We've already discussed this. This particular find is not Nemesis. Nor did these two objects pass close enough to the more dense center of the Oort Cloud to perturb many (if any) comets. What does the find show: That there are indeed galactic objects that have passed near enough to the Oort Cloud recently enough to have been Nemesis. In other words, the hypothesis is now more firmly supported even though we have not yet found the one object that did the deed. It can still turn out that the recurrent comet bombardment of the inner solar system is an incorrect hypothesis.
It doesn't more firmly support the nemesis star hypothesis at all. We already knew the probability of something passing close by. We found that something satisfied that probability once. The probability stays the same, nothing was revised. Honestly, if anything it goes against the hypothesis since in the article in mentions the proximity was fairly rare and that even this close proximity did nothing significant in the influencing of particulates in the Oort cloud.
Sorry hit the wrong button. No, that is not the Nemesis Hypothesis. I'll have to get back to this, I have something else I need to get done right now.
You took that out of context. The people that discovered this said nothing about the nemesis hypothesis, you are the only one that related it to this. I was talking about what they were trying to prove. They were trying to find objects that passed close based on the fact that by sheer probability objects should pass close if that's even what they were doing. Actually, it honestly sounds like they noticed this through random observation. They wondered why the tangent value was so low so they investigated. Its just something that was discovered, there isn't even a hypothesis behind it really unless if you want to count that a low tangent value means that either the objects was near or will be near within a given time. This is bad. At first I was just arguing about how interesting this article is. If other people find it much more interesting than I do there is nothing wrong with that. Now we are arguing about if some unrelated theory is supported by an observation that everyone already knew could happen at a certain rate. This is like relating the probability of rolling three sixes in a row to the amount of people who go bankrupt in Las Vegas based on the evidence that someone once rolled three sixes in a row in a Las Vegas bathroom as part of a no stakes game. Or maybe they did roll the three sixes in a games with stakes but just took their fifty dollars in winning and never gambled again. That may even be too closely related in comparison to the nemesis star hypothesis and this discovery. The relation is that both talk about brown dwarf stars and objects passing closely. One talks about an object that orbits and causes mass extinctions when it passes a certain way, one talks about an object that passed once and is getting farther away and caused no interruption at all even though it passed very closely. But since an object was observed passing (which by the way everyone knew was a possible thing that could happen to the point of such frequencies having projections) it can be cited as supporting evidence for the nemesis star hypothesis. I don't really construct arguments well, I spout off with everything I'm thinking instead of using a few concise statements to win me the argument. Just know its a common trap for people to read about a scientific discovery then apply it in an incorrect way to make conclusions that just aren't supported. That is happening here, if you don't believe me contact an expert on the issue or just continue to believe what you want.
The observations are interesting because it is not clear just how often these close encounters happen (and how close they can get with any frequency) or the effect that they have. Astronomers are interested in getting a better understanding of these matters because it bears on questions of mass extinctions, the formation of solar systems (for example in dense star clusters), the likelihood of stable planetary systems near the center of the galaxy, and a whole host of interesting things. It has become clear that the dynamic history of our own solar system was probably a lot more interesting than we used to think. We might be lucky it got left in the nice stable configuration that it did. For example it is now thought that there are a large number of "rogue" planets drifting around in interstellar space without any associated star. How did they get there? Gravitational perturbations from stellar encounters, especially in clusters, might be one contributor. Curiously such rogue planets might even have enough latent heat from their formation (if they are big like Jupiter) to have comfy warm places where life could possibly develop. I'm sure such life forms would find the idea of living under an active star as we do just "crazy science fiction."
