Star showing signs that could be (probably aren't) alien constructions.

Giuseppe Piazzi - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:00:07 EST ruKNVqHw No.55749

File: 1444842007788.jpg -(1059519B / 1.01MB, 1400x788) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Star showing signs that could be (probably aren't) alien constructions.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html

> “Aliens should always be the very last hypothesis you consider," Penn State astronomer Jason Wright told The Atlantic, "but this looked like something you would expect an alien civilization to build.”

Basically Kepler has observed a star with dips in it's luminosity exponentially larger than any planet would cause. Even a Jupiter-sized planet would only account for a 1% drop. But the object or objects observed by Kepler cause a drop of up to 22%, indicating an object or cluster of objects roughly half the width of the star itself.

>>	Gerard Kuiper - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:36:19 EST C3cPjS0D No.55750 Reply >>55749 I'll wait for the radio signal detection they're planning.

>>	Irwin Shapiro - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:07:23 EST Efv8O32u No.55751 Reply >>55749 Could it possible be a brown dwarf? From wikipedia: >They occupy the mass range between the heaviest gas giants and the lightest stars, with an upper limit around 75 to 80 Jupiter masses.

>>	Caroline Herschel - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:32:41 EST YHjXylC8 No.55752 Reply >>55751 We'd see a measurable wobble in that case.

>>	Otto Struve - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:20:59 EST ZVNONIhH No.55753 Reply I know this is mere speculation, but what if we do discover something that isn't organic ie it's made by some type of intelligent life?

Johannes Kepler - Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:17:30 EST ruKNVqHw No.55755 Reply

>>55753

Honestly? That's more or less impossible right now because no one would take such an announcement seriously based on spectroscopy data and scientific jargon, which is all we would have to base such an accusation on since we don't have the technology to travel there. Even if NASA claimed they were 99% certain it's an alien artificial structure, there'd still be that 1% of doubt and the entire world would latch onto that tiny sliver of doubt in an effort to maintain the status quo of their lives.

But even if we assume the world did go along with such an announcement, it would mean almost nothing. Because, once again, we don't have the technology to travel there and check it out. At best it would be an exciting footnote in scientific history that would be forgotten quickly, not to be dredged up again until centuries later when we've fixed the light speed problem.

Edmond Halley - Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:21:58 EST p3lqwIiK No.55756 Reply

Yes, in order to accept alien life and for the status quo to change they'd have to be stumbled presently upon (as in oops I killed a martian spider with my space boot) or they'd have to come by in front of the majority of humankind and say hello, surrender to your overlords.

>>	George Airy - Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:13:52 EST cpFPD9VY No.55757 Reply It's the Borg. We will be assimilated.

Russel Hulse - Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:11:52 EST 415JX8nG No.55758 Reply

1445015512103.png -(70450B / 68.80KB, 590x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>55749
These drops are so large, we could probably measure them with the Hubble, it's a an object that can cause up to a 22% reduction in star light, Jupiter for comparison would only dip the light by 1%. According to Wikipedia, it's half the diameter of the star.
It has to be a few things incredibly large, with little mass, that does not contribute meaningfully to the stars infared signature. I wonder if it is big enough for some one to figure out a rough shape of it if we had more data

>>	Jocelyn Bell - Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:09:12 EST ruKNVqHw No.55759 Reply They're now saying it's mostly likely the result of a recent planetary collision. Two or more planets must have impacted and obliterated each other, spreading enough debris to block the starlight from our observation point.

>>	Vesto Slipher - Sun, 18 Oct 2015 00:44:32 EST j3JUC08k No.55761 Reply >>55759 >Two or more planets must have impacted and obliterated each other, spreading enough debris to block the starlight from our observation point. Wouldn't that show up in infrared?

>>	Fred Hoyle - Sun, 18 Oct 2015 01:24:58 EST ruKNVqHw No.55762 Reply >>55761 Presumably. But that's the explanation being carted around right now. Feel free to put on your tinfoil hate if you like, I'm always inclined to with anything involving NASA.

>>	Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Sun, 18 Oct 2015 04:35:29 EST P+fSJ1RL No.55763 Reply >>55762 You're breaking science if you don't investigate shit your self and just take any ones word for it. Scrutinize every detail.

Clyde Tombaugh - Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:28:24 EST sky71Ye7 No.55764 Reply

>>55762
Problem is that no respected astrophysicist or astronomer would ever seriously claim that it's aliens. Not without extraordinary proof. It would be like claiming God did it.

They'll go through hypotheses on natural explanations first, which is how science works. If all of those are rejected, and we remain with no clue about what's happening around that star scientists will still not accept that it is aliens at work.

The only thing that could convince them of this would be radio-signals or other irrefutable evidence of intelligence or engineering.

Annie Cannon - Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:49:22 EST 415JX8nG No.55765 Reply

>>55764
Not really, God is a made up idea.
We exist, therefore aliens should exist, the same rules of nature apply everywhere.

