exactly and even more importantly 22% of the light of a star implies something somewhat transparent (like the tail of a comet) that is the full angular size of the star.
So? Tails can be up to 500,000,000 kilometres long. That's 720 times the Sun's diameter.
Is it that much of a leap to assume that it could actually spread out far enough to block a significant fraction of the star's light? It doesn't have to be the full angular size; about half would do, if the tail is sufficiently long to block out most of the light that passes through it.
We have no idea how an apparently dark object could be this big.
When you say "we" do you mean "modern science," or do you just mean "I"?
Well again, given that a gas giant can only block 1-2%, this would have to be a really friggin' huge comet, right? A comet bigger than Jupiter?
A comet tail bigger than Jupiter. Such a thing has been observed in our own solar system.
Sure, the tail might help, but still comet tails don't block light the way a planet does, they're just a collection of dust.
They block light in exactly the same way a planet does, since they are also just a collection of atoms, just more diffuse.
A few dozen metres of water vapour in the form of clouds can block plenty of the light from our star.
Even if a comet tail only blocks, say, 0.1% of the light per million kilometres, it would still block a total of 40% of the light if you were looking straight down it at a star (assuming a length of 500,000,000km, as per comet Hyakutake).
I think it's amazing that there could be a system with enough comets to block out such a big portion of starlight.
They think the first dimming event was caused by one comet.
I think the thing to grasp might be that - as the illustration on the article shows, albeit with some artistic licence - you need to imagine looking at the star through the entire millions-of-kilometres length of a dusty comet tail (which streams directly away from the star, so directly towards us). That'll block a lot of light, I'm guessing.
If it is a regular cycle then the orbit also must be small.
I got that bit wrong. Only two dimming events have been recorded. One is thought to have been caused by a large leading comet, the other by trailing comets.
Even when close to us the largest known comets tails only would "cover" a small fraction of the visible area of our sun.
The largest known comet tail was 500,000,000km long. And they stream out directly away from the star, so imagine looking at a star through the entire 500,000,000km length of a dusty comet tail. You don't think that might obscure the light from the star a bit?
Imagine something created from colliding comets
That's a scenario the article specifically dismissses.
how the heck would some comets block 20 times more?
How many is "some comets"? Why couldn't "some comets" block 20% of the light from a star? For that matter, why couldn't one comet do it? Remember a comet isn't just the nucleus. There's also a tail, which can be thousands of times longer than a mere planet.
Just have a look at the illustration that leads the article (probably not entirely to scale, but still).
You know what it means. I know what it means. Everyone knows what it means.
If you insist on a rigorous mathematical definition, it's very simple. "Cheapness" is simply the inverse of "costliness." So if something is 100 times cheaper, it's 100 times less costly. If something originally cost $100, it now costs $1. Capiche?
if we were to position our detectors in the wake of one of these hairs – if dark matter behaves as we expect it to — the sensitivity of our dark matter detectors will improve by a factor of one billion, immediately.
No it wouldn't. The sensitivity of the detectors doesn't change at all.
When you walk into a bright room, it's not bright because your eyes have just magically got more sensitive to light.
Here I've been working and making an honest living all these years when I could have cobbled some 100% bullshit gadget together and sold enough of them to retire to my own tropical island and live in luxury for the rest of my life.
Apart from the bit where you spend 10 years in jail and have the police "pursue your wealth" under the Proceeds of Crime act.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly and even more importantly 22% of the light of a star implies something somewhat transparent (like the tail of a comet) that is the full angular size of the star.
So? Tails can be up to 500,000,000 kilometres long. That's 720 times the Sun's diameter.
Is it that much of a leap to assume that it could actually spread out far enough to block a significant fraction of the star's light? It doesn't have to be the full angular size; about half would do, if the tail is sufficiently long to block out most of the light that passes through it.
We have no idea how an apparently dark object could be this big.
When you say "we" do you mean "modern science," or do you just mean "I"?
as Elmo as the fact that nuclear energy leaves since pretty nasty waste behind.
Ahh... what?
Well again, given that a gas giant can only block 1-2%, this would have to be a really friggin' huge comet, right? A comet bigger than Jupiter?
A comet tail bigger than Jupiter. Such a thing has been observed in our own solar system.