This is from the article: "While this is the closest flyby detected so far, Dr Mamajek thinks it's not uncommon for alien stars to buzz the Sun. He says a star probably passes through the Oort Cloud every 100,000 years, or so. But he suggests an approach as close - or closer - than that made by Scholz's star is somewhat rarer. Dr Mamajek said mathematical simulations show such an event occurs on average about once every nine million years. "So it is a bit of a strange coincidence that we happen to have caught one that passed so close within the past 100,000 years or so," he said." It doesn't say anything about the discovery attributing to the accuracy of the mathematical simulation. How could it, its one observation and a mathematical simulation establishes a pattern. One thing isn't enough for a pattern, neither is two. I agree with your post except that it seems like the clarity we have on how often these encounters happen has nothing to do with this discovery. Let me know if I'm missing something there. I do agree an effect was somewhat established, except that it was a lack of effect. Nothing happened so if anything it would suggest extinction events are not caused by passing stars. That isn't really accurate either again because one time isn't enough to establish a pattern. It mentions the system was small in mass and that's why an Oort Cloud disruption probably didn't happen. Inversely, if the passing had attributed to a comet shower a lot more could be concluded about what type of effect a passing star could potentially have.
You're lacking some precision here. Of course galactic objects crash into each other. Of course galactic objects can be expected to enter the solar system. Looking at your subsequent posts, you seem to have missed the point that tangential evidence to an hypothesis can still be relevant evidence. And in this case it most definitely is relevant. Perhaps you are over analyzing this. I think @PeterC explained it well. I have nothing more to add. That is not an hypothesis in terms of the scientific process, that is a probability prediction. An hypothesis in scientific terminology involves cause and effect, not simply the likelihood of something occurring. The Nemesis hypothesis is that an object cyclically passes through the Oort Cloud perturbing the icy bodies sending them into the Sun with the Earth in the way. Finding an object that has come close supports the hypothesis. It doesn't prove it. Yes! Because that is what a scientific hypothesis is!
I used the word tangent in respect to one of the two actual measurements they looked at to get this data, I didn't use the word colloquially. In the article it is termed "tangential velocity" so I can see how me just saying the word tangent could be confusing. I didn't over-analyze anything. The mathematical simulation they used to say this happens around once every 9 million years was constructed from data that had nothing to do with this finding. This finding is one point of data, one point of data no matter how significant cant begin to construct that pattern. And yeah, that is exactly a probability prediction just like rolling dice. It is not a hypothesis. No hypothesis was used anywhere in the article. The nemesis hypothesis is a hypothesis but wasn't mentioned in the article. The article has nothing to do with the nemesis hypothesis except they both involve some of the same words. Before this was discovered we had the mathematical simulation that predicted this would happen every 9 million years. Finding one instance where something passed doesn't have any consequence on this simulation. Just because statistically something should pass every 9 million years doesn't do anything to support that when these things pass they launch Oort cloud particulates into the solar system. In fact, this one that passed didn't launch anything and certainly didn't come close to causing any extinction event. You can twist what I say all you want by taking single sentences that inevitably get thrown out of context, but that doesn't change any of these points. Marveling over this discovery is like marveling over a rare dice roll. People marvel over rare things, nothing wrong with that, drawing incorrect conclusion though...why? Here's a short list of things you interpreted incorrectly about the article: 1. You thought that the discovery of an object passing close by contributed to simulations of how often objects should pass by. 2. You thought that because a mathematical simulation predicts that objects pass this close every 9 million years this somehow backs up that when things pass close they can cause matter from the Oort cloud into the solar system. (We can debate how often this matter would actually hit Earth or if the object has to be in orbit in the nemesis hypothesis but there's no point in even going that far. It is already wrong.) 3. You don't acknowledge that because no Oort cloud matter was shot from this object that passed closely there is no support for the nemesis hypothesis from this finding. In fact, you conclude the opposite. I'm right about what a hypothesis is too, I just can't tell how much of that argument is bad communication and how much of it is people not knowing stuff. I prefer to drop that part of the argument and simplify it to discussion of the three listed points.
