>tfw tyche doesn't exist >tfw the bloop doesn't

>>6666009
god

>>6666013
OK besides that

>>6666009
Super-Earths?
Earths the size of Jupiter.

>>6666030
sorry a bit too vague:
Kepler-10C: 17x massive of Earth
radius 2x Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-10c
scishow vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzeYgFonVSA

>>6666037
There is PSR J1719-1438 b, a diamond planet (originally a white dwarf before its outer layers got blown away) orbiting a pulsar. Extremely dense, about the mass of Jupiter. Neptune sized.

>>6666009
The "WoW" signal

implications are awesome. Everything so far has only shown what it isn't, and that's pretty much everything "natural".

>>6666009
I think "dark matter" will make its way to your "list of things that don't exist".

It's our modern day's "luminiferous aether"

>>6666101
what was the origin of the "Wow!" signal?

>>6666104
No one knows, but we're very certain it wasn't something from earth (while this sounds like a "duh", it's very important to rule out noise from earth). It doesn't match anything at all that's been seen before that occurs naturally in the universe. For all purposes, the most likely explanation is that it is artificial, aka a purposely created.

>>6666108
a powerful signal like that might be from something like a nuclear weapon going off.

lol, wouldn't it be awful if the "Wow!" signal was an apocalypse of the nearest and only advanced civilization around?

>>6666116
A nuclear detonation wouldn't create such a signal. It would have to have been created intentionally with a transmitter, as it was a narrowband radio signal. The two main possibilities are that it could have been human-made, although extremely extremely unlikely, or that it was sent from an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization (as a transmitter bigger than we've ever built on earth would of had to been used).

What's incredibly interesting to me is how far away the signal came from. It must have been sent from millions of lightyears away, aka sent millions of years ago and just reaching us now.

>>6666131
>What's incredibly interesting to me is how far away the signal came from. It must have been sent from millions of lightyears away, aka sent millions of years ago and just reaching us now.
which makes me think it's an accident.

unless all other signals from them dissipate because they are too weak.

>>6666136
If it is an artificial signal, it most certainly wasn't targeted at earth. There is no reason that we should receive continued transmissions. Most likely we had an incredible stroke of luck by the signal hitting the Big Ear while it was pointed in the right direction.

It gives me a strange sense of elation to know we sent our own reply back, in hopes that it was an intelligent civilization, doing our best to make our signal look as artificial and purposeful as possible.

>>6666076
>PSR J1719-1438 b
nice.
It's even orbiting a pulsar.

So Kepler-10C isn't evidence that our whole solar system formation theory is wrong...

In the same vein, a star within a star was discovered last month:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93%C5%BBytkow_object
sorry I'm such a pop-sci pleb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2MD3pyIV-M

>>6666250
>that video
Jesus lady, breathe.

>>6666131
if created artificially:

why build the device to send such a signal and then send it only once and never again?

it is most definitely from a natural source, maybe the explision of a star, but I don't claim to know anything about astrophysics

it merely seems illogical to me that an artificial signal would only be sent once, it would make much more sense if it were periodically

>>6666357
>why build the device to send such a signal and then send it only once and never again?

No one claims that it is the only signal, just the only signal we've detected. You have to realize how highly improbable it is for us to receive the transmission in the first place, let alone more than one. There is no reason to believe it had to be a signal for communicating to us, though. There could have been any number of reasons for an artificial signal burst to be sent out into space, including accidents.

>it is most definitely from a natural source
You can not make this assumption at all. Scientists have been toiling over this since it was first seen, and the best conclusion they can come up with is that it either came from an artificial signal or somehow came from humans on earth. They've ruled out all known natural phenomena in the universe.

>it merely seems illogical to me that an artificial signal would only be sent once, it would make much more sense if it were periodically

Understandable. You are, however, making a huge amount of assumptions about the signal.

>>6666259
the video's edited to cut out the parts where she does

>>6666363
>You have to realize how highly improbable it is for us to receive the transmission in the first place, let alone more than one.
I don't see how that follows. The wow signal is supposed to be extremely strong, if the signal is sent in rapid succession there is no reason why we wouldn't receive it more than once.

I know you want it to be something special, but a one time event strongly hints at a natural source. Maybe they've ruled out all known natural phenomena, but that doesn't prove anything.

Most definitely it's "Wow, it's fucking nothing".
Also I did not make any assumptions about the signals, I only made assumptions about its origin, which seem far more probable than the assumptions you make.

>>6666373
> I only made assumptions about its origin, which seem far more probable than the assumptions you make.

How so? Statistically speaking, life other than us exists, and we are long overdue for contact. It's not called the Fermi Paradox for nothing.