Sure, the tail might help, but still comet tails don't block light the way a planet does, they're just a collection of dust.
They block light in exactly the same way a planet does, since they are also just a collection of atoms, just more diffuse.
A few dozen metres of water vapour in the form of clouds can block plenty of the light from our star.
Even if a comet tail only blocks, say, 0.1% of the light per million kilometres, it would still block a total of 40% of the light if you were looking straight down it at a star (assuming a length of 500,000,000km, as per comet Hyakutake).
I think it's amazing that there could be a system with enough comets to block out such a big portion of starlight.
They think the first dimming event was caused by one comet.
I think the thing to grasp might be that - as the illustration on the article shows, albeit with some artistic licence - you need to imagine looking at the star through the entire millions-of-kilometres length of a dusty comet tail (which streams directly away from the star, so directly towards us). That'll block a lot of light, I'm guessing.
If it is a regular cycle then the orbit also must be small.
I got that bit wrong. Only two dimming events have been recorded. One is thought to have been caused by a large leading comet, the other by trailing comets.
Even when close to us the largest known comets tails only would "cover" a small fraction of the visible area of our sun.
The largest known comet tail was 500,000,000km long. And they stream out directly away from the star, so imagine looking at a star through the entire 500,000,000km length of a dusty comet tail. You don't think that might obscure the light from the star a bit?
Imagine something created from colliding comets
That's a scenario the article specifically dismissses.
how the heck would some comets block 20 times more?
How many is "some comets"? Why couldn't "some comets" block 20% of the light from a star? For that matter, why couldn't one comet do it? Remember a comet isn't just the nucleus. There's also a tail, which can be thousands of times longer than a mere planet.
Just have a look at the illustration that leads the article (probably not entirely to scale, but still).
Huh. Posted my reply as AC for some reason.
To reiterate:
22%. Something obscures 22% of the whole side of a star larger than the sun just in our specific direction.
No. Something blocks 22% of the light emitted in our direction for some amount of time in a regular cycle.
how could a few comets create this sort of thing unless the "clouds" they create are sucked into the star almost immediately?
Why would you expect the clouds to be "sucked in" at all?
You can think of it that way if you like, but no-one else does.
It does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't you mean 1:1? Or 1/2?
Original firehose post doesn't use headline capitalization.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Title case is a stupid, pointless, and amibiguity-inducing tradition.
I don't see why not. The conclusion is no less ridiculous than the premise.
Ugh, I hope you were paid by their marketing department to make that terrible joke.
Cos that would make you a plant...
given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country.
No it isn't.
All the Church needs to do is turn this into a full-length film, then this can be the trailer.
What - and whose - question?
You know what it means. I know what it means. Everyone knows what it means.
If you insist on a rigorous mathematical definition, it's very simple. "Cheapness" is simply the inverse of "costliness." So if something is 100 times cheaper, it's 100 times less costly. If something originally cost $100, it now costs $1. Capiche?
Why can't people who speak Dutch just speak English?
This isn't exactly an amazing product.
I think that's rather the point of the story.
if we were to position our detectors in the wake of one of these hairs – if dark matter behaves as we expect it to — the sensitivity of our dark matter detectors will improve by a factor of one billion, immediately.
No it wouldn't. The sensitivity of the detectors doesn't change at all.
When you walk into a bright room, it's not bright because your eyes have just magically got more sensitive to light.
Hang on, no, what I mean is:
If you know of a terrorist plot that wasn't foiled by a TSA body scanner when it should have been...
I think.
Yes, in much the same sense that I don't know whether the Sun came up on the morning of 19th February, 1862.
Still, if you know of a terrorist plot that was foiled by a TSA body scanner...
effecting only a "small number" of users
You need to lern some properly English.
Fake Bomb Detector, Blamed For Hundreds of Deaths, Is Still In Use
Sounds like someone needs to buy a few of my fake bomb detector decectors.
Here I've been working and making an honest living all these years when I could have cobbled some 100% bullshit gadget together and sold enough of them to retire to my own tropical island and live in luxury for the rest of my life.
Apart from the bit where you spend 10 years in jail and have the police "pursue your wealth" under the Proceeds of Crime act.