We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[Marcus]

i don't think my eyes can physically roll as far back as they should for this comment.

And I said, "What I did was much simpler, I shared the reference that Kipping provided."

And "His issue should be with Kipping"

It's not like you read the paper Marcus. You didn't know the researchers used Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams

I haven't fully read the paper.

I rest my case.

[doubtingthomas]

He correctly states that the sun is quieter than average. But when he puts a number on how typical the sun is, he uses the nonperiodic (pseudo-solar) stars. He knows that the term "solar-like stars" as used in the paper does not mean "stars most like the sun."

Jesus.

[Res Ipsa]

Throughout this discussion, you've been fixated on the "periodic" subsample and the fact that sun is much quieter than those stars. Why? Because you've been equating the paper's use of the term "solar-like stars" with something like "stars that are the most like the sun." 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. It's right here:

Read the Transcript I made for you, Kipping said, "Remember that since the spin of stars slows down with age". Kipping did talk several times about the rotation of stars in the video and why it was important to know their rotation rate.

So again, your issue is with Kipping.

Troll someone who cares. After making numerous ridiculous claims about the paper, you’re now pretending you just said one thing. And all you’re showing is that you still don’t understand the paper you haven’t read. If you had, you would have understood that the paper’s title has nothing to do with Kipping’s discussion about the paper. Conflating the two was misleading, regardless of your intentions.

You’ve outed yourself as a fraud. You’ve admitted what I’ve been saying for pages. You’ve tried to fake your way through this discussion for pages and pages. Now that it got so bad you decided to come clean, you’re trying to change the subject.

[doubtingthomas]

You’ve outed yourself as a fraud. You’ve admitted what I’ve been saying for pages. You’ve tried to fake your way through this discussion for pages and pages. Now that it got so bad you decided to come clean, you’re trying to change the subject.

Sure, I claimed to have studied and rigorously analyzed the paper, but in some parallel universe.

There's no need to analyze a paper when an expert analyzed it for you. What's so hard to understand about that?

You are the real fraud for adding too many words to my mouth. I never said many of the things you have accused me of saying. I can provide many examples from this thread alone.

Anyways, here you are contradicting yourself.

Res Ipsa vs Res Ipsa

"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"

[doubtingthomas]

He knows that the term "solar-like stars" as used in the paper does not mean "stars most like the sun." He does it by eyeballing a graph (and mentally subtracting the distribution of the total sample from the distribution of the periodic sample), which is perfectly reasonable for the way he uses the estimate in the video. I'm sure he also recognizes that, until we know the periodic rotation of those stars, we can't precise tell which most closely resemble the sun.

And he also said, "there is an emerging picture that the Sun, at least we see it today, appears to be unusually quiet compared to stars of similar type"

And I said, "To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars".

And you said of non-periodic stars, "until we know the periodic rotation of those stars, we can't precise tell which most closely resemble the sun."

It's clear you are the one who is doing mental gymnastics. There was nothing wrong with my statement.

[doubtingthomas]

He correctly states that the sun is quieter than average. But when he puts a number on how typical the sun is, he uses the nonperiodic (pseudo-solar) stars

Kipping never mentioned nonperiodic stars in the video and did not try to "put a number on how typical the sun is".

You are making stuff up.

until we know the periodic rotation of those stars, we can't precise tell which most closely resemble the sun.

I agree, that's what I've been saying. Oh my God!

[Res Ipsa]

Kipping never mentioned nonperiodic stars in the video and did not try to "put a number on how typical the sun is".

You are making stuff up.

OMG. You still don’t understand what the paper says or what Kipping says about it. Do you even have feet left to shoot yourself in? Read the goddamn transcript you typed up and try to understand the words.

[T]hey showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars.

The “quiet sun-like stars” are the non periodic stars. You’d understand that if you’d read the goddamn paper.

Are you trying to set the record for own goals in a single thread, fraudster?

[doubtingthomas]

The “quiet sun-like stars” are the non periodic stars. You’d understand that if you’d read the goddamn paper.

You haven't read it either. You keep contradicting yourself.

"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"

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."

""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
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."

You created a mess.

Do you even have feet left to shoot yourself in?

I made some small mistakes, like thinking that the researchers used the Skumanich method for example. Small mistakes don't make me a fraud.

Your childish insults clearly ruined this thread and a valuable conversation.

[doubtingthomas]

But I am glad you finally realized that there was nothing wrong with my original statement.

[doubtingthomas]

No response from Res Ipsa

As late as last night, he still was insisting that Kipping never said anything about the non periodic stars (which was the subsample of “quiet sun-like stars.”

Kipping didn't explain that quiet stars (non-periodic) are stars without a known rotation rate.

Kipping did say, "they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]", but you initially said, "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample."

I am telling you this is now all a mess and many things that you say that I said are not true.