Actual scientist, speaking with precision: "one of the most mysterious stars in our galaxy." Marketing person working for TED: "The most mysterious star in the universe".
And she is too humble to mention that this star is named after her: Tabby's star. There are not many stars named after people, maybe a hundred in total (and I'm not one of them 😁)
what exactly was the "extraordinary evidence" for a spinning waterball when it was first *made up* (or as you call it "discovered")?? Start with just 1.
Mars is currently very visible at night from the UK, and on late night walks with my dog, I often find myself just staring up at it and the stars surrounding it. The word awesome is used far too easily these days, but the sky at night is, truly awesome.
I really love what she ended on. "What will it mean if we find another star like this? And what will it mean if we don't?" If we don't find anything like this again it could possibly rule out natural phenomena, and lean towards a more alien hypothesis.
The idea of dysonspheres actually existing is...its beyond fiction. Using it as an explanation for this phenomenon is absurd. Most likely it's a body, or bodies, that are oddly shaped with an odd orbit due to a collision. The sphere would be a myth using our own perception of energy use. Considering we are 100 years removed from the use of fire as our primary source of energy, we are so far from reaching the ultimate sustainable source of energy that we have no idea what will and what will not be useful even on our planet in the next 100 years.
The problem with that is it is quite literally physically impossible to observe every possible star/star system that might imitate conditions similar to those displayed in the video. There are quadrillions of planets in our universe. So sadly, unless the cosmos throws a stroke of pure, absolute luck at us, ruling in extraterrestrial possibilities is and will remain something to strive for I get where your coming from though, it's always exciting when things like these pop up.
@@johnfillmore why would it not be a sad or unfortunate thing? discovering something trivial (comparatively speaking) like an exoplanet is exciting in the astronomical world. If intelligent life is found elsewhere it would break the internet 💀.
usually only if they attack 1st,Iam all for intergalactic peace, but whilst your dashing out there-calling ETs in for lunch-a good probing via SETI,many are prepared for other potential evantualities.
She is very good in her presenation. She is believably direct without being arrogant. Her voice moves and pulls you along. Good job. For her, the audience, the viewers: Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year
This is the worst presentation I've ever seen in TED, and frankly, I think, even on TH-cam in general. Her frame thesis is that "computers can't find this," but that's simply a lie. Computers can easily find things like this, if programmed to look. The REAL question isn't about the star, it's about what in the heck the NASA programmers were doing that their software didn't note these huge anomalies? Instead she peppers the talk with Star Wars-based theories that could have been shot down the second they were raised.
I think I may have an answer to this problem. Imagine a system with three or four Jupiter sized planets. During their orbits there will be times when they align and as a result, the outermost will be over time, pulled inward toward its star. The orbit of this outermost Jupiter becomes increasingly elliptical and in the process, it disturbs the orbits of the other Jupiters. Eventually the orbit of the outermost Jupiter becomes highly elliptical where it plunges towards its star, passing very close, then speeds away. If the angle of its ellipse is just right from the view point of the Earth, we see the planet plunging toward its star followed by it speeding away behind its star. This orbit would match up with the long, slow period where the light from the sun is being slowly dimmed as the Jupiter plunges toward its star. At maximum star dimness, this Jupiter may be within the equivalent orbit of Mercury, which would explain the 20% drop in light. It then speeds away from its star, passing behind it from Earth's point of view, which results in the sudden increase in luminosity. As far as the double dip in the data, followed by another dip, that can be explained by the outermost Jupiter towing the inner Jupiters into highly elliptical orbits, so that the closest passing Jupiter is rapidly preceded or followed by a second one, then more slowly followed by a third. We should be able to prove this hypothesis via super computer, or by continued observation of the star when this behaviour begins to repeat. We could also see a very pronounced wobble produced by the gravitational tug of the planets as they speed by in their elliptical orbit.
In this case, you can create models to recreate the orbits that would have resulted in this phenomenon and then accurately predict the next time any number of orbit related events should occur. I think what she was trying to say was that they exhausted all of the possibilities in naturally occurring phenomenon because of the behavior of the object.
here is another scientist trying to figure this out. man you have to understand something that it is really important to have the right tool to solve the mystery of the universe and right now you don't have that kind of tool. it is like a doctor cannot do surgery without having a surgical tool.so instead of solving the mystery, you need to make an invention that allows you to see behind the star as the star is right in front of you. by the way amen to that.
@Tabatha Tuszynski you are right. my comment was kind of toxic that I posted four years ago. 1st step is always very important even if it is a small step.
I'm thrilled you gave this Ted talk. I've participated in various Zooniverse research efforts since my time in college Astronomy class. I hadn't heard any follow ups until this. Awesome. Thanks.
This is absolutely fascinating! I had read a bit about it, but the way she breaks it down. As soon as i saw that 15% dip in light my jaw hit the ground!
I don't get it, what if its an mis-shapen asteroid that is closer to us and just seems big and its blocking it. I think they are just riding the hype train.
KNO because certainly none of the thousands of citizen enthusiasts or the teams of highly trained scientists who have looked at these data thought of that. You'd better write them. You may have cracked the case wide open!
The older I get the more I realise my own ignorance. But, for me the biggest mystery is that of time and time alone must be properly understood before we can get anywhere with understanding anything else. This lady is gentle with us dummies, for which I am grateful; well done!
regardless of aliens or not I think the best takeaway here is citizen science. Citizen science isn't restricted by religion, politics, or whatever. It would also be much more difficult to control or filter a thousand backyard scientists rather than just a few recognized scientific establishments. The possibilities could be endless as technology brings more ability to the citizen scientist.
Her remarks at the end of the video about citizen astronomers put a smile on my face, as no one astronomer is less worthy than another; irregardless of credentials - because anyone can make an observation and anyone can hypothesize a theory.
Yes! I believe technology, meaning... easy to use/learn, affordable, cutting-edge at home technology is the future method in which experts in various fields will be made. Already this is happening! Our society is the problem though! Experts are only recognized as true professionals if they have one, or multiple very expensive pieces of paper! I don't think technical colleges, and internships will ever go away. Airline pilots, lawyers, judges, doctors, dentists, surgeons, etc... All professions that require hands on training, and is regulated by government agencies to keep us all safe; will always fully require a certification from an accredited school/corporation.
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the star's large irregular changes in brightness, but as of 2024, none of them fully explain all aspects of the resulting light curve.
+Grizz Frank Dude. Pour yourself a glass of water. Is the surface (away from the edges of the glass) perfectly flat? I think you would find that it is. Blow on the water. It ripples, but does the average height of the water remain the same? It does. Try these things with a pail of water, then a tub. Do the properties remain the same? Look at a lake. Again, the surface, on average, is completely level. So why do ships on the ocean vanish over the horizon? They are still perfectly visible, yet they appear to be sinking down into the water. (All ships do this and this is easily verifiable if you are willing to spend a clear day at a port.) A flat earth would have flat water and you'd be able to see the ships until they were out of sight.
+Grizz Frank Um, no you can't do that. The ship actually appears to be sinking. As in, from the your position, the deck appears to lower into the water at a steady progression. Vanishing perspective is a linear phenomenon, mapped with straight lines. A straight line could not cause an object's position to move out of plane. Plus, on a clear day, you can totally see things up to 10 miles away.
I can't express enough how grateful I am for your channel. Your videos have helped me understand complex scientific concepts in an easily digestible way
Good evening show I would like to see you are connected 2 more than you know and they will never understand the disagreeable they understand the 666 year it's up the whole solar system it's rotating and changing have you not notice how the Earth within 20 years have changed and the flickering of light that they see it is not something getting in the way it is your ancestors am I nice who are on their way here thank you
This is frankly the worst I've ever seen. Her main idea is that "computers can't find this," but that's not true. Computers can easily find things like this, if programmed to look. The real question isn't about the star, it's about what in the heck the NASA programmers were doing that their software didn't note these huge anomalies? So: the entire thesis of the talk is incorrect. Why the heck do you think we need more such talks?
Is there a particular reason why they don't seem to be suspecting the star itself? They did consider whether it was young and surrounded by a cloud left over from formation, but aren't there a lot of possibilities like the star having recently ingested something large (planet scale or larger), and still roiling and irregular due to that? I'm no astrophysicist, and don't know if perhaps something like what I suggested might have a characteristic signature that is missing, but given the almost total lack of consideration of irregularities in the stars output itself (rather than output being blocked) makes me think that maybe there is some evidence that establishes fairly clearly that the star is regular enough that it couldn't be any oddity with the star, but must be something between it and our detector.
Bearded Bard Taking into account what we already know about stars is not sufficient to rule out things we don't know about stars. Before scientists start looking to more outlandish possibilities, they always consider what sort of thing COULD cause what they see. If they discovered an explanation of why it is definitely NOT something unknown about star behavior, they did not mention it.
when you look at something far away with a binocular and a closer object is trespassing your sight very close to your binocular , you will see that the object or person is blocking a lot from your view sight making it to look huge and endless. What if these blocking sunlight cuts off are caused by some random (closer to us) huge asteroids tresspassing the sight of the telescope sensor ? Is it possible ?
Yeah but what would it be orbiting around? It can’t be our sun otherwise you would see similar fluctuations around other stars as well in that deep field. The trouble with that explanation is how periodic that dimming signal is. I also thought the same btw.
I would say it could be the planets that are orbiting that star might have a similar orbiting time cycle and align every few years thus making it appear like the graph the scientist are presenting. Maybe, it requires extended period of observation to prove this.. But, just imagine even planets in our Solar system align every 1000 years in the same plane. If the star is young and the planetary system has just formed they may be circling the star faster and hence align more frequently.. Just a theory..