Dude, your use of the word tangent had zero to do with my answer. Honestly I cannot follow your line of thinking, at all. But you certainly misunderstood just about everything in my posts. 1) No, no idea what you are talking about. 2) No, no idea what you are talking about. 3) No, no idea what you are talking about. That one's even more bizarre. I haven't "drawn any new conclusions." I said the discovery of these two objects would possibly lead to the discovery of more of them. Just like the discovery of new planets has taken off after the discovery of two ways to find them: wobble and dimming light from occultation. And no, I suggest you look up the definition of scientific hypothesis.
Here, I'll do it for you, maybe it will help. http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probability Hypothesizing the chance of something happening is a lay use of the terms and not precise enough for science.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the central disconnect here is that: - 1) the Nemesis star hypothesis is that there is a brown dwarf in relatively distant orbit around Sol, which perturbs icy bodies in the Oort cloud sending them towards the inner solar system on a regular basis (sometimes resulting in mass extinction events). 2) a star passed close to the Oort cloud circa 70k years ago, with negligible perturbation (or at least no perturbation that can be evidenced by its effect on the inner solar system). The absence of any effect from a star passing close to the Oort cloud would, if anything, be evidence against the Nemesis star hypothesis. In reality it is a sample of one, so is not a great deal of use.
Okay, so you chose to disregard the three points you were wrong on by pretending you have no clue what I'm talking about and then continue to attempt arguing with me about what a hypothesis is. You've made it clear you can't follow anything I say yet you want to continue on an argument I can see is rooted in your failure to understand my first post. I don't want to argue with you about what I said a hypothesis is (an hypothesis, which is correct? h's confuse me). I guess I'll get sucked into this. I said observing evidence this star passed through did nothing to support any hypothesis whether it be how often objects pass near the solar system or the nemesis thing you're on about. The probability calculation did lead to the hypothesis of how often these objects pass through the solution. It doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the hypothesis, someone would need to observe multiple objects (at least more than 2) and determine how far apart they passed through the Oort cloud from each other. Unfortunately, detecting if a star passed through the Oort cloud 18 or 27 million years ago would be difficult. A lot of things in astronomy and physics are based on mathematical projection rather than actual observation. Some of these hypotheses are not technically backed by physical evidence but do hold up pretty well just by the math behind them. I just deleted this part, I'm shooting in the dark. What are you even trying to get at with the probability thing? I feel like you are probably trying to separate two things that can't completely be separated, but this time I have no clue what you mean. You read something I said wrong and are trying to argue against it so tell me what you thought I said and we can go from there. Yes, that is a good summary. The only thing to add is that scientists calculated how often they believe these bodies to pass through the Oort cloud before they actually observed evidence that this one passed through. The observance of this one passing through did in no way aide this calculation of how often this event is expected to occur.
Yes, yes and no. The calculation of the path of the recent star pair did not go close enough to the denser center of the Oort Cloud and had too low of a mass to perturb the icy bodies. So one cannot conclude the hypothesis is incorrect. In addition, just because the Earth did not experience a mass extinction 70,000 years ago doesn't mean no comets were affected by the passing of this star pair through the outer edges of the Oort Cloud. Try this analogy, perhaps it will help. The probability of planets orbiting other stars was always high, but we only had a sample size of one, our own solar system. Probability is not enough in science to prove an hypothesis. Then a couple planets were found by analyzing the wobble of nearby stars. They were large, probably gas giants, so we then knew at least gas giants existed around a few other stars. That is akin to finding this star pair. Then another technique for planet finding was discovered (occultation) and the flood gates opened. Now we've found more than a couple thousand planets orbiting other stars and it looks like the hypothesis is correct that as stars formed the remaining matter in the disk clumps together into planets. Now the hypothesis that planets around stars is probably more the norm than the exception is supported by the data. That's akin to future Oort Cloud crossers being found. Matching those events to impact craters and extinction events would support the hypothesis the impacts were affected by these Oort Cloud crossers. We have not found this supporting data yet. But finding one Oort Cloud crosser at least supports the part of the hypothesis that the crossing events occur: hypothesis confirmation step one.
