You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] rwbj [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That was one of the bigger discoveries here leading to bullet point number 1. He gets into this around 4 minutes. There were extended simultaneous measurements taken with a V / visual light filter and a B / blue (shorter wavelength) filter. Dust and gas reflects/blocks visible light more than higher frequency light. If the buildup of whatever is causing the dimming around the star was an accumulation of dust or gas you'd expect less and less V band filter light to get to us relative to the B band filter levels. Instead the delta between these is staying consistent.

The accelerating dimming and consistency are also particularly tough on dust explanations, but I think the above near kills it off altogether.

@CarthOSassy

0
0

[–] CarthOSassy ago 

That's fascinating. What are the best inert hypotheses, then? A intervening planet? Blackhole? Could the star itself be... lumpy?

0
0

[–] voat-ist ago 

An intervening asteroid field could explain it. Also more likely than a Dyson sphere.

0
1

[–] rwbj [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Same issues there. Asteroid collisions would be creating dust which would be resulting in wavelength differentials. Said collisions would also result in heat which would result in a visible increase in the infrared - also not there. There's lots of other issues as well which led to its doubt even just using older data, but I think those alone sufficiently remove it from the picture.