormous potential of "ocean thermal" as an energy source--I'll bet that Alaska would have plenty of that if the engineers could just figure out how to tap into it!
I'll be watching the news for updates on your great blizzard! :)
Comets may be the best clue to the abundance of various elements in the Oort cloud--and they do leave rocky residue when their volatiles are boiled off. But dunno about their carbon content specifically.
Early this morning, I was glad to see moonlight on the snow--proof the storm was over. But it's cold. My electronic weather station, which gets data from a sensor outside, indicated a temperature of 19 F. Soon I'll have to go out in that cold to shovel the added accumulation, after shoveling the first few inches last evening. At least my new shovel is OK. :)
January 25, 2016. The chore was harder than I would've preferred but not so bad and it's over. :)
How much snow did you get, the reports we got sounded like many places from Baltimore to NY got 25-30"! And how much wind did you get, I read that many places got over 50mph! How would you rate this storm against others you have experienced in your life there--like one in a decade or "generational" as one report described it? Out here in Calif., I have been in 3 great storms--October 1962, Jan 1963, and Jan 1969--sad to realize that we haven't had anything of such a magnitude in over 40 years--possibly a result of climate change, like many places in Calif used to regularly get snow before 1980 but not since.
Glad your new shovel worked!
It seems to me that the presence of carbon on asteroids suggests that it should be abundant also farther out from the sun although its abundance would be more diluted by more abundant hydrogen. I was shocked to read just now in Wikipedia that the density of solid hydrogen (which I guess would constitute most of Planet Nine), is only 0.07 g/cm2!!! Can you believe that????? 1/80 of Earth's density! If so, in order to have 10 times Earth's mass, Planet Nine must be huge, 800 times Earth's volume (9-10 times its radius, between Saturn and Jupiter in size) and would have a surface gravity of only 1/8 g!!!
Another thought occurred to me which was that there might be 3He there (source of nuclear energy), originating from the solar wind of the interstellar wind. At one time, it was thought that there might be a lot of that on the Moon as well, but I guess that has not turned out to be the case, do you remember that?
January 26, 2016. Manchester CT got nowhere near as much snow as Baltimore or NYC. Around 5-6 inches or so. I was hoping we'd really luck out and get next to nothing but we were lucky enough. :) The wind wasn't so bad here. Again the worst problem was cold and its effect on extremities i.e. fingers. I was disappointed that, even though the cold wasn't so bad--a low of about 14 F--not even my best gloves, the Canadian Police gloves, kept my fingers warm for long. I see in the newspaper record lows on January 1961, 1971 and 1981 were well below zero. Luckily I was still too young for school in January 1961, when temps plunged to around -19 or lower for a few days in a row.
I was under the impression He3 was abundant where solar radiation is most intense. Ergo, it may be plentiful on Mercury but I have no idea if that's the prevailing view.
The Kic space craft must be checked day in day out to record all their data's concerning the craft. I think they have to improve on their internal matters
The Kic space craft must be checked day in day out to record all their data's concerning the craft. I think they have to improve on their internal matters
Post a Comment
<< Home