From my reading on the subject, the recent star pair passed significantly closer than the Nemesis star hypothesis and was within the magnitude of that theory. I clearly dealt with this issue in my post. I quote:- a star passed close to the Oort cloud circa 70k years ago, with negligible perturbation (or at least no perturbation that can be evidenced by its effect on the inner solar system). I am clearly saying that the absence of evidence does not automatically refute the possibility that perturbation occurred. 1. There is a hypothesis that planets orbit distant stars based on our sample of one, which is Sol. Improvements in technology and the scientific method eventually confirm the hypothesis. 2. There is a hypothesis that there is a brown dwarf in distant orbit around Sol. Improvement in technology and the scientific method result in us discovering that a star passed close to our solar system 70k years ago, confirming an entirely separate hypothesis. These are not analogous.
Not sure where you got that from. It's not what I read. However, the more I read the more I see what @PeterC was referring to, unrelated to this discovery, the Nemesis hypothesis is looking more and more like a failed hypothesis. From @Steerpike's link to an interview with this researcher on page one: As to this star pair's passing: (emphasis mine) But one thing this discovery has shown, we can't yet see everything out there. In this case the brown dwarf was seen but it's having passed close by was not known: I do get it there have been several very thorough sky surveys that did not detect a decent Nemesis candidate. By the way, hopefully no one thinks I was talking about the Nibiru nonsense. I'm more than familiar with that hoax including claims people had actually seen the object and the predicted dates it was going to hit us (long since passed). Sure, but that's not the analogy I proposed.
This thread reminds of those slow motion videos of car collisions. I mean that in the best possible way, of course. A few astronomical bits as I understand them... It takes a long time before perturbations of the Oort cloud are manifest as cometary collisions with the Earth. By "long" I mean on the order of millions of years. This is because the Oort objects 1 ly out have to first get to the inner solar system and they probably have to complete many, highly elongated orbits before they interact with a large inner solar system object (Jupiter) to further perturb their orbit, etc. Eventually... maybe... after a really long time... one of them might smack into the Earth. Because red dwarfs are so faint, and brown dwarfs are even fainter, we don't currently have a good handle on just how many of them are in our general neighborhood. However, the fact that one has apparently passed "closely" to the sun in only the last 70,000 years suggests that such events are common. This is because 70,000 years is basically just an instant compared to the life of the solar system. So while it might just be a stroke of incredible luck that something passed by so recently, it probably isn't. However, more research is clearly needed to gain a better understanding of what is going on. I imagine there are people writing grant proposals about this right now. Computer simulations have been wrong before, of course, but computational methods have become an accepted part of science these days. Instead of just theory+observation we now have theory+observation+simulation. All three arms of investigation feed off each other and inform each other. So the business about these kinds of encounters happening every 9 million years or so... well that might be true or maybe it isn't. However, as our data gets better so will our simulations. The Gaia mission will be making highly accurate astrometric measurements and should provide us with a much clearer picture of just which stars have encountered or will encounter the sun closely over the last/next several million years. I'm really looking forward to those results.
I didn't disregard anything. Your post made absolutely no sense and it certainly didn't reflect on anything I posted. I'm not trying to avoid your discussion. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. You still seem to be confusing an hypothesis and probability.
