# Mystery object blotted out a giant star for 200 days

#### Beorn

##### Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Question

If the star lost 97% of it’s original brightness… what would be the equivalent in how many (star) magnitudes it dimmed ?
I could be wrong but I think the difference in magnitude is around 3.8.

One magnitude is 2.512 x brighter or dimmer. So 2.512 to the power of 3.8 is 33 times brighter or dimmer. If a star is 33 times dimmer it is 1/33 the brightness or around 3%. Hope that's right!

#### XPan

##### The Living Force
I could be wrong but I think the difference in magnitude is around 3.8.

One magnitude is 2.512 x brighter or dimmer. So 2.512 to the power of 3.8 is 33 times brighter or dimmer. If a star is 33 times dimmer it is 1/33 the brightness or around 3%. Hope that's right!
I am happy that you answered to my silly (but honestly meant) question, Beorn - and now i have to something to go on, how to relate to brightness. I mean as starter. i also will look more into it.

thank you

#### seek10

##### The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Perhaps this elusive something, that was observed back in 2012, had something to do with the Dark Star Companion of our Sun?
I wonder whether we can test this hypothesis with some hints C's gave regarding brown/dark star? C's mentioned dark star has already came through oort cloud and it will come as near to the distance of pluto. It might have come and going out too. Based on this what we know of this occluded star
. The star became known as VVV-WIT-08, and the team flagged it for follow-up work. Based on early observations, they estimated that the star was at least 25,000 light-years away in the direction of the galactic bulge, and that it was an eight-billion-year-old giant some 100 times larger than our sun, but smoldering at cooler temperatures.
Occluding for 200 days needs obstructing brown star more nearer to the observer and relatively moving slowly.

#### MikaelYosef

##### Jedi Master
Perhaps this elusive something, that was observed back in 2012, had something to do with the Dark Star Companion of our Sun?
“That’s very hard to understand,” says Jason Wright of Pennsylvania State University, who wasn’t involved in the observations. “It’s something bigger than the star that’s completely opaque, and there aren’t many things that do that.”

If I read correctly, the implied question relating to the article is -> could the object responsible for the darkening of the distant star be something much closer to us?

While the simplest explanation is probably the most likely explanation (e.g. dust), 'simple' is also defined by those in the know, who write papers on this stuff and devote their life to it within strict bounds. But, suppose a dark companion star of our own was at the right position between us and the distant star, moving at the right speed that resulted in darkening a much more distant star.....surely that's easily as simple an explanation too.

The quote by the expert suggesting the object had to be bigger than the star itself - well, by that logic the moon should be much bigger than the sun. But at the right distance, when observed from the right place at the right time, we get solar eclipses. Rare?... sure. Impossible?.... no. Space dust?.... definitely not.