Ah, interesting idea. JWST sees in the infrared more than any of our other telescopes. Tabetha told us she doesn't think there is a Dyson Sphere because there isn't enough heat (ie., infrared), but 8 years ago (2016) when she gave this TED talk, JWST would not be launched until Dec 2021 and come online until mid 2022. Stay tuned.
I'm here from a book where I've read about tabetha and I thought tabetha is a male person but she is 'she' 🥰🥰🥰And of course sooo much proud of you🥰 (I'm a bagladeshi so I couldn't catch the name)
I suppose I will worry about that more when they start censoring anti-flat-Earth content. Or perhaps when they take over government, media, and banking and create every problem worldwide--or even some problems. If they become a bunch of pseudointellectual tryhards afraid of debate like the typical college-goer, then I will be 100% in favor of going to war with them. Until then, they remain mistaken, but relatively harmless.
As long as you mention the disk is supported on the backs of 4 giant elephants which stand atop the great A'Tuin you have covered all the bases then :)
A debris field of two collided celestial bodies (two large solid planets now shattered into pieces) in an elliptical shape trapped orbiting the star would create such a light diminishing pattern. As far as the time period. The closer the object is to the sun, the longer it blocks light. The further the object, the shorter the duration. I don't feel like doing the math to give exact times and sizes, but you get the idea, and using some calculations you could recreate the hypothetical cloud of debris. So, two planets collided and created a large debris field around what remains of their cores so that gravity keeps them and their debris dancing around each other in a tight elliptical orbit (think rings of Saturn on a massive debris scale and angled in such a way as to create this light pattern to observers here). Highly plausible considering there's a high probability of many rogue planets drifting between solar systems, ejected by larger bodies in their host systems to drift alone through space until a sun draws them in (an event that may have very well occurred in our own solar system to give our current planetary alignments to the sun). If aliens were sufficiently advanced to build a structure so large, they'd be more likely to build a Dyson sphere and you wouldn't see the star at all because they'd be absorbing most of it's energy.
@@sliceofchee Also highly plausible. Not all scientists jump immediately to fantastic conclusions. However, far too often 'experts' allow imaginations to override logical deduction. Eventually however they backtrack (once someone states the obvious) and begin thinking like scientists again. So there's always hope lol
@@2011Azure not that one, this one: "they'd be more likely to build a Dyson sphere and you wouldn't see the star at all because they'd be absorbing most of it's energy" Not "it's" but "its", the possessive form of it. The most common grammatical error in the English language. Made worse by autocorrect in all of today's smart phones, who will always autocorrect "its" with "it's".
since then size can be smaller, probability for objects not being round is higher, which easier fits the shape required to make the dents in the graph.
I'm not saying that is the case here, just trying to wrap my head around the video I randomly stumbled upon, and looking forward to hearing of someone knowing the space basics telling me why that can't be
My guess is a massive asteroid field large enough and dense enough to act like a giant light screen or filter, on a flat plane. It would explain the duration, the erratic shapes and its hap-hazard nature as the field is not always in line with our line of sight. The further out the orbit of the field, the larger the relative size of it compared to its star.
But at this distance the relative size of the object to the star itself with the perspective you're talking about is basically a non-issue. We're too far away to notice a change in size to that degree. It'd have to be something much further in the foreground - not part of that solar system at all.
Or was it David Hume, or Pierre-Simon de Laplace, or Marcello Truzzi...or does it matter? One has to be quite famous and well know and published to have famous quotes
"Earth is 11 times smaller than Jupiter." This sounded off to me, but she means by diameter not by volume, which is where most people's minds go to. By volume, Earth is actually 1300 times smaller.
an opaque object, like a planet or alien megastructure was passing in front of the star, it would block both red and blue light the same amount, says Wright. However, the astronomers found that blue light was blocked much more than red light during the star’s dimming. Since blue light has much shorter wavelengths than red light, it’s much more easily blocked by smaller materials, such as fine grains like dust. “This is characteristic of something that’s filtering the light,” says Wright. “That’s what you get when you have dust.”
It does seem very simple to explain and it certainly does not involve 1. Aliens 2. Star Wars - Death Stars etc 3. Asteroid belts or 4. Black holes The strange pattern shown in the video of the Kepler effect is because we on earth are observing the planetary object passing the star in an elliptical orbit north to south travelling towards us. The other Kepler observations will be objects passing the same star at different elliptical orbits therefore creating smaller dips as they appear to pass more quickly to us as observers. I am certain that the results would be entirely different if observed from anywhere else except earth.
Riddle me this. Mickey, Why is it when I do a time lapse of stars the line I get from each and every star is the exact same length be them close or far away as if they are all in the same distance away? When a closer star should have a longer trail than a far star would. Yet my observation is always the same distance of trails. When the further star away should have a visibly shorter star trail on a circular pattern, if you follow what I'm saying. Should it not?
call me a stick in the mud but why do people seem to mix "circular" with 3 Dimensional? I mean a flat circle is not at the peak of impossible things is it? Or is that not what you meant?
@@spruxo Lol typical reply. And here I was actually hoping you'd clarify your point so maybe it all finally makes sense. But I'll have to keep being a triggered flatearther instead I guess. Thanks for taking the time to give your 2 cents though. Definitely glad we got to have that intelligent discussion.
If I lived in a sufficiently advanced society wishing to send a message across the galaxy I would use my local star to send a message. We can see the light from stars thousands of light years away. I would use a flotilla of satellites stretching Mylar like sheets broad enough to block star light alternately.
Deviantfulness Of course. To communicate faster than the speed of light you might use quantum entanglement which is seemingly instantaneous. Problem with that is finding the right quanta being manipulated, figuring out how it is being manipulated, and then decoding it. Kind of like a quadrillion strings stretched for great distances and short distances and in no particular direction and plucking one or two and then finding the end of those particular strings. Unless an advanced society has figured out how to find quanta in the vicinity of another civilization or to listen in or eavesdrop on quanta from all over the universe. We will probably be extinct before we get that smart.
So you are telling me we were getting a message in some type of giant star light Morse code, and right when communication was getting chatty Kepler stop and we will never get the message?
MrTreebeard420 I'm saying that would be one of the best ways to send a message a good distance across a galaxy. Star light travels thousands of light years. It wouldn't have to even be a coherent message no more than waving your arms and jumping up and down is anything more than calling attention to yourself when stranded on a desert island and you spot a ship. When you think about it planets are islands in the cosmos.
Also if you subscribe to the Rampaging Nano Bot Swarm Theory then then even if you had the technology to build a Dyson Sphere or more likely a ring, given the amount of material involved, is to invite attack. So even if you had the technology would you not use it for fear of drawing unwanted attention. Another possibility is shepherding masses of large asteroids and dwarf planets into close proximity to each other to produce the effect of alternately dimming star light and draw attention that way. Maybe it's a last ditch effort to draw attention to a dying world.
It’s hard to say. It could be multiple planets of elliptical orbits. And just nice the dip is caused by these planets that happens to line up in front of their sun once every 1000 years. If we keep observing it for the next million years and it doesn’t happen again then maybe it could be a rouge planet passing by. Or who knows it could be multiple things passing by between the sun and us. And it doesn’t have to be close to the sun. It can even be near us. No one knows. Unless the signal is repeatable.
I like the "planets lining up" theory. That would actually be useful for us to know more about how large the system is too. We just need more data point to really make any hard claims either way. It's fun to speculate and that's about it.
+CyberMew 'Luckily' our most advanced system for detecting this is looking the other way, so we probably have no idea and there is a big chance we'll never know.
this is what i was going to post. the further the star is the more likely other bodies as a problem are... the syncing might imply a very large system around a very large star, with multiple small bodies on similar orbits
I think it’s the result of a stray solar system merging with this star’s system and causing multiple alignments from our perspective. With the second star appearing from behind KIC and the stray planets merging orbits in some binary system sort of way. Some planets collide with others, create debris, etc.
Based on Einstein's work... it is possible for computers to miss data. If people design a computer to only read data to the knowledge that they have.... 🤷🏽♀️ then why would a computer look for anything else.
TheWholeShabang exactly, they do what they're told to & at most, they may have algorithms but ones that an infallible Human Being wrote, like monitoring for various response from a human, like speak clearly to state the problem & press the hash key to go back to the menu" & listening for key words like "Benefits inquiry" 🤪 in the A.I. we've long been using, i still don't think A.I. could have the love of humanity if required to make fair choices e.g. who gets the insulin during a mass shortage, the children? nah, it will always the wealthiest when human or robot-doctors decide. A.I. is already at work in armed drones, as used in Iraq & now theoretically in U.S. upon clearance from the president's office (thanks to Obama's admin) so when they're killing civilians instead of terrorists, by mistake or otherwise, they can simply can blame the A.I. ...Bad Drone! ...Behave! Also, very many top A.I. experts have publicly stated the disproportionately high dangers & risks involved in relation to what A.I, can actually accomplish, obviously the military have sank billions into research, no surprises there but i've no idea how they'll use it except for killing people more efficiently. America's main export today is War & Atrocities. G'day dude
The hidden moral in "2001: A Space Odyssey" was and is that when man creates artificial intelligence, he cannot but transmit to it the Original Sin that was transmitted to him.
can't it just be something closer than that star system getting in the way such as a planet or comet from another star appearing larger because it is closer?
thats what i was thinking...strange that if Im on the surface of the sun and raise my hand no light would be blocked from our planet....but I can block the sun from my eyes with my thumb on the surface of the earth. Hope I explained that correctly.