Not got time to respond in detail, but on this point: - Nemesis is a hypotheticalred dwarf[1] or brown dwarf,[2] originally postulated in 1984 to be orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 95,000 AU (1.5 light-years),[2] somewhat beyond the Oort cloud, to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record, which seem to occur more often at intervals of 26 million years.[2][3] As of 2012, over 1800 brown dwarfs have been identified and none of them are inside the Solar System.[4] There are actually fewer brown dwarfs in our cosmic neighborhood than previously thought. Rather than one star for every brown dwarf, there may be as many as six stars for every brown dwarf.[5] The majority of solar-type stars are single.[6] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29 The object, a red dwarf known as Scholz's star, cruised through the outer reaches of the Solar System - a region known as the Oort Cloud. Scholz's star was not alone; it was accompanied on its travels by an object known as a brown dwarf. These are essentially failed stars that lacked the necessary mass to get fusion going in their cores. The findings are published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Observations of the dim star's trajectory suggest that 70,000 years ago this cosmic infiltrator passed within 0.8 light years of the Sun. By comparison, Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31519875
On this one I need to add that you seem to be confusing the Nemesis star hypothesis and a star passing close to our solar system. The Nemesis star hypothesis is that the interval between extinction events is an indication that there is a star in (relatively) distant orbit around Sol.
@Chinspinner, I'm aware of the thorough discussion of the failures to find supporting evidence for the Nemesis hypothesis in the Wiki link. I linked to the same source in the OP. I said as much answering you in post #40: I have not confused this newly discovered star path with that of Nemesis though I can see in my OP that wasn't clear. But really, it's not like I proclaimed "Nemesis found". I think you might re-read the OP and tell me where you think I said that. I ended with: That's pretty straightforward. If you think I confused the Nemesis star hypothesis with a different star passing close to our solar system, I'd like to see the quote.
I stated: From my reading on the subject, the recent star pair passed significantly closer than the Nemesis star hypothesis and was within the magnitude of that theory. You responded: Not sure where you got that from. It's not what I read. So I re-linked the article you linked in the OP, because it answers your question, and it is what you read, presumably, since you linked it! The Wiki article states the hypothetical distance of the Nemesis star. The BBC article states the closest pass of the star pair. You have repeatedly conflated the two. You can see the OP wasn't clear? It is entitled "The Nemesis star is real???" and goes on to talk about something unrelated to the Nemesis star hypothesis.
Right, because Nemesis is an hypothesis. Where are you reading the hypothesis is that a star passes somewhere near the Oort Cloud but it doesn't make a direct pass through the denser middle of the cloud? The distance of the proposed Nemesis is where to look for it now! It's where it would be on its orbit, not where it is hypothesized to have passed through the Oort Cloud. I did not conflate anything. I think you need to re-read my posts and the links a tad more carefully. I believe you have misread one or more things. Or did you just read the thread title and not read the post?
And you still seem to be confused about what this discovery means. Also I never confused hypothesis and probability. Probability is used all the time in science and you seem to be claiming they are more separate than in actuality. But I still don't really get what you mean by saying "Hypothesizing the chance of something happening." You can use a probability to come up with a hypothesis or even to help back or refute a hypothesis when you compare data to it. I never said that the probability was hypothesized though that wouldn't really be inaccurate beyond technicality. The probability in the article was gathered from a collection of facts. There are f amount of stars in an area, they travel on average at u speed, they are c big and have k average gravitational pull so it is hypothesized that one should pass through the Oort cloud once every 9 million years. Arguing that I used the word hypothesize wrong there and that it is actually a probability is arguing over stupid fluff with the definition. It is understandable what I meant whether I used a word slightly outside of its normal vocabulary or not. You on the other hand made a completely erroneous conclusion that this somehow supports the nemesis hypothesis when it is completely unrelated beyond a couple of common phrases like brown dwarf and Oort cloud. The title of this thread is as informative as the title of a tabloid article. If you want to keep distracting from what conclusions you drew by posting definitions of words I may have used loosely once or twice then there's no point in posting anymore.
No one's reading my posts. People are just imagining what they think I wrote. If anyone thinks I made a false claim, quote it. Stop claiming I wrote things I didn't. Let's get to the bottom of this.
@GingerCoffee if you enjoy beating your head against the wall on science issues, I'll give you my Google+ login. There are some antivaxxers posting there you can also explain things to with no result
