And you still missed their final sentence:
Our analysis does not allow us to distinguish between these two interpretations.
Sure, and they have interpretations of the interpretations. It's a mess.
The only hard science is this: "Most of the solar-like stars with well-determined rotation periods show higher variability than the Sun and are therefore considerably more active. These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability"
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
And you still missed their final sentence:
Our analysis does not allow us to distinguish between these two interpretations.
Sure, and they have interpretations of the interpretations. It's a mess.
The only hard science is this: "Most of the solar-like stars with well-determined rotation periods show higher variability than the Sun and are therefore considerably more active. These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability"
Here, I modified point 4 so you don't keep complaining.
Here are some points you should consider:
1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.
2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."
3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".
4. The Sun is either unusual, or the Sun is usually loud, but rarely quiet. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
People have gone over this article with you repeatedly, and mostly have been kind enough not to say that your bizarre interpretations and disagreement with the authors is laughably worthless. It seems it needs to be said now.
your bizarre interpretations and disagreement with the authors is laughably worthless
The four points don't contradict the results.
Here's what the researchers are saying
The researchers therefore also studied more than 2500 Sun-like stars with unknown rotation periods. Their brightness fluctuated much less than that of the other group.
These results allow two interpretations. There could be a still unexplained fundamental difference between stars with known and unknown rotation period. "It is just as conceivable that stars with known and Sun-like rotation periods show us the fundamental fluctuations in activity the Sun is capable of," says Shapiro. This would mean that our star has been unusually feeble over the past 9000 years and that on very large time scales phases with much greater fluctuations are also possible.
I notice that the Fermi problem was proposed back before we started sending exploration into space. I am old enough to remember when Venus was considered a prime suspect for extraterrestrial life, well it was till an actual probe was sent to check the place out. Imagining life in this solar system presents very different possibilities for contact trade or conflict than does interstellar contact. Unless there is a way to completely escape the velocity limit of light then the distances to other solar systems renders trade and conquest meaningless or utterly impractical .
What resources would be here worth the big time investment? Any mineral or other material resource would be far more easily found in nearby uninhabited places such as nearby asteroids moons or smaller planets. I am pretty sure that knowledge would be the only tradable commodity.
Also, you still haven't linked to the source or sources you are relying on for points 1-4.
And just for clarification on point one. Most stars are red dwarfs, but it is still possible that most G-type stars are older than the Sun. Or maybe there's another reason why the data could be skewed. There are a lot of unknowns when dealing with non-periodic stars.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.
2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."
3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".
4. The Sun is either unusual, or the Sun is usually loud, but rarely quiet. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?
why would anybody reading this thread care if the sun has been unusually quiet for 9000 years?
There are lots of different kinds of stars, Of course most are different in some way from the sun. It can be said most stars are not good candidates for supporting life but nobody knows for sure what kinds would not be able to.
Last edited by huckelberry on Sat Jan 07, 2023 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