There's a lot of distance between objects in space. the reason we can see this dimming effect is because objects are orbiting stars. The odds of objects happening to pass between us and a star 1480 light years away repeatedly are astronomical, pun intended.
That's why Kepler looked at many many star systems. the odds are astronomical, that means you have to look at a lot to see it, but it does exist because (don't forget it is it is possible.)
Always stick with the most rational explanation. It's another star nearby messing with the light using it's gravitational field. And sometimes their astroids collide making dust clouds. They are now called KIC8462852A and KIC8462852B.
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 You sound like an idiot and are stuck on stupid. You still can't spell it in lower case. And you are the one dodging your burden of proof, since you asserted that Gravity is a myth at the outset. On what grounds do you base that thesis, dummy?
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 look how disgustingly ad hominem and aggressive you are, typical for conspiracy theorists who have nothing to back up their feverdreams
What if it was multiple planets with very close orbits, so that sometimes two (or more) planets are superimposed unpon eachother. This could explain why the light gradually dims more and more, a planet in a closer orbit is moving faster than one in a farther away orbit. As the closer planet is moving out from behind the farther away planet, the shadow cast would slowly become larger until the two planets are completely separated, which would also explain the quick jump back up to expected levels.
Good, yes, but even 100s of Jupiters' worth of planets wouldn't block that much light. And, there'd be more periodicity. And, we'd see similar curves as they entered the space between us and the star then moved back out.
@@Callmepapimami well look how far technology has come, this gods creation crap doesn't work anymore, and yes robotics is getting stronger each year duplicating aspects from the natural world, yes at the moment very basic but look how fast phones have leapt in 20 years with funding. Your bible is wrong on most things science related if written by a superior being it would not have wrong Information. Stop fearing death and think for yourself.
Thewatcheronthewall Thewatcheronthewall the bible had many “scientific” facts wayyy before your little scientists discovered them! Look at how many inventions we use today are inspired by gods creation. Many intellectuals (smart people, opposite of you) admit that the more they look into the world and learn about it they see that there mustve been a creator.. hope you look into for yourself and stop acting like a hurt little immature child
I just imagined this recently, imagine something like that could be possible for us, like a giant lense that sits on half of the sun amplifying its energy, maybe using a series of lenses or something, focussing it to a point, i think its theoretically possible but
@@pimpslayer9109 Yes, to focus the sun energy to collect in the lithium batteries in the orbit and use it back on the earth is an utopia for us at the moment because of our very limited mobility. But, this is how the developed extraterrestrial beings are satisfying their energy needs.
10:11 How and where would they find all the materials and energies needed to construct such a thing when they just happen to have no ressource and energy left for themself?
just as we are able to build nuclear power plants which give us more energy before using the last bit of our current energy reserves, they could easily have applied the same principal to get energy from their sun. Nobody is that stupid as to deplete all resources without ensuring more will come.
Perhaps it's a planet (or planets) orbiting another star that just happens to pass between us and that other star. I mean, that thing is nearly 1,500 light years away, so there's quite a few possibilities of what may be causing the disturbances.
Very unlikely explanation for this data over such a short time span (few years). If the dip in the light happened once, possibly. Twice, maybe. Consistently like this? Very unlikely. Space is 99.9999% absolutely nothing. To block out that much light from a star it would take multiple very large objects (relatively speaking) passing between us and the star. This number of disturbances is what makes it statistically unlikely that what you said occurred.
+God Gabe How do we know the assumed artificial object is that large. Could it be a much smaller object close enough from the point of observation blocking that star's light entirely?
Tazz M If it were, then this would be happening to many of the stars observed, not just this star this many times. If this were a regular occurrence with the data, they wouldn't make such a big deal about it happening a couple of times.
That's quite a good point there. I appreciate if you could say something about the size of the object blocking the star in this particular case, can the observers detect distances- I'm totally a layman, so I'm not sure about technology being used. Thanks!
What if the star is revolving around a black hole? It would distort the light rays such that some rays would get bent and their trajectory would totally change to some place else and the rest go back to earth. Also, since black hole's pull is quite significantly larger than any star's, the star's orbit could be very very large and that's why probably we can see a 20% intensity drop for around a 100 days.
So far this is the smartest comment I've read... And stars are always moving. Seems quite impossible for an object in space to be "stationary". If any given celestial body has a companion I can almost guarantee it's being pulled to some degree even if it is only slight.
Correction: The largest radio telescope in the world during that year and until 2020 was the one in Arecibo, Puerto Rico and not Green Bay. Today the largest one is located in China.
Really? 1 we are not the people of the past and what they did has no bearing on us. And 2 you think that is the worst case of people treating people poorly? That's cute
I know u probably mean no ill will by saying "native Americans", and im only expressing how I feel about the term, not judging u personally,....., I just hate when people still use the term American Indians, or Native Americans.,.. thats like me searching for the Jones household, instead, walking into ur house, then naming ur house after myself then calling u and ur family the Carrington Jones people...... Again I'm sure u probably Don't mean anything bad by saying it.... It just urks me that people still use the term "American Indians" or "Native Americans"
4:146:29 My favorite part is when the camera pans over to the audience and every single one of them pretends they know what she's talking about. 🤣🤣😂😂👍😀👍
Of course we know now that it is a natural explanation that we just did not know at the time. Once we looked at the full spectrum it became clear that not all the spectrum was being blocked. Therefore, it is not an opaque object, just a bunch of dust.
Dust is a relative term. Apparently, the long term dimming is from a dispersion of planetessimals (sic?). We are viewing a star with a ring system obliquely.
Scott Minium How quickly we as humans want to explain anything that we don’t understand away by inserting aliens into the discussion. This topic must scratch some deep seated anxiety about loneliness or abandonment in us.
It's funny how we humans imagine aliens harvesting energy from a star - by building huuuge solar panels. I can imagine the alien scientists watching us and having a good laugh :) An advanced civilization may have found a much more efficient way to do that.
+Cole Stewart well if I understood the sizing correct, a block which is as large as the distance between the earth and the sun, would be one of its smallest parts. So that's a pretty massive structure. Even if you take all the planets from our solar system and turn them into building material - it still won't be enough. And aliens destroying hundreds of planets in order to build a solar panel sounds like a pretty savage thing to me :) That's how we do it. An advanced science should have something much smarter in its pocket - something like using quantum entanglement to teleport a small part of the fire from the sun into a reactor here... Stuff like that - with some more scientific discoveries there should be plenty of options :)
+aga1nst Agreed. We are on the verge of producing unlimited nuclear fusion in Tokamak's. The next 50 years will see solar energy will fall by the wayside. If you're building mega structures in space then its safe to assume that energy is not a concern.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but could the anomalies in the observations occur due to a large heavenly body orbiting the star at a huge distance. (relative to normal orbital distances) This would imply that the planet would “appear” to be large, and “appear” to block a lot of light. Plus, it would be far away and thus orbit slowly, resulting in the observed prolonged periods of dimness.
If something is large enough to block that amount of light, at a distance extreme enough to account for the time passage, the star would 'wobble'. For instance, Jupiter doesn't orbit our star, the Sun and Jupiter orbit a center-point between the two because of Jupiter's immense gravity. I don't believe the star in question has shown any wobble to indicate something extremely large is orbiting with it.
I'm with this guy, (or gal,). If a fly got in front of the of the lens here on earth, (for example), it would block out a significant amount of light and not induce "wobble" on that far away star. I think this is what "The Science Biome" is saying, but instead of a fly on the lens, it is some other celestial object maybe not even in that star's solar system.
Relative to the distance to the star from Earth, any orbiting obtect would be pretty much at the same distance that the star itself. That star is about 1500 light years away, a few light-hours wouldn't make it closer to the lens in any meaningful sense.
Why are we assuming the object(s) blocking the light have to be orbiting the star? Again, could not a fly on the lens of a telescope here on earth be blocking some light from a far-away star? I know it is not a fly causing this, I am just illustrating the point.
The presentation was basically a lie though. Why do we need more? The entire talk is based on the idea that "computers can't find this stuff" but of course they can. Her talk should have been about how NASA screwed up and didn't spot such a huge signal. THAT would have been a great presentation. If she left out the lame jokes.
Don't know if anyone can answer this, but how do we know for sure that the objects are that massive? To me it seems more probable that it's a smaller obstacle which is closer to us. Kind of like: the closer the object blocking the light is to us, the more light it will block. Like a bird obstructing line of sight to the sun - which is a tiny object but can greatly affect the light we recieve due to its proximity. Surely this anomaly could be explained with asteroids or some such obstructing our line of sight?
IMO this isn't visible light detector. So, it won't work like "the closer the object blocking the light is to us, the more light it will block." As for how large the object is, it is said in the presentation 3:01
Solar system objects move much too fast to block out a star for more than a few minutes at a time, and they would almost certainly block out the entirety of the star at max transit. This could be an interesting idea though if maybe it was a comet-like object in interstellar space (but nearer the Sun than the other star) such that it has a very large angular size, but diffuse (and so can't block out the star entirely) and moving either really slowly (not sure how the dynamics of that would work) or potentially moving almost directly toward or away from us.
I think you have to consider the distance between us and the star and the distance between the star and whatever is blocking the light. The distance between us and the star is soooooo much greater than that of the star and the object that they distance is negligable. So if you had a sun with two very large planets of equal size, one very close to the sun, the other very far, my guess is that both planets would produce very similar, if not identicle obstruction.
