Posted by
timothy
on from the toast-to-cool-science dept.
Crixus writes "It seems that a mathematical pattern has been found in the X-Ray light emitted by star systems." This is a really intriguing scientific detective story, too -- it took several years of analyzing numerous sources of X-ray flicker to find this pattern.
Since this seems to be the only post by someone who's read the article, I'll ask this question here.
It's a little like observing that the sun comes up in the morning and sets in the evening everyday.
The example of Cygnus X-2 given in the article listed the constant by which the whole number is multiplied as 9.8 days, equal to its orbital period, which would suggest that it is tied to a certain spot in its orbit. The possible reason offered, a "clump" in a tilted accretion disk, seems to suggest the same thing.
Yet nowhere do they say that the constant for Cygnus X-3 and LMC X-3 is equal to their orbital period: indeed they seem to actively avoid saying it ("Long term variations in LMC X-3 and Cygnus X-3 follow the same general rule: the lengths of the variations are always a whole number multiplied by a constant", immediately after linking Cygnus X-2's constant to its orbital period). Does anyone have any information on this? Do we know the orbital periods for these? This bears directly on whether the possible explanation is convincing (3/3 is one thing, 1/1 is something else).
-- ~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
Scientists announce a mathematical pattern...
by
SIGFPE
·
· Score: 4
...has been discovered in the movements of the Sun.
Dr. Smith at Berkeley U., CA explains "We've noticed that the Sun's motion appears to have a large periodic component. Typically we see it rise in the morning and set in the evening. But the truly amazing thing is that it seems to do this once per day. Exactly."
Dr. Jones at Brigham Young U. is more sceptical "I've looked at Smith's data and see no evidence of a periodic pattern. I've been tracking sunrises now for the last year and the rising of the sun has fluctuated back and forth by several hours over this time. If the Sun's motion were truly periodic don't you think it would rise at the same time every morning?"
Still, Smith's team are unperturbed. "There's a definite pattern here although it might not be as simple as we thought".
Smith also rules out the possibility that intelleigence may be invokved in the patterning. Jones, on the other hand, wasn't so quick to dismiss such a hypothesis...
Slashdot Mirror
The example of Cygnus X-2 given in the article listed the constant by which the whole number is multiplied as 9.8 days, equal to its orbital period, which would suggest that it is tied to a certain spot in its orbit. The possible reason offered, a "clump" in a tilted accretion disk, seems to suggest the same thing.
Yet nowhere do they say that the constant for Cygnus X-3 and LMC X-3 is equal to their orbital period: indeed they seem to actively avoid saying it ("Long term variations in LMC X-3 and Cygnus X-3 follow the same general rule: the lengths of the variations are always a whole number multiplied by a constant", immediately after linking Cygnus X-2's constant to its orbital period). Does anyone have any information on this? Do we know the orbital periods for these? This bears directly on whether the possible explanation is convincing (3/3 is one thing, 1/1 is something else).
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
Dr. Smith at Berkeley U., CA explains "We've noticed that the Sun's motion appears to have a large periodic component. Typically we see it rise in the morning and set in the evening. But the truly amazing thing is that it seems to do this once per day. Exactly."
Dr. Jones at Brigham Young U. is more sceptical "I've looked at Smith's data and see no evidence of a periodic pattern. I've been tracking sunrises now for the last year and the rising of the sun has fluctuated back and forth by several hours over this time. If the Sun's motion were truly periodic don't you think it would rise at the same time every morning?"
Still, Smith's team are unperturbed. "There's a definite pattern here although it might not be as simple as we thought".
Smith also rules out the possibility that intelleigence may be invokved in the patterning. Jones, on the other hand, wasn't so quick to dismiss such a hypothesis...
---- SIGFPE