Again, there is no reason it had to be a signal meant for contact aimed to reach our particular area several million years after it was sent. Even if it was, so what if it doesn't follow our wish for it sent in rapid succession?

You can hand-wave all you want with "it's probably natural" with 0 evidence or logical reasons for thinking so, but it doesn't change what the evidence shows. Mind you, I'm talking straight from the horses' mouth. Most scientists so far believe that it isn't caused by anything natural we've seen in the known universe.

If it was natural, don't you think we would have seen far more of them, seeing has how we've been monitoring the skies for so long? Cosmic events happen all the time.

>>6666373
>>6666385
I'd also like to point out that repeats could have very well been sent out and hitting earth and that we've missed them all. We actually have looked very, very little at that area of the sky over the past however many years since the first signal.

We don't have a trained sensor on that spot in the sky that continuously monitors it. Researchers looked for it for a few months afterwards and that was pretty much it.

Here's when we looked for it after that:
1987, 1989, 1995, 1996, 1999. The 1999 experiment was significant because they looked for 14 hours, which was a long time.

Given that, It is completely possibly that repeated signals were sent over a different time from than what we are used to and that we missed it.

>>6666016
>besides omnipresent deity watching you right now

>>6666410
It's the exact same case and argument with aliens, you can't prove that they don't exist.
Replace God with Aliens in any deist argument and you have an argument that alien-believers will hold dearly and dogmatically.

>>6666009
There's billions of comets in the oort cloud we can always make a tyche.

>>6666150
The only problem is that our "reply" was just a bunch of nonsense from Twitter and not any actual educated information detailing the history and scientific progress of our species. The fucked up part is that scientists intended for the message to relay that we're an intelligent race regardless. Honestly Earth deserves to be glassed in seconds the best response we can come up with for first contact is some inane bullshit written by a bored teenager on the Internet.

File: The_Sounds_of_Earth_Record_Cover_-_GPN-2000-001978.jpg (136KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x800px

Listening to this was an interesting experience. Then I realized I had just spent 5 hours listening to a record, at least 30 minutes of which was analog noise.

Cool to think that this might be intercepted eons after we're extinct.

>>6666441
Twitter? What? When did we send this ``reply''? We intercepted Wow! in the 70's I thought

>>6666449
In 2012 some dipshit celebrities thought it would be a good idea to organize an effort to respond to the Wow signal on its 35th anniversary. Said effort involved 10,000 Tweets and numerous celebrities acting silly on video.

>>6666472
In a perfect world someone would've stopped them. This is the representation of the entire human race.

>>6666009
Most excitingly, negative mass might actually exist:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7

Magnetic monopoles might exist too, but if they do exist, they might be pretty rare, which is really disappointing.

In a way this is could be disappointing then them not existing at all, because they are so cool, but we may never get to see them....(or make crazy strong monopolonium materials)


>>6666102
well give us some evidence and get your nobel prize you MONDer

>>6666373
I guess it's kind of like trying to send a laser signal to a fly on the moon, but you don't know where it is. So you just have to aim randomly. And the fly only has one cell capable of detecting the laser and this cell is only active 5 minutes a day. It takes an insane amount of luck for it to happen

>>6666484
>well give us some evidence and get your nobel prize you MONDer
Magic matter isn't much better than MOND. I think everyone's wrong, and you have no evidence.

>>6666484
>"Thanks for highlighting our article on negative mass in de Sitter space on the arxivblog.

>I would like to correct a notion in your description that seems to be giving the wrong impression of our work. It is not that we use a perfect fluid as the matter content that allows us to eschew the positive energy theorem, but the fact that we do our analysis in De Sitter space. The positive energy theorem denies the possibility of negative mass in asymptotically flat spacetime. But there is no such theorem in non-asymptotically flat spacetimes. Hence we consider de Sitter space, and there show that there is no problem with the dominant energy condition and having non-singular energy momentum distribution in a perfect fluid having a negative mass.

>But since we are in de Sitter spacetime, this mass is not the ADM mass, that makes no sense here, (I think it is the Komar mass that is relevant, but I am actually not sure). Basically we have to think of what will be the mass of our bubble as seen by an observer who is inside the Hubble radius of the de Sitter spacetime. This will be the negative mass parameter of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime that our bubble assumes outside its outer radius.

>I hope you can clarify this in your write up. "

>Happy to oblige!

I have no idea what he said, I am a dog on the internet.

>>6666447
that thing is embarrassing. What makes us think aliens will have sensory input like us at all?

>>6666870
They would have to live in an environment which largely don't have visible light (which would put their average planet temp at like 100 degrees K) or would have to live in a temperature above like 150C.

Both conditions have so far been found inhospitable for the development of pseudointelligent and robustly organic reactions.

>>6666880
or they just don't use light. they use olfactory senses and infrared. If we happened to get a nocturnal species, that disk would largely mean nothing.