The new star is in the plane of our galaxy so the dimming may be due to local events. www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomers-spot-another-star-flickers-tabby-star
The star in question is almost 1,500 light years away from Earth. At that distance, planetary celestial bodies could be causing the dimming. And this star's by no means the only star which experiences dimming in brightness.
Giant Hail Planets, planets entirely constructed of ice at a temperature similar or slightly colder than the South Pole Two ice planets stuck together, when they hit together the cold merged them perfectly to become huge double or triple ice cream plops in a cone ! This system is peppered with Jupiter sized ice planets, they're inner cores may be of very light materials.
What about this - not a Dyson sphere (which should make the star invisible) but rather a civilization that has constructed several arrays of space-based solar panels that beam energy to a planet? Perhaps there are even several of them of varying sizes as the technology to build them changes. These combined with several planets in the plane of our eliptic _might_ cause these odd effects.
maybe a double star, or even triple star. of course the radiation from one star is blocked totally if it's behind the other; or it blocks the first star's light if it is in front of the other.
I am one of those volunteers and I am really proud. Seeing eclipsing binaries and possible exo planets is beyond fascinating.
And so u should be
@@stevegrimes21 :) it is very kind of you. Thanks.
You know your looking at wormwood forming right?
@@Invisbleflame1 wormwood or wormhole? :)
Keep up the good work. The results of the volunteers have been impressive.
Actual scientist, speaking with precision: "one of the most mysterious stars in our galaxy." Marketing person working for TED: "The most mysterious star in the universe".
Madeleine Dacey I think glashoppah was addressing the difference between “one of” and “the most” nothing beyond that.
@@yotube1ful Yes, but also the incomprehensibly huge difference between our galaxy and the universe.
Have you not thought about ignoring that what obscures the planet lies at a greater distance to the planet or closer to us watching the event
glashoppah I thought the same thing
indeed. sound like they know all the stars in the universe...theyre not even seen each and every in our galaxy
alien chef commander : " Bring me this Tabetha snitch "
Maze nice
😂😂😂
😆
alien chef? what, are they gonna eat her?
explain this boyyyyy : "alien chef" hahahahahhahahahahaha
And she is too humble to mention that this star is named after her: Tabby's star. There are not many stars named after people, maybe a hundred in total (and I'm not one of them 😁)
Dude, You are on the bloody periodic table !!!!
@@akibmahmud19 And a carcinogen!
@@akibmahmud19 Lmao
@@ArghyadeepPal 😂
That's friggin cute
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Take notes, flat earthers.
•Tristanrylan•
Lol
rrrrriiiiiiigggghhhhttt
Ummm...round earthers might wanna take notes
what exactly was the "extraordinary evidence" for a spinning waterball when it was first *made up* (or as you call it "discovered")?? Start with just 1.
@@viktorvasilik5477 We don't need extraordinary evidence if it's been proven for thousands of years...
@@tristanrylan that's what I thought your answer was going to be...sad because you don't have one...
Mars is currently very visible at night from the UK, and on late night walks with my dog, I often find myself just staring up at it and the stars surrounding it. The word awesome is used far too easily these days, but the sky at night is, truly awesome.
Hear-hear. It truly boggles the mind.
I really love what she ended on.
"What will it mean if we find another star like this? And what will it mean if we don't?"
If we don't find anything like this again it could possibly rule out natural phenomena,
and lean towards a more alien hypothesis.
The idea of dysonspheres actually existing is...its beyond fiction. Using it as an explanation for this phenomenon is absurd. Most likely it's a body, or bodies, that are oddly shaped with an odd orbit due to a collision.
The sphere would be a myth using our own perception of energy use. Considering we are 100 years removed from the use of fire as our primary source of energy, we are so far from reaching the ultimate sustainable source of energy that we have no idea what will and what will not be useful even on our planet in the next 100 years.
The problem with that is it is quite literally physically impossible to observe every possible star/star system that might imitate conditions similar to those displayed in the video. There are quadrillions of planets in our universe.
So sadly, unless the cosmos throws a stroke of pure, absolute luck at us, ruling in extraterrestrial possibilities is and will remain something to strive for
I get where your coming from though, it's always exciting when things like these pop up.
@@johnfillmore why would it not be a sad or unfortunate thing?
discovering something trivial (comparatively speaking) like an exoplanet is exciting in the astronomical world. If intelligent life is found elsewhere it would break the internet 💀.
After watching this, I feel like earth might be the group project of alien students somewhere up there
And...those students failed.
@@axlnightmareYep, they will come back next year because of their crappy project!
Thought Christopher Walken was the most mysterious star in the universe
Christopher Walken is TERRIFYING.
@@TheSnyderWeb He's a psycho lookalike 🤣🤣
BAHAHAHA made my day.
He is
Dude watch your mouth put some respect on his name seriously
Sounds like it wasn't the star that was mysterious but the "thing" that passed in front of it!
Dyson sphere lvl 3 civilation hundreds of millions or billions or years old
Great, if we find aliens and they look into our history of extra terrestrial movies, they would see that 90% of the time, we kill them.
Yeah not a good welcome sign
:))))))))
fortunately, they won't receive the transmissions for another 1400 years or so.
usually only if they attack 1st,Iam all for intergalactic peace, but whilst your dashing out there-calling ETs in for lunch-a good probing via SETI,many are prepared for other potential evantualities.
"How to Serve Man"
She is very good in her presenation. She is believably direct without being arrogant. Her voice moves and pulls you along.
Good job.
For her, the audience, the viewers:
Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year
Merry Christmas Daniel!
That was a total letdown, she should have called this video the Most Clickbaitiest Title in the Universe
Watching this tin foil collaboration , it was a preposterous Christmas.
This is the worst presentation I've ever seen in TED, and frankly, I think, even on TH-cam in general. Her frame thesis is that "computers can't find this," but that's simply a lie. Computers can easily find things like this, if programmed to look. The REAL question isn't about the star, it's about what in the heck the NASA programmers were doing that their software didn't note these huge anomalies? Instead she peppers the talk with Star Wars-based theories that could have been shot down the second they were raised.
@@CaesarCassiusshe's not in charge of giving titles on this video. Are u dumb?
I think I may have an answer to this problem.
Imagine a system with three or four Jupiter sized planets. During their orbits there will be times when they align and as a result, the outermost will be over time, pulled inward toward its star.
The orbit of this outermost Jupiter becomes increasingly elliptical and in the process, it disturbs the orbits of the other Jupiters.
Eventually the orbit of the outermost Jupiter becomes highly elliptical where it plunges towards its star, passing very close, then speeds away. If the angle of its ellipse is just right from the view point of the Earth, we see the planet plunging toward its star followed by it speeding away behind its star. This orbit would match up with the long, slow period where the light from the sun is being slowly dimmed as the Jupiter plunges toward its star. At maximum star dimness, this Jupiter may be within the equivalent orbit of Mercury, which would explain the 20% drop in light. It then speeds away from its star, passing behind it from Earth's point of view, which results in the sudden increase in luminosity.
As far as the double dip in the data, followed by another dip, that can be explained by the outermost Jupiter towing the inner Jupiters into highly elliptical orbits, so that the closest passing Jupiter is rapidly preceded or followed by a second one, then more slowly followed by a third.
We should be able to prove this hypothesis via super computer, or by continued observation of the star when this behaviour begins to repeat. We could also see a very pronounced wobble produced by the gravitational tug of the planets as they speed by in their elliptical orbit.
In this case, you can create models to recreate the orbits that would have resulted in this phenomenon and then accurately predict the next time any number of orbit related events should occur. I think what she was trying to say was that they exhausted all of the possibilities in naturally occurring phenomenon because of the behavior of the object.
hooked4lifeca the final conclusion was it’s just a massive gas cloud.. 🤷🏻♂️
here is another scientist trying to figure this out. man you have to understand something that it is really important to have the right tool to solve the mystery of the universe and right now you don't have that kind of tool. it is like a doctor cannot do surgery without having a surgical tool.so instead of solving the mystery, you need to make an invention that allows you to see behind the star as the star is right in front of you. by the way amen to that.
@Tabatha Tuszynski you are right. my comment was kind of toxic that I posted four years ago. 1st step is always very important even if it is a small step.
they will have to rename it hooked4lifeca 1 if you are correct !
I'm thrilled you gave this Ted talk. I've participated in various Zooniverse research efforts since my time in college Astronomy class. I hadn't heard any follow ups until this. Awesome. Thanks.
Imagine hundreds of years from today maybe this clip will be seen as: "This was the first time we noticed them".....
Jivan Moulandi scary
Definitely watching too many movies.
"It was happy times, before they attacked us..."
@@bassinblue It's possible although somewhat unlikely. But still possible.
Watching this in 3457, turns out you were spot on😮
Independently from these findings, I am totally convinced that there is life everywhere in the universe.
This is absolutely fascinating! I had read a bit about it, but the way she breaks it down. As soon as i saw that 15% dip in light my jaw hit the ground!
EQOAnostalgia she said there was a 20% drop 1 thousand times the area of the earth..... damm
I don't get it, what if its an mis-shapen asteroid that is closer to us and just seems big and its blocking it. I think they are just riding the hype train.
+KNO a planet can't be this big and you're saying asteroid??
there is alot of things bigger than you could conceive. like suns several times and than the entire solarsystem. Millions of miles wide.
