>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >"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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >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".
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.