Some attempt had to be made, but jesus, how fucking thick do you have to be to think aliens would listen to fucking vinyl records?

>>6666893
Detecting vibrations is literally the easiest sense to evolve. Vinyl's are a simple technology. Put the two together and you've got aliens listening to music, and our Golden Records.

>>6666893
>they use olfactory senses and infrared
Do you understand what I said? If they could only see infrared then either there wouldn't be chemical reactions for their life, and if there were, as are in our range, they would rapidly be outcompeted by organisms which could see in visible light.

Olfactory senses are shit for communication, way too costly and volatile.

Every intelligent species would look at it, and in whichever order their brain works, they would see it, compare it to known objects, see it's novel in a way which suggests it was done intentionally be a complex biological process, and would begin analyzing the disc's information. They would quickly find the disc had variations in depth in the channels, and they were approximately those of waveforms, without demarcations which must be used when parsing visual information. They could interpret it to be a chemical formula, but then again, the demarcations would be randomized and nonsensically arranged. If they analyzed it as a waveform with fourier analysis they would find there were clearly defined waveforms with different patterns. Some are harmonics, and those would likely be grouped first, so organic resonances and metallic resonances could be identified, which are the constituents on the disc.

>>6666934
>>6666945
What if aliens are more like super evolved honey bees where none of them work or rationalize independently and work as a large conglomerate with no concept of individuality.

They might ignore the disk and discard it. A cultural interpretation would also be a problem. Imagine if an alien artifact was found by an old grandma in Kentucky and it ends up on her piano in her living room. The alien equivalent would spell disaster too.

>>6666953
Honey bees, although efficient at small sizes, don't scale up well. A larger organism has greater flexibility in tactics, less costly social communication, and because of body size, is more efficient to produce, as a single intelligent organism which can reproduce and act independently will have greater resource range and utility for taking advantage of novelty.

An "electronic" species would have a low cost for hypervigilance, threat detection, and social communications, as well as enhanced pattern-sorting algorithms, so there would be a greater likelihood they'd find it useful.

The latter situation is far more likely though. The universe may not be infinity but stupidity is.

>>6666472
Fuck that.

>>6666969
i didn't mean honey bees, i meant a species that behaves like honey bees. I can see humans becoming like that if we continue to assimilate, homogenize, automate and streamline our species. The "singularity" could turn us into automatons with no creativity and super efficiency and we could become an unchanging race for millions of years "working" in cities and hubs just maintaining society.

Dodo birds didn't have predators for something like 26 million years. They lost all concepts of threat detection. Other traits atrophy as well. Remember, an "advanced intelligent species" might be millions of years old, not mere thousands like us.

Maybe what causes the fermi paradox is reaching a level of intelligence slightly higher than what humans have now. Aliens just turn into dull automatons after a while.

>>6666870
>what makes us think aliens will have sensory input like us at all?

Aliens will be eerily like us. There is no reason beyond very slight planetary differences for aliens to be any different from us at all. All life, where it exists, will be similar to that of earth. There are no planets pull of sentient beings made entirely of fire. Our fives sense come from physical laws so there is no reason to expect that other creatures would have an entirely different set of senses. The reason why there were greetings on there in 50 different languages was because there's a chance one might be similar enough to an alien language that it's understandable. At that point it's pretty unlikely, but a distinct possibility.

>>6667012
>Aliens will be eerily like us.
OR not. as far as we know, life on Earth is extremely unusual and humans even stranger.

>>6666854
Dark matter is hugely better than MOND. Why? Because it can explain clusters and do useful cosmology.

There is plenty of evidence.

>>6667012
>assuming aliens will have written symbolic and spoken language

We just don't know. Aliens might be truly "alien".

We might find an alien artifact of the equivalent of >>6666447
BUT it might be something we can't even comprehend like the monolith from "2001 a Space Odyssey".

There's a huge chance that an intelligent alien race is millions and millions of years old and they are on another level of technology we can't understand or relate to. It'd be like handing an iPhone to "Lucy".

>>6667033
There's no evidence, there's a hole where any evidence should be. Don't be a faggot.

Using unconfirmed magic matter to make equations make sense is fucking embarrassing.

>>6666108

I thought that some people were thinking that a radio signal from Earth bounced off some garbage in orbit, causing the Wow! signal.

>>6667039
So the observations themselves are missing? All observations are evidence.

There is evidence in the formation of large scale structure. There is evidence of rotation curves which don't scale with the distribution of matter. There is evidence in lensing, particularly interesting as it shows mass distributions offset from both baryonic and plasma centers, modified gravities cannot explain that.

>Using unconfirmed magic matter to make equations make sense is fucking embarrassing.