KNO because certainly none of the thousands of citizen enthusiasts or the teams of highly trained scientists who have looked at these data thought of that. You'd better write them. You may have cracked the case wide open!
I got in trouble watching this in class, but then I showed my teacher and since it was science class, she let us watch it on the projector. #lucky
Astrophysics is also my dream career
Nice! That's a rad teacher
+Breanna Thompson same
+Breanna Thompson It is a win-win pursuit. If it didn't work out you could always crunch numbers for some corporation.
lol nice
Obviously a new death star weapon being developed by the empire.
Yeah, and we want to make contact.
Is it just me or does that sound like a really bad idea?
Maybe this time they'll cover the exhaust ports. I'm not holding out much hope though...
@@Snoogen11 Nah. When you develop the most powerful weapon in the galaxy you always would want to also build in an easy way to destroy it. LoL!
Maybe Disney can kill it just like the franchise?
The older I get the more I realise my own ignorance. But, for me the biggest mystery is that of time and time alone must be properly understood before we can get anywhere with understanding anything else.
This lady is gentle with us dummies, for which I am grateful; well done!
“Gentle with us dummies” ugh - she’s not pandering.
regardless of aliens or not I think the best takeaway here is citizen science. Citizen science isn't restricted by religion, politics, or whatever. It would also be much more difficult to control or filter a thousand backyard scientists rather than just a few recognized scientific establishments. The possibilities could be endless as technology brings more ability to the citizen scientist.
Well said dude
Her remarks at the end of the video about citizen astronomers put a smile on my face, as no one astronomer is less worthy than another; irregardless of credentials - because anyone can make an observation and anyone can hypothesize a theory.
Alex Carreon irregardless is not a word
Yes! I believe technology, meaning... easy to use/learn, affordable, cutting-edge at home technology is the future method in which experts in various fields will be made. Already this is happening! Our society is the problem though! Experts are only recognized as true professionals if they have one, or multiple very expensive pieces of paper! I don't think technical colleges, and internships will ever go away. Airline pilots, lawyers, judges, doctors, dentists, surgeons, etc... All professions that require hands on training, and is regulated by government agencies to keep us all safe; will always fully require a certification from an accredited school/corporation.
REGARDLESS* 🙄
The fact that the main mission had to move on and they had to rely on data from backyard astronomers is a vindication of the unsung scientists.
Regardless
Whatever this is........it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
the "galaxy far far away" is the Milky Way, KIC 8462852 is located in the Milky Way
@@miasma529
I wasnt trying to be scientifically correct.
But you are correct.
@Furrowed Brow That was just a movie.
@@Insane3OB
Thats what they want you to think.
It was actually a documentary.
@Furrowed Brow I never made a Documentary it was Art.
8 years later.. any update on this info?
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the star's large irregular changes in brightness, but as of 2024, none of them fully explain all aspects of the resulting light curve.
God its been 8 years
She's not saying Aliens but... Aliens.
It's never aliens. It just might be aliens though.
+Mark William eh, she did say Alien Megastructures and Aliens
+Mark William The A word
+Grizz Frank Dude. Pour yourself a glass of water. Is the surface (away from the edges of the glass) perfectly flat? I think you would find that it is. Blow on the water. It ripples, but does the average height of the water remain the same? It does. Try these things with a pail of water, then a tub. Do the properties remain the same? Look at a lake. Again, the surface, on average, is completely level. So why do ships on the ocean vanish over the horizon? They are still perfectly visible, yet they appear to be sinking down into the water. (All ships do this and this is easily verifiable if you are willing to spend a clear day at a port.) A flat earth would have flat water and you'd be able to see the ships until they were out of sight.
+Grizz Frank Um, no you can't do that. The ship actually appears to be sinking. As in, from the your position, the deck appears to lower into the water at a steady progression. Vanishing perspective is a linear phenomenon, mapped with straight lines. A straight line could not cause an object's position to move out of plane. Plus, on a clear day, you can totally see things up to 10 miles away.
I thought Tabetha Boyajian was the name of the star
Osiris I did too until I read your comment.
😂😂😂😂😂
Well, in a way you are correct. It is colloquially known as Tabby's Star.
hahahahha bruh i died
Osiris...dittos and kudos...
Ever notice how all the instruments looking for intelligent life are pointed AWAY from Earth.
"Ever notice how all the instruments looking for planets are pointed AWAY from Earth."
Wow, you are really witty!
on earth we can talk and listen, you may need a hearing aid...
@@jerryslater3447 do they also make "Thinking Aides"? Because I'm pretty sure you missed the joke.
That's so cool. And I would point out that we also point our microscopes inward looking for intelligent life too.
I can't express enough how grateful I am for your channel. Your videos have helped me understand complex scientific concepts in an easily digestible way
At 2:39 she says " . . . one of the most mysterious stars in our galaxy." That's a far more modest claim than the video's title promises.
+aperson22222 i noticed that too
At a little after the 6 minute mark. She says "We checked the data, but the data were good." There, I contributed.
Most mysterious would the methulesa star. It is or at least was believed to be older than the universe itself (which is absolutely retarded).
+CaseOfSpaides data is a plural word - she is correct as she is referring to countable data
+Shourya Mehta "than the universe itself" is that the observable? ;-)
What if they are sending us a message using the light fluctuations...... 🤔
Good evening show I would like to see you are connected 2 more than you know and they will never understand the disagreeable they understand the 666 year it's up the whole solar system it's rotating and changing have you not notice how the Earth within 20 years have changed and the flickering of light that they see it is not something getting in the way it is your ancestors am I nice who are on their way here thank you
@@davidtyson6869 Proper use of punctuation in a sentence or paragraph is the key to convey a meaningful message.
Big brain time =-O
@@michaelkochalka3251 man, I thought I was just trippin fam. Lmfao
Morse code
"Dyson: we don't just do vacuum cleaners"
we do spheres
KGT UserCast actually, they are working on batteries and cars now too I believe. Who knows if they'll do spheres in the future too.
Crack up
this is good
It really is a advanced vacuum cleaner...
The kind of TED Talks we need more
This is frankly the worst I've ever seen. Her main idea is that "computers can't find this," but that's not true. Computers can easily find things like this, if programmed to look. The real question isn't about the star, it's about what in the heck the NASA programmers were doing that their software didn't note these huge anomalies? So: the entire thesis of the talk is incorrect. Why the heck do you think we need more such talks?
Is there a particular reason why they don't seem to be suspecting the star itself? They did consider whether it was young and surrounded by a cloud left over from formation, but aren't there a lot of possibilities like the star having recently ingested something large (planet scale or larger), and still roiling and irregular due to that? I'm no astrophysicist, and don't know if perhaps something like what I suggested might have a characteristic signature that is missing, but given the almost total lack of consideration of irregularities in the stars output itself (rather than output being blocked) makes me think that maybe there is some evidence that establishes fairly clearly that the star is regular enough that it couldn't be any oddity with the star, but must be something between it and our detector.
+Dustin Rodriguez this was my thought as well. I guarantee there is a "natural" reason for this data.
watch 6:30
They said they took all that into consideration
Bearded Bard Taking into account what we already know about stars is not sufficient to rule out things we don't know about stars. Before scientists start looking to more outlandish possibilities, they always consider what sort of thing COULD cause what they see. If they discovered an explanation of why it is definitely NOT something unknown about star behavior, they did not mention it.
"Outlandish possibilities" being the possibility of there being other intelligent life in the universe?
I really appreciate that this star was found by amateurs.
This is the sort of thing that I'd kinda like to hear a follow up on, but never expect to.
What is an “amateur”?
@Super Fan
generally, those that do things for fun rather than add a profession.
I watched this video 6 years ago and don't remember it.
FINALLY. Something actually rooted in science
when you look at something far away with a binocular and a closer object is trespassing your sight very close to your binocular , you will see that the object or person is blocking a lot from your view sight making it to look huge and endless. What if these blocking sunlight cuts off are caused by some random (closer to us) huge asteroids tresspassing the sight of the telescope sensor ? Is it possible ?
Yeah but what would it be orbiting around? It can’t be our sun otherwise you would see similar fluctuations around other stars as well in that deep field. The trouble with that explanation is how periodic that dimming signal is. I also thought the same btw.
Exactly.
I would say it could be the planets that are orbiting that star might have a similar orbiting time cycle and align every few years thus making it appear like the graph the scientist are presenting.
Maybe, it requires extended period of observation to prove this..
But, just imagine even planets in our Solar system align every 1000 years in the same plane. If the star is young and the planetary system has just formed they may be circling the star faster and hence align more frequently.. Just a theory..
@@ashkemp hypothesis
P0o.
KIC 8462852 is 1,480 light years away. *We are seeing what it looked like 1,480 years ago.*
I copied someone from 1,480 years ago?
No bro
Didnt they teach you science on school?
Fire Nation Files what? No bro 🤦♂️
No the expanse of space in the universe what means is that it is 3 times more distance
makes sense of why Stephen Hawking recently said 'don't make contact'.
I find it funny that this video is very simple and easy to understand yet many people in the comment section seem to disagree.
I loved how she seemed to be defending the alien theory and leaning towards the end when bang she took the opposite route
@@JonatasAdoM Well it's kinda fun....
(And it gets her clicks ;) )
Would it be helpful to have the Webb telescope train its sights on the star for a while?
Ah, interesting idea. JWST sees in the infrared more than any of our other telescopes. Tabetha told us she doesn't think there is a Dyson Sphere because there isn't enough heat (ie., infrared), but 8 years ago (2016) when she gave this TED talk, JWST would not be launched until Dec 2021 and come online until mid 2022. Stay tuned.