My problem is that if this data is correct, as a rough statistical average, based only on keplers field of view, there could be 400 alien civilizations in our galaxy that have built stellar sized infrastructure, possibly more.
With that many advanced aliens, there should be a plethora more at our stage, and there should be a lot more evidence of their existence

William Hartmann - Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:35:26 EST ruKNVqHw No.55767 Reply

>>55765

Every bit of data we have points to the idea that there should be aliens everywhere even though we aren't seeing them. That's the whole reason why the Fermi Paradox is a thing.

But the upside is that there's also a laundry list of plausible theories for why we aren't seeing them. Many of these theories are discussed in another thread on this very page.

Aliens are out there but it's not at all weird that we can't find evidence of them. Their absence can be explained a multitude of ways.

Bruon Rossi - Wed, 21 Oct 2015 05:53:31 EST YHjXylC8 No.55768 Reply

>>55767

>Every bit of data we have points to the idea that there should be aliens everywhere even though we aren't seeing them

Certain numbers in the fermi paradox suggest as much, but others are totally undefined.
For what we know, maybe things like the O2 crisis are necessary for life to reach this level of complexity, and the chance that organisms that won't be oxidized, let alone are able to use O2, evolve before everything is wiped out are as common as every player getting a perfect hand in a game of bridge.

>>	willard brimlord - Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:50:16 EST mORh1uQu No.55770 Reply 1445460616692.jpg -(75921B / 74.14KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. similar research showed a dip in 5-star cluster. doesn't consider Satanic demigod this time around.

Kip Thorne - Sat, 24 Oct 2015 18:49:44 EST jod01xxr No.55775 Reply

>>55759
The planetary collision is a bit unlikely. As it says in the paper the chances of it happening in just 3 years of data would require every star to undergo 40 such collisions, unlikely. It also lacks an infrared excess.

The preferred explanation is a family of comets. Comet comas can get extremely large despite havering very little mass. They could also have elliptical orbits and so dodge the infrared observation from WISE. The nearby companion star could also disrupt the stars Oort Cloud.

Jan Hendrik Oort - Sat, 24 Oct 2015 20:58:41 EST ruKNVqHw No.55776 Reply

SETI has aimed their equipment at the star in question and apparently detected something. Right now it's all under wraps and waiting for peer review, but SETI astronomers are allegedly very excited about whatever has been detected.

It's important to note that this doesn't mean aliens, just that they detected a signal they may not have expected to hear. Allegedly, planetary collision is still the theory being carted around scientific circles. We'll know more in the coming weeks.

>>	Alan Guth - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:37:11 EST sky71Ye7 No.55777 Reply >>55776 Source?! Man, if this turns out to be alien stellar engineering, it would be fucking nuts!

Jan Hendrik Oort - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 09:09:54 EST ruKNVqHw No.55778 Reply

>>55777

Links below, but it's now moot. The statement from Gerald Harp of SETI about a repeated signal has been removed from the first link despite being present earlier yesterday. And the second link has another statement from Harp claiming his first statement wasn't accurate and there haven't been any signals at all. So we have two conflicting statements from the same man with the second statement confirming the first ones existence despite attempts to erase it.

Probably just crappy reporting, but backpedaling of this nature happens so often in regards to aliens that a little tinfoil may be permitted. It's up to you what to take from this.

http://www.universetoday.com/122971/seti-institute-undertakes-search-for-alien-signal-from-kepler-star-kic-8462852/
http://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/seti-empfaengt-periodische-signale-von-kic-8462852-20151022/

Alan Guth - Sun, 25 Oct 2015 09:32:39 EST sky71Ye7 No.55780 Reply

>>55778

>Awaiting more accurate information about the way the signal before, but from an interview by "UniverseToday.com" by Dr. Gerald Harp from the SETI Institute, shows that it is a "weird periodic signal", " which although potentially natural origin but there is clearly value to examine it more closely. " Besides the natural explanation, so stressed "Universe Today", prefer Harp but also "a distant intelligent source" into consideration.

Google translated it, so sorry for the weird wording. It's interesting though, but a bit surprising that they'd discover a "weird periodic signal" so easily from 1500 light years away just like that. I'm no astronomer or anything though, so what do I know?

About the back-pedaling: I work at a university communication department, and I'd say it's likely to be a journalistic citation error. The paper isn't peer-reviewed yet so there is probably an embargo on details from the SETI study results, which would explain Harp rescinding his earlier statements. As the comment came so early in the publishing cycle of the article they're likely to yet check for errors or anomalies in the study, so making a comment about a detected signal at this point would be very unwise.

Name	You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password

Comment	[i]Italic Text[/i] [b]Bold Text[/b] [spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler] >Highlight/Quote Text [pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre] [super]^{Superset Text}[/super] [sub]_{Subset Text}[/sub] 1. Numbered lists become ordered lists * Bulleted lists become unordered lists


File	No Bump Sandwich

Report Post
Reason
Note