Res Ipsa vs Res Ipsa. Two people trapped in the same body

[doubtingthomas]

"Or, in there words, the sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample." - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "He correctly states that the sun is quieter than average"

""all "solar-like" means is stars in the periodic sample that have solar-like rotational periods... solar-like, i.e. they have near-solar fundamental parameters and rotation periods" - Res Ipsa, I am not sure if he's contradicting himself in the same post.
Also Res Ipsa, "until we know the periodic rotation of those stars, we can't precise tell which most closely resemble the sun."
Also Res Ipsa, "The paper only uses the term as a label to distinguish the stars for which a rotational period was determined from those whose rotational period could not be determined."

"As for titles, I dunno. " - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "Once you understand how the paper's authors define their terms, the title of the paper is not misleading in the slightest."

"The researchers didn't "assign" the sun. They ran a test to see if Kepler would be able to detect the sun." - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "authors characterized our sun as a "non-periodic" star"

I said, "To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars".
Res Ipsa said, "Same problem, only worse. You reached a conclusion opposite to that suggested by the paper"

Kipping, "they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]"
"“quiet sun-like stars” are the non periodic stars - Res Ipsa
Also Res Ipsa, "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you read the entire research paper in question?

- Doc

[Marcus]

Your reputation precedes you DT. You need to provide full quotes w links if you want anyone to read this. Your semi-quotes are dubious, at best.

[doubtingthomas]

Did you read the entire research paper in question?

- Doc

I'll answer after you try to explain why Res Ipsa contradicted himself many times. I just added more contradictions.

What a fraud!

[doubtingthomas]

Your reputation precedes you DT. You need to provide full quotes w links if you want anyone to read this. Your semi-quotes are dubious, at best.

I am creating fake quotes, I am simply lying.

I am surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet. Everything is sexist.

[Marcus]

Your reputation precedes you DT. You need to provide full quotes w links if you want anyone to read this. Your semi-quotes are dubious, at best.

I am creating fake quotes, I am simply lying.

I am surprised you haven't called me a sexist yet. Everything is sexist.

Lol. This is what I meant about your reputation preceding you. Stop with the ad hom and document your quotes. If you can.

[doubtingthomas]

Lol. This is what I meant about your reputation preceding you. Stop with the ad hom and document your quotes. If you can.

Stop with the Ad hom? LOL but that's what you do for a living. Your only purpose is to attack the people you perceive as sexist. All you do is criticize or attack.

"Or, in there words, the sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample." - Res Ipsa
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=156843&start=40

"He correctly states that the sun is quieter than average"
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=156843&start=180

There, I won't do all the work for you. You know where to find them.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you read the entire research paper in question?

- Doc

I'll answer after you try to explain why Res Ipsa contradicted himself many times. I just added more contradictions.

What a fraud!

I think the first step in reconciling who is right and who is wrong is for you to read the entire paper. Wouldn’t you agree?

- Doc

[Marcus]

Lol. This is what I meant about your reputation preceding you. Stop with the ad hom and document your quotes. If you can.

Stop with the Ad hom? LOL but that's what you do for a living. Your only purpose is to attack the people you perceive as sexist. All you do is criticize or attack.

QED.

…There, I won't do all the work for you. You know where to find them.

There you go. You post unattributed quotes, then when people ask for links you post this.

Your reputation precedes you. Again.

[huckelberry]

Wikipedia basics on stars like our sun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_analog

These stars are broadly similar to the Sun. They are main-sequence stars with a B−V color between 0.48 and 0.80, the Sun having a B−V color of 0.65. Alternatively, a definition based on spectral type can be used, such as F8V through K2V, which would correspond to B−V color of 0.50 to 1.00.[1] This definition fits approximately 10% of stars,[3] so a list of solar-type stars would be quite extensive.[4]

Solar-type stars show highly correlated behavior between their rotation rates and their chromospheric activity (e.g. Calcium H & K line emission) and coronal activity (e.g. X-ray emission)[5] Because solar-type stars spin down during their main-sequence lifetimes due to magnetic braking, these correlations allow rough ages to be derived. Mamajek & Hillenbrand (2008)[6] have estimated the ages for the 108 solar-type (F8V–K2V) main-sequence stars within 52 light-years (16 parsecs) of the Sun based on their chromospheric activity (as measured via Ca, H, and K emission lines).[citation needed]

The following table shows a sample of solar-type stars within 50 light years that nearly satisfy the criteria for solar analogs (B−V color between 0.48 and 0.80), based on current measurements (the Sun is listed for comparison):
Sample of solar-type stars
Identifier J2000 coordinates[7] Distance[7]
(ly) Stellar
class[7] Temperature
(K) Metallicity
(dex) Age
(Gyr) Notes
Right ascension Declination
Sun — — 0.0000158 G2V 5778 +0.00 4.6 [8]
Alpha Centauri A [9] 15h 49m 36.49400s −60° 50′ 02.3737″ 4.37 G2V 5790 +0.20 4.4 [10][11][12][13]
Alpha Centauri B 4.37 K0V 5260 4.4
Epsilon Eridani [14] -09h 27m 29.7s 03° 32′ 55.8″ 10.4 K2V 5084 -0.13 0.4-0.8
Tau Ceti [15] 01h 44m 04.1s −15° 56′ 15″ 11.9 G8V 5344 –0.52 5.8 [16]
82 Eridani [17] 03h 19m 55.7s −43° 04′ 11.2″ 19.8 G8V 5338 –0.54 6.1 [18]
Delta Pavonis [19] 20h 08m 43.6s −66° 10′ 55″ 19.9 G8IV 5604 +0.33 ~7 [20]
V538 Aurigae [21] 05h 41m 20.3s +53° 28′ 51.8″ 39.9 K1V 5257 −0.20 3.7 [18]
HD 14412 [22] 02h 18m 58.5s −25° 56′ 45″ 41.3 G5V 5432 −0.46 9.6 [18]
HR 4587 [23] 12h 00m 44.3s −10° 26′ 45.7″ 42.1 G8IV 5538 +0.18 8.5 [18]
HD 172051 [24] 18h 38m 53.4s −21° 03′ 07″ 42.7 G5V 5610 −0.32 4.3 [18]
72 Herculis [25] 17h 20m 39.6s +32° 28′ 04″ 46.9 G0V 5662 −0.37 5 [18]
HD 196761 [26] 20h 40m 11.8s −23° 46′ 26″ 46.9 G8V 5415 −0.31 6.6 [20]
Nu² Lupi [27] 15h 21m 48.1s −48° 19′ 03″ 47.5 G4V 5664 −0.34 10.3 [20]
Solar analog

/////////Highlight 108 solar type stars within 52 lightyears.
I find this a bit more interesting than worry about if the sun is a usual form of variable star when there are a wide variety of variable stars and the sun is just barely variable. Well it is at least a bit of context.