The astronomer in me is so happy i clicked on this video
On god
Again, turns out it was another moth. Just a moth.
Hahaha
The Bell Curve by Charles Murray.... read it.
We found the bug
Would you like to know more?
I know this will get lost in the comments but when I'm alone I like to go in my garden cover myself with dirt and pretend I'm a carrot....
Lol
Best comment
Yeah, yeah okay, and?
So what’s eating you , man ?
love it
I'm here from a book where I've read about tabetha and I thought tabetha is a male person but she is 'she' 🥰🥰🥰And of course sooo much proud of you🥰
(I'm a bagladeshi so I couldn't catch the name)
WARNING!! Flat earthers may find this content disturbing!
I suppose I will worry about that more when they start censoring anti-flat-Earth content. Or perhaps when they take over government, media, and banking and create every problem worldwide--or even some problems. If they become a bunch of pseudointellectual tryhards afraid of debate like the typical college-goer, then I will be 100% in favor of going to war with them.
Until then, they remain mistaken, but relatively harmless.
I was going to say that too, If they are going to fake something they have to make up data so well it would be not seen as fakery from others.
As long as you mention the disk is supported on the backs of 4 giant elephants which stand atop the great A'Tuin you have covered all the bases then :)
lol at foil-hatters gone full Lizard- Earth's a toroid, wise-up!
americans be warned trump is most probably a flat earth idiot, he believes in conspiracy theories and ufo's are alien ships. lmfao.
A debris field of two collided celestial bodies (two large solid planets now shattered into pieces) in an elliptical shape trapped orbiting the star would create such a light diminishing pattern. As far as the time period. The closer the object is to the sun, the longer it blocks light. The further the object, the shorter the duration. I don't feel like doing the math to give exact times and sizes, but you get the idea, and using some calculations you could recreate the hypothetical cloud of debris. So, two planets collided and created a large debris field around what remains of their cores so that gravity keeps them and their debris dancing around each other in a tight elliptical orbit (think rings of Saturn on a massive debris scale and angled in such a way as to create this light pattern to observers here). Highly plausible considering there's a high probability of many rogue planets drifting between solar systems, ejected by larger bodies in their host systems to drift alone through space until a sun draws them in (an event that may have very well occurred in our own solar system to give our current planetary alignments to the sun). If aliens were sufficiently advanced to build a structure so large, they'd be more likely to build a Dyson sphere and you wouldn't see the star at all because they'd be absorbing most of it's energy.
Or its a GIANT planet being formed from an asteroid belt which would eliminate the dust issue. These scientists are rather dim today.
@@sliceofchee Also highly plausible. Not all scientists jump immediately to fantastic conclusions. However, far too often 'experts' allow imaginations to override logical deduction. Eventually however they backtrack (once someone states the obvious) and begin thinking like scientists again. So there's always hope lol
its
@@ernerwerkhardt9789 No, ... " it's ". i.e. a contraction of " it is ".
@@2011Azure not that one, this one: "they'd be more likely to build a Dyson sphere and you wouldn't see the star at all because they'd be absorbing most of it's energy" Not "it's" but "its", the possessive form of it. The most common grammatical error in the English language. Made worse by autocorrect in all of today's smart phones, who will always autocorrect "its" with "it's".
have they ruled out an object blocking the light in a much much closer distance to us? Since then it wouldn't have to be anything as big in comparison
An object large enough like this would have already been detected and would cause giant anomalies
could you elaborate?
It might be, but that alone doesn't account for the irregular (non-'u'-shaped transitions) they observed - which is the crux of the problem.
since then size can be smaller, probability for objects not being round is higher, which easier fits the shape required to make the dents in the graph.
I'm not saying that is the case here, just trying to wrap my head around the video I randomly stumbled upon, and looking forward to hearing of someone knowing the space basics telling me why that can't be
thank you Tabetha, so interesting to hear of this
My guess is a massive asteroid field large enough and dense enough to act like a giant light screen or filter, on a flat plane. It would explain the duration, the erratic shapes and its hap-hazard nature as the field is not always in line with our line of sight. The further out the orbit of the field, the larger the relative size of it compared to its star.
But at this distance the relative size of the object to the star itself with the perspective you're talking about is basically a non-issue. We're too far away to notice a change in size to that degree. It'd have to be something much further in the foreground - not part of that solar system at all.
... Carl Sagan was paraphrasing Steven Weinberg - the originator of the quote: "Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence".
Or was it David Hume, or Pierre-Simon de Laplace, or Marcello Truzzi...or does it matter? One has to be quite famous and well know and published to have famous quotes
Hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope will give us more insight about this star in 2018.
Launch reported.
James space telescope will not measure flux
2020🤐
Did it?
Jacob - it's been delayed. JWST won't launch until 2021 now.
Is it possible that multiple planets crossed the field of vision at that particular time?
Multiple planets could cause the asymmetric dip.
That's more likely than aliens.
Way too big and way too irregular.
@Umanfly Yeah, or space dust, an asteroid field, a part of a comet, Joy Behar, anything could obstruct the view.
If multiple planets were involved to don’t think it would be repeatable.
@@revan3841 Like brown dwarfs in a highly elliptical orbit? Like the one that has been hypothesized to orbit outside of our heliosphere?
I felt a great disturbance in the Forrce. As if millions of flat-earthers cried out in horror and we're suddenly silenced.
Harpo Django Rose good one...🤣🌎
Yes you were
Grammar and spelling. If you are going to go after flat earthers I recommend spelling skills.
Is earth flat?
Harpo,... You believe a human being can see something that is said to be 1,480 light years away? lmfao - that is absolutely ridiculous.
"Earth is 11 times smaller than Jupiter." This sounded off to me, but she means by diameter not by volume, which is where most people's minds go to. By volume, Earth is actually 1300 times smaller.
@Android Galaxy I wish that if people claim to be an authority, they got their facts straight before posting.
an opaque object, like a planet or alien megastructure was passing in front of the star, it would block both red and blue light the same amount, says Wright. However, the astronomers found that blue light was blocked much more than red light during the star’s dimming. Since blue light has much shorter wavelengths than red light, it’s much more easily blocked by smaller materials, such as fine grains like dust. “This is characteristic of something that’s filtering the light,” says Wright. “That’s what you get when you have dust.”
Hey it was still a fun ride - maybe the resulting dust-structure might be a bit 'exotic' too ?
So dust is blocking 20% of light?
But when Jupiter rolls in front of the sun it's only a 1% loss of light..your logic is...flawed
It does seem very simple to explain and it certainly does not involve
1. Aliens
2. Star Wars - Death Stars etc
3. Asteroid belts or
4. Black holes
The strange pattern shown in the video of the Kepler effect is because we on earth are observing the planetary object passing the star in an elliptical orbit north to south travelling towards us. The other Kepler observations will be objects passing the same star at different elliptical orbits therefore creating smaller dips as they appear to pass more quickly to us as observers.
I am certain that the results would be entirely different if observed from anywhere else except earth.
or maybe it's that Alien Threat POTUS Reagan was warning of at the UN...
if NASA was involved, make sure you backup that data, don't want them to first lose the data and then destroy the technology!
Haha.
Baaaaahahaha! I'm smelling what you are cooking
Look out, behind you, boo!
Lol true dat!
And poor NASA isn't helped the fact that computers are 60 trillion quadrillion more powerful than in 1969!
PS; Love your comment 10/10 stars.
We probably live in an alternate universe where those poor sods got selected to be terminated to make room for a new hyperspace express route.
And they probably didn't even bother reading the plans that had been on display for 50 years. Apathetic bloody planet. I have no sympathy at all.
+Cate Vogons! P.S Thanks for the poetry.
+shayne g And all the fish!
Now that's poetry. I can just hear the readers dropping like flies from the internal hemorrhaging you caused them. Just marvelous.
My left side suddenly went numb after reading the first line.. and I seem to be missing my spleen. Oh?! I din't know I had this much blood...
"Planets are circular"
Flatearthers TRIGGERED
Riddle me this. Mickey,
Why is it when I do a time lapse of stars the line I get from each and every star is the exact same length be them close or far away as if they are all in the same distance away?
When a closer star should have a longer trail than a far star would.
Yet my observation is always the same distance of trails.
When the further star away should have a visibly shorter star trail on a circular pattern, if you follow what I'm saying. Should it not?
call me a stick in the mud but why do people seem to mix "circular" with 3 Dimensional? I mean a flat circle is not at the peak of impossible things is it? Or is that not what you meant?
@@CMDAO Flatearther, triggered!!!
@@spruxo Lol typical reply. And here I was actually hoping you'd clarify your point so maybe it all finally makes sense. But I'll have to keep being a triggered flatearther instead I guess. Thanks for taking the time to give your 2 cents though. Definitely glad we got to have that intelligent discussion.
Okay, ill entertain you. I should've said spherical rather than circular. There ya go bud@@CMDAO
Thanks Summer, Rick is proud
Maybe what we are witnessing is not something orbiting that star, but something orbiting us. Now who's to say it is not.
great new idea!
If I lived in a sufficiently advanced society wishing to send a message across the galaxy I would use my local star to send a message. We can see the light from stars thousands of light years away. I would use a flotilla of satellites stretching Mylar like sheets broad enough to block star light alternately.