It's how neutrinos came about. The point is to confirm it, you can't do that if you don't study it.

>>6666150
That's sort of romantic, in the dramatic sense. Two hopelessly distant intelligences, tossing each other signals that inevitably arrive millions of years too late, in the attempt to establish that they aren't alone.

The twitter shit is dumb if true but the Aliums wouldn't know how dumb it is, anyway.

>>6666870
Perception of vibrations is almost assured for any lifeform. There is no reason for aliens to be "totally freaky weird" because life became what life is because of the laws of physics, which apply everywhere in the universe.

>>6667069
We don't know the physical limitations of what life actually needs to form. It's what scientists call "poorly understood" and thinking that alien life will be anything like Earth life is anthropomorphizing things, a lot to say the least.

You need a data sample to support the claims you're making. Earth isn't enough alone to make these claims.

>>6667066
There's evidence of "missing mass" if that's even the problem.

Claiming that the "missing mass" is some sort of matter that we have no proof of and that matter ONLY has mass and no other observable qualities makes it look like a cop out so scientists can "save face" in light of their shortcomings and ignorance.

There's a cultural thing going on here. It's bad science.

>>6667074
>Claiming that the "missing mass" is some sort of matter that we have no proof of and that matter ONLY has mass and no other observable qualities makes it look like a cop out so scientists can "save face" in light of their shortcomings and ignorance.

No, it's based on the evidence. There is evidence of missing matter as you said, so what is it. People's first reaction was that it was normal matter that was darker on average. Dark matter distributions don't however follow any other matter so that isn't possible. Then people suspected it was completely dark, halo gas or compact dark objects. MACHOs were ruled out by microlensing and circumgalactic gas is much too little to explain the affect. Then we have primordial nucleosynthesis which says dark matter isn't baryonic. So what else do we know of? Neutrinos and photons, it cannot be light as a) we can measure that and b) it wouldn't explain cosmic structure. It can't be neutrinos because we know how hot they would be from the big bang and they would not cluster enough.

So what's left are the unknowns. Nobody claims it has no other observable qualities, it is completely unknown.

Tell me exactly where the bad science is? Where is the better answer? It's not about saving face or ignorance.

>>6666473

Don't worry, we'll be long extinct by the time anyone actually gets the reply.

>>6667072
It's exceptionally hard to define life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/

I like this definition best:
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Just because it essentially says "Life is matter, guys. Matter plus thermodynamics. It's just ordinary matter."

>>6667093
>There is evidence of missing matter as you said
I said "missing mass" (if it's even missing at all) not "missing matter" because making that leap is pure conjecture especially when people start talking about "dark matter" it's laughably insane.

"We don't know" is better than making up some new form of matter with magic-like qualities.

When we figure out what it is, the science community will quietly act like dark matter never existed.

>>6667093
>Tell me exactly where the bad science is? Where is the better answer? It's not about saving face or ignorance.
Calling it "dark matter" puts a bias into the debate. It might not be matter at all and it makes people look in a certain direction.

As for the Wow! signal, why transmit an unmodulated signal? As far as we know, it has no intelligence on it, so why would it be anything but a natural source? What type of modulation would fit that particular signal?

>>6667112
>I said "missing mass" (if it's even missing at all) not "missing matter"

So what has mass that isn't matter?

It's not insane at all, you've failed to answer my question and tell me where the better solution is.

>"We don't know" is better than making up some new form of matter with magic-like qualities.
A neutrino with more mass isn't magic. And "We don't know" isn't a testable hypothesis.

>When we figure out what it is, the science community will quietly act like dark matter never existed.
Just like the aether, oh no wait that's in every university textbook. Things that are wrong are not laughable.

>>6667117
No, dark matter is the hypothesis. If it turns out to not be matter then dark matter would be wrong.

>>6667126
>So what has mass that isn't matter?
it could be our absolute misunderstanding of the problem at hand, not matter nor mass.

>>6667126
>A neutrino with more mass isn't magic.
it is until you can prove it exists. "dark matter" is a cure in search of a disease. It's a shitty way to conduct science.

>>6667139
You said missing mass not me. People are working on the question on whether or not it could be gravity that is wrong. That should not stop research from occurring on dark matter.

>>6667142
No, that's not magical properties, you're just being obtuse now.
>"dark matter" is a cure in search of a disease.
That's retarded, the problem is quite clear.

It's the way science is always conducted. Build a reasonable hypothesis and test it to death.

>>6667153
>Build a reasonable hypothesis and test it to death.
I agree, so why in the case of "dark matter" did they make up a mystery substance and cram it into equations to make it look "pretty"?

>>6667176
>to make it look "pretty"?
Ah, like most people on the internet you don't actually understand the issue.

>>6666009

The Great Attractor.