+Edward Owens still bounded by the speed of light and the delays therof
Deviantfulness
Of course. To communicate faster than the speed of light you might use quantum entanglement which is seemingly instantaneous. Problem with that is finding the right quanta being manipulated, figuring out how it is being manipulated, and then decoding it. Kind of like a quadrillion strings stretched for great distances and short distances and in no particular direction and plucking one or two and then finding the end of those particular strings. Unless an advanced society has figured out how to find quanta in the vicinity of another civilization or to listen in or eavesdrop on quanta from all over the universe.
We will probably be extinct before we get that smart.
So you are telling me we were getting a message in some type of giant star light Morse code, and right when communication was getting chatty Kepler stop and we will never get the message?
MrTreebeard420 I'm saying that would be one of the best ways to send a message a good distance across a galaxy. Star light travels thousands of light years. It wouldn't have to even be a coherent message no more than waving your arms and jumping up and down is anything more than calling attention to yourself when stranded on a desert island and you spot a ship. When you think about it planets are islands in the cosmos.
Also if you subscribe to the Rampaging Nano Bot Swarm Theory then then even if you had the technology to build a Dyson Sphere or more likely a ring, given the amount of material involved, is to invite attack. So even if you had the technology would you not use it for fear of drawing unwanted attention.
Another possibility is shepherding masses of large asteroids and dwarf planets into close proximity to each other to produce the effect of alternately dimming star light and draw attention that way.
Maybe it's a last ditch effort to draw attention to a dying world.
It’s hard to say. It could be multiple planets of elliptical orbits. And just nice the dip is caused by these planets that happens to line up in front of their sun once every 1000 years. If we keep observing it for the next million years and it doesn’t happen again then maybe it could be a rouge planet passing by. Or who knows it could be multiple things passing by between the sun and us. And it doesn’t have to be close to the sun. It can even be near us. No one knows. Unless the signal is repeatable.
CyberMew that’s my thought.
good points...
I like the "planets lining up" theory. That would actually be useful for us to know more about how large the system is too. We just need more data point to really make any hard claims either way. It's fun to speculate and that's about it.
+CyberMew
'Luckily' our most advanced system for detecting this is looking the other way, so we probably have no idea and there is a big chance we'll never know.
this is what i was going to post. the further the star is the more likely other bodies as a problem are... the syncing might imply a very large system around a very large star, with multiple small bodies on similar orbits
I think it’s the result of a stray solar system merging with this star’s system and causing multiple alignments from our perspective. With the second star appearing from behind KIC and the stray planets merging orbits in some binary system sort of way. Some planets collide with others, create debris, etc.
It's not a star, its the blinking eye of a giant cosmic space hamster.
nailed it
+zerospin If it would be, we would see the same U shape dim. Just sayin'...
+Alexandru Gheorghe It just has a weird blink. Clearly it got something in its eye, proven by the erratic blinking toward the end of the data pool.
+zerospin thank you for making me spit my tea put while laughing!
Hihihi :-) so much fun!
Based on Einstein's work... it is possible for computers to miss data. If people design a computer to only read data to the knowledge that they have.... 🤷🏽♀️ then why would a computer look for anything else.
TheWholeShabang exactly, they do what they're told to & at most, they may have algorithms but ones that an infallible Human Being wrote, like monitoring for various response from a human, like speak clearly to state the problem & press the hash key to go back to the menu" & listening for key words like "Benefits inquiry" 🤪 in the A.I. we've long been using, i still don't think A.I. could have the love of humanity if required to make fair choices e.g. who gets the insulin during a mass shortage, the children? nah, it will always the wealthiest when human or robot-doctors decide. A.I. is already at work in armed drones, as used in Iraq & now theoretically in U.S. upon clearance from the president's office (thanks to Obama's admin) so when they're killing civilians instead of terrorists, by mistake or otherwise, they can simply can blame the A.I. ...Bad Drone! ...Behave! Also, very many top A.I. experts have publicly stated the disproportionately high dangers & risks involved in relation to what A.I, can actually accomplish, obviously the military have sank billions into research, no surprises there but i've no idea how they'll use it except for killing people more efficiently. America's main export today is War & Atrocities. G'day dude
@@thespotlightkid4138 agree you make valid points
"they do what they're told to" yep
The hidden moral in "2001: A Space Odyssey" was and is that when man creates artificial intelligence, he cannot but transmit to it the Original Sin that was transmitted to him.
@@thespotlightkid4138 Was that rambling nonsense written by an "infallible" Human Being ? Where on earth do you find one of those ?
I really really enjoyed spending time in my evenings as a planet hunter. Thank you for putting it out there! ❤️
I love videos like this..more entertaining than cable
Jeez one would hope so :D
Love the shirt.
can't it just be something closer than that star system getting in the way such as a planet or comet from another star appearing larger because it is closer?
thats what i was thinking...strange that if Im on the surface of the sun and raise my hand no light would be blocked from our planet....but I can block the sun from my eyes with my thumb on the surface of the earth. Hope I explained that correctly.
There's a lot of distance between objects in space. the reason we can see this dimming effect is because objects are orbiting stars. The odds of objects happening to pass between us and a star 1480 light years away repeatedly are astronomical, pun intended.
yeah, that's called "relativity"
That's why Kepler looked at many many star systems. the odds are astronomical, that means you have to look at a lot to see it, but it does exist because (don't forget it is it is possible.)
That didn't make for a good video.👅
The universe is the most amazing thing in the world. Oh wait.... That didn't make any sense =/
+Julian George Makes sense in the figurative.
+Julian George It does make sense... Because this thing you call reality... IS A FAKE, DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNN. Our universe is on "Their" Planet.
+Julian George hahaha lmfaoo
+Julian George "The universe is the most amazing thing in the world." Next to: "Cats are the cutest Cats in the world"
That's TED for you.
Always stick with the most rational explanation. It's another star nearby messing with the light using it's gravitational field. And sometimes their astroids collide making dust clouds. They are now called KIC8462852A and KIC8462852B.
There's no such thing as Gravitational Field, even better Gravity is a myth
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 You can't even write 'gravity' correctly. 'Gravity' is a proper name, so who cares.
@@DexterHaven
Proper grammar is important, keep it up !
Is that all U got in defense of your beloved Gravity ?
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 You sound like an idiot and are stuck on stupid. You still can't spell it in lower case. And you are the one dodging your burden of proof, since you asserted that Gravity is a myth at the outset. On what grounds do you base that thesis, dummy?
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 look how disgustingly ad hominem and aggressive you are, typical for conspiracy theorists who have nothing to back up their feverdreams
What if it was multiple planets with very close orbits, so that sometimes two (or more) planets are superimposed unpon eachother. This could explain why the light gradually dims more and more, a planet in a closer orbit is moving faster than one in a farther away orbit. As the closer planet is moving out from behind the farther away planet, the shadow cast would slowly become larger until the two planets are completely separated, which would also explain the quick jump back up to expected levels.
Good, yes, but even 100s of Jupiters' worth of planets wouldn't block that much light. And, there'd be more periodicity. And, we'd see similar curves as they entered the space between us and the star then moved back out.
Lightning bugs emit almost 100% of the energy they produce as light and not heat..if they can do it it can be duplicated.
What makes you so sure you can duplicate gods creation? He created humans can you duplicate that also?
@@Callmepapimami well look how far technology has come, this gods creation crap doesn't work anymore, and yes robotics is getting stronger each year duplicating aspects from the natural world, yes at the moment very basic but look how fast phones have leapt in 20 years with funding. Your bible is wrong on most things science related if written by a superior being it would not have wrong Information. Stop fearing death and think for yourself.
Thewatcheronthewall Thewatcheronthewall the bible had many “scientific” facts wayyy before your little scientists discovered them! Look at how many inventions we use today are inspired by gods creation. Many intellectuals (smart people, opposite of you) admit that the more they look into the world and learn about it they see that there mustve been a creator.. hope you look into for yourself and stop acting like a hurt little immature child
@@Callmepapimami stop fearing death.
@@Callmepapimami pay close attention okay? We're not talking about me duplicating anything,are we? Nooooo. Read slower and comment less.
The phenomenon looks like a huge artificial lense orbiting the star to focus the energy to the orbiting planet behind.
I just imagined this recently, imagine something like that could be possible for us, like a giant lense that sits on half of the sun amplifying its energy, maybe using a series of lenses or something, focussing it to a point, i think its theoretically possible but
@@pimpslayer9109 Yes, to focus the sun energy to collect in the lithium batteries in the orbit and use it back on the earth is an utopia for us at the moment because of our very limited mobility. But, this is how the developed extraterrestrial beings are satisfying their energy needs.
10:11 How and where would they find all the materials and energies needed to construct such a thing when they just happen to have no ressource and energy left for themself?
just as we are able to build nuclear power plants which give us more energy before using the last bit of our current energy reserves, they could easily have applied the same principal to get energy from their sun. Nobody is that stupid as to deplete all resources without ensuring more will come.
Perhaps it's a planet (or planets) orbiting another star that just happens to pass between us and that other star. I mean, that thing is nearly 1,500 light years away, so there's quite a few possibilities of what may be causing the disturbances.
Very unlikely explanation for this data over such a short time span (few years). If the dip in the light happened once, possibly. Twice, maybe. Consistently like this? Very unlikely. Space is 99.9999% absolutely nothing. To block out that much light from a star it would take multiple very large objects (relatively speaking) passing between us and the star. This number of disturbances is what makes it statistically unlikely that what you said occurred.
+God Gabe How do we know the assumed artificial object is that large. Could it be a much smaller object close enough from the point of observation blocking that star's light entirely?
Tazz M If it were, then this would be happening to many of the stars observed, not just this star this many times. If this were a regular occurrence with the data, they wouldn't make such a big deal about it happening a couple of times.
That's quite a good point there. I appreciate if you could say something about the size of the object blocking the star in this particular case, can the observers detect distances- I'm totally a layman, so I'm not sure about technology being used. Thanks!
What a coincidence that I found you here! Are you ever gonna make videos again?
How about going all the way and calling it "What the Flux!?"
That's freakin genius 🤗
What if the star is revolving around a black hole? It would distort the light rays such that some rays would get bent and their trajectory would totally change to some place else and the rest go back to earth. Also, since black hole's pull is quite significantly larger than any star's, the star's orbit could be very very large and that's why probably we can see a 20% intensity drop for around a 100 days.
I think the star is stationary
It looks certainly possible. Look at this:
www.space.com/20303-black-hole-star-speed-record.html
The star isn't moving.
So far this is the smartest comment I've read... And stars are always moving. Seems quite impossible for an object in space to be "stationary". If any given celestial body has a companion I can almost guarantee it's being pulled to some degree even if it is only slight.
madeincda Thanks :)
Correction: The largest radio telescope in the world during that year and until 2020 was the one in Arecibo, Puerto Rico and not Green Bay. Today the largest one is located in China.
The Green Bank Telescope is the world's largest fully steerable radio telescope.
Puerto Rico radio telescope collapsed few years ago.
Anything made in China is cheap garbage anyway, so that one should be ruled out.
Lies
@@sittingdingo1 Do you know something? Tell it.
It might not be so great to find alien life. Look what happened to the American Indians.
Really? 1 we are not the people of the past and what they did has no bearing on us. And 2 you think that is the worst case of people treating people poorly? That's cute
@@erikkorhonen 1: I know, and 2: Thats not what I said or meant.
@Summersun yes but no for the country you are assuming lol
Awe you poor thing. You didn't have a daddy did you? Crushing!
I know u probably mean no ill will by saying "native Americans", and im only expressing how I feel about the term, not judging u personally,....., I just hate when people still use the term American Indians, or Native Americans.,.. thats like me searching for the Jones household, instead, walking into ur house, then naming ur house after myself then calling u and ur family the Carrington Jones people...... Again I'm sure u probably Don't mean anything bad by saying it.... It just urks me that people still use the term "American Indians" or "Native Americans"
4:14 6:29
My favorite part is when the camera pans over to the audience and every single one of them pretends they know what she's talking about.
🤣🤣😂😂👍😀👍
Of course we know now that it is a natural explanation that we just did not know at the time. Once we looked at the full spectrum it became clear that not all the spectrum was being blocked. Therefore, it is not an opaque object, just a bunch of dust.
best explaination ive found
www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/tabbys-star-dust-complicated/
timwins31 a fukn men brother. Idiocracy, here we come!
Dust is a relative term. Apparently, the long term dimming is from a dispersion of planetessimals (sic?). We are viewing a star with a ring system obliquely.
Scott Minium How quickly we as humans want to explain anything that we don’t understand away by inserting aliens into the discussion. This topic must scratch some deep seated anxiety about loneliness or abandonment in us.
I would really love to see an update on where thinking about this star is today. What new evidence is there and what is the current thinking?
It's funny how we humans imagine aliens harvesting energy from a star - by building huuuge solar panels. I can imagine the alien scientists watching us and having a good laugh :) An advanced civilization may have found a much more efficient way to do that.
+Cole Stewart well if I understood the sizing correct, a block which is as large as the distance between the earth and the sun, would be one of its smallest parts. So that's a pretty massive structure. Even if you take all the planets from our solar system and turn them into building material - it still won't be enough. And aliens destroying hundreds of planets in order to build a solar panel sounds like a pretty savage thing to me :) That's how we do it.
An advanced science should have something much smarter in its pocket - something like using quantum entanglement to teleport a small part of the fire from the sun into a reactor here... Stuff like that - with some more scientific discoveries there should be plenty of options :)
+aga1nst Ye maybe they probe the sun and suck energy out, something we would never think of
+21st Century yep, exactly :)
+aga1nst
Agreed. We are on the verge of producing unlimited nuclear fusion in Tokamak's. The next 50 years will see solar energy will fall by the wayside. If you're building mega structures in space then its safe to assume that energy is not a concern.
+Tom Mulligan You know there's no such thing as infinite energy, right ?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but could the anomalies in the observations occur due to a large heavenly body orbiting the star at a huge distance. (relative to normal orbital distances) This would imply that the planet would “appear” to be large, and “appear” to block a lot of light. Plus, it would be far away and thus orbit slowly, resulting in the observed prolonged periods of dimness.
If something is large enough to block that amount of light, at a distance extreme enough to account for the time passage, the star would 'wobble'. For instance, Jupiter doesn't orbit our star, the Sun and Jupiter orbit a center-point between the two because of Jupiter's immense gravity. I don't believe the star in question has shown any wobble to indicate something extremely large is orbiting with it.
I'm with this guy, (or gal,). If a fly got in front of the of the lens here on earth, (for example), it would block out a significant amount of light and not induce "wobble" on that far away star. I think this is what "The Science Biome" is saying, but instead of a fly on the lens, it is some other celestial object maybe not even in that star's solar system.
Relative to the distance to the star from Earth, any orbiting obtect would be pretty much at the same distance that the star itself. That star is about 1500 light years away, a few light-hours wouldn't make it closer to the lens in any meaningful sense.
Why are we assuming the object(s) blocking the light have to be orbiting the star? Again, could not a fly on the lens of a telescope here on earth be blocking some light from a far-away star? I know it is not a fly causing this, I am just illustrating the point.
8:56 the moment you realize your joke hasnt gotten over and no ones laughing
crickets chirpping lol
Bwhaha!!
Vipul Doshi awkward moment
Do we know any more about this?
Morty is messing around that star.
+moniker127 Nobody exist on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's gonna die.
Great presentation! We need more scientists like this!!! Thank you!
The presentation was basically a lie though. Why do we need more? The entire talk is based on the idea that "computers can't find this stuff" but of course they can. Her talk should have been about how NASA screwed up and didn't spot such a huge signal. THAT would have been a great presentation. If she left out the lame jokes.
Don't know if anyone can answer this, but how do we know for sure that the objects are that massive? To me it seems more probable that it's a smaller obstacle which is closer to us. Kind of like: the closer the object blocking the light is to us, the more light it will block. Like a bird obstructing line of sight to the sun - which is a tiny object but can greatly affect the light we recieve due to its proximity. Surely this anomaly could be explained with asteroids or some such obstructing our line of sight?
IMO this isn't visible light detector. So, it won't work like "the closer the object blocking the light is to us, the more light it will block." As for how large the object is, it is said in the presentation 3:01
It would continually block the object then
You have to consider the wavelengths involved and the time the object blocked the light...
Solar system objects move much too fast to block out a star for more than a few minutes at a time, and they would almost certainly block out the entirety of the star at max transit. This could be an interesting idea though if maybe it was a comet-like object in interstellar space (but nearer the Sun than the other star) such that it has a very large angular size, but diffuse (and so can't block out the star entirely) and moving either really slowly (not sure how the dynamics of that would work) or potentially moving almost directly toward or away from us.
I think you have to consider the distance between us and the star and the distance between the star and whatever is blocking the light. The distance between us and the star is soooooo much greater than that of the star and the object that they distance is negligable. So if you had a sun with two very large planets of equal size, one very close to the sun, the other very far, my guess is that both planets would produce very similar, if not identicle obstruction.
8:52 that was awkward 😅
Lol yeaa
I laughed, then realised nobody else did. It was awkward for me too
I felt sad for her
please please let it be alien civilization.
😂😂😂
Mexicans?
Oh look guys, we have a comedian on our hands.
Somehow, you dumbasses devolved the conversation into something about race..
yea there are retards galore here in the comments
A new Tabby star has been found !
Link?
@@jaydee1024 oh bro you won't matter in space...
@@hrabia It sounds interesting, i was just hoping for more info.
Also, yo mama wears army boots and she dresses ya funny
The new star is in the plane of our galaxy so the dimming may be due to local events.
www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomers-spot-another-star-flickers-tabby-star
This is so cool
The star in question is almost 1,500 light years away from Earth. At that distance, planetary celestial bodies could be causing the dimming. And this star's by no means the only star which experiences dimming in brightness.
Giant Hail Planets, planets entirely constructed of ice at a temperature similar or slightly colder than the South Pole
Two ice planets stuck together, when they hit together the cold merged them perfectly to become huge double or triple ice cream plops in a cone !
This system is peppered with Jupiter sized ice planets, they're inner cores may be of very light materials.
What about this - not a Dyson sphere (which should make the star invisible) but rather a civilization that has constructed several arrays of space-based solar panels that beam energy to a planet? Perhaps there are even several of them of varying sizes as the technology to build them changes. These combined with several planets in the plane of our eliptic _might_ cause these odd effects.
What you're describing is a Dyson sphere that is under construction.
+Corey Graham
No, I'm not, but that would also be a possible explanation.
We should atart outsourcing scientific endeavours
maybe a double star, or even triple star. of course the radiation from one star is blocked totally if it's behind the other; or it blocks the first star's light if it is in front of the other.
"The data were good"
very satisfying to hear this conjugation
lol i agree man
I'm sitting here like..please correct that sentence.
i was expecting 'is', but yea data pluralizes as such i suppose. the data are great
Proper grammar =
“The data points were accurate.”
data is plural