Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hazzard

What happens if a signal is found?

337 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
20 minutes ago, toast said:

Ok, then tell me how much people of the US total population are idiots and/or uneducated and/or request their 15 minutes of fame. Less than 4k? Unlikely.

Here we go! 

toast, neither you or I can adjudicate the mental stability of the many witnesses. I can tell you I am stable. I can tell you my father was stable. I can tell you many US Navy personnel are stable. Your prejudice is alarming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
23 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Earl.Of.Trumps wrote

The logical fallacy of appeal to numbers has no bearing on whether or not sightings are anything of interest. The problem with this is that there is an underlying thought that not all of these reports can be wrong. Well they can all be wrong. The basic idea is that there must be some residue of good reports. Imagining this is easy. The real issue is to pull out that residue of good reports. The residue is what is left when the bad reports are removed. Where are these good reports?

You want to starters for good reports...? ME! And I don't have to prove anything to other people in order for me to know what I know.

Also, include the many Naval personnel on the USS Nimitz, USS Roosevelt, USS Princeton and others that the Navy keeps advising Congress' two intel committees and the president of the united states of. 

If you want to say to me that all these US Navy personnel are ill informed, you'll be saying it into a wind tunnel  because you surely won't have any reliable evidence, as much of what they have for information is confidential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
25 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You want to starters for good reports...? ME! And I don't have to prove anything to other people in order for me to know what I know.

Also, include the many Naval personnel on the USS Nimitz, USS Roosevelt, USS Princeton and others that the Navy keeps advising Congress' two intel committees and the president of the united states of. 

If you want to say to me that all these US Navy personnel are ill informed, you'll be saying it into a wind tunnel  because you surely won't have any reliable evidence, as much of what they have for information is confidential.

Okay. I accept that the 4000 reports you claim is of interest is in fact not of interest. Well, maybe it is to those that willy nilly take anything as good.

The videos presented so far show distant planes and a balloon. They are more than likely training videos showing what has been seen by personnel and tells the trainees what they might see when they fly.

If that is the best there is then there really is nothing in the 4000 MUFON reports. MUFON went from something intending to be legit to a business making money off of the gullible.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And we have a Jupiter to guard the system from many dangerous objects.

This idea of giant planets helping guarding the earth seems a very interesting concept. And I suppose you are referring to more recent astral observation and the knowledge derived from using Computer simulations, and I believe it's something like this?

A new simulation suggests our solar system's giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, could have played an important role in helping life get a foothold on Earth.

KISSIMMEE, Fla. — Without Jupiter and Saturn orbiting out past Earth, life may not have been able to gain a foothold on our planet, new simulations suggest.

The two gas giants likely helped stabilize the solar system, protecting Earth and the other interior, rocky planets from frequent run-ins with big, fast-moving objects, researchers said. In other words, giant planets appear to have a giant impact on giant impacts.

 
I suppose that if more simulations are performed it may also show that it would have been better for life here if the giants had not caused the debris in the first place. Because it said that these giants have also caused the large asteroid debris (belt) to begin with. A product caused by these giants when they broke up other earlier planets in the process of forming in the solar system.
 
Therefore it may be possible that Jupiter, and also Saturn, are responsible not only for earth's protective blessings, but also for earth's curses, since these asteroids do hit our planet, our moon and other planets and moons from time to time and the larger ones that have hit are the earth's curse.for any life that may have developed at the time of the big hit.
 
But I tend to believe that these giants are responsible for allowing the earth to form when and how it did, and also responsible for the earth's size, its moon, and the location of of where we orbit the sun. All these conditions aiding the generation of life, and especially ours.
 
Therefore out there there must be other gods like Jupiter and Saturn. And I would not doubt if the other gods, Neptune and Uranus, have also been our benefactors.
When looking for life elsewhere in the universe, it's more than water that has to be taken into consideration, and we must look for the blessing and curses of other gas giants, the planetary gods of our solar system, and probably of other stars' systems.  

 

asteroids.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because we detect exopleants by wobble and light dips in their stars. Smart people are working on that right now. The James Webb is hoped to assist in this as I understand. 

You misunderstand me, analysis of light spectra can reveal the chemical composition of matter very far away, if certain :synthetic chemicals were found, it would point to a non-natural origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I do not dispute that, from what we do know life is highly likely to occur elsewhere. But the key here is 'similar'. As you say, life would more than likely exist under the same conditions, so why not the same time frame? It might simply take this long to get this far. We just don't know. We are lucky to be here, life on earth has suffered several mass extinction events. And we have a Jupiter to guard the system from many dangerous objects. Then there's the facts that most earth like planets are much larger than ours, which comes with more challenges regarding evolution and gravity. We have a reasonable idea of the local neighbourhood, there's no good reason to think life is within a reasonable distance with regards to travel. 

This (below) is what we were discussing? I don't know how the galaxy got involved here? 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the earliest life forms are dated to at least 3.5 billion years old. 

I'm not sure what you are referring to. On a cosmic time scale, that strikes me as fast? 

That reduces the number of times intelligent life would thrive though. 

No I'm not at all saying we are some sort of one of. I'm saying that all these factors hinder the chances of life and we didn't have to face any of them. Just a giant rock which worked to our advantage. That thins life out. It doesn't by any means deny it, but as you also pointed out, there are a lot of 'earth like' planets out there. I don't see the logic in bypassing them to come here. 

Again, I don't dispute that. But other galaxies? They are so far away they might as well be empty to us. We can't know. Just to get to the Andromeda galaxy even takes light 253 million years. 

What bell curve numbers? There are some older planets sure, but that doesn't mean anything. There's no way to measure our technological advancement because there's nothing to compare it to. 

Why wouldn't there be intermediate intelligent species? Why only advanced and primitive? Why don't we see 'not so advanced' spaceships trundling into the solar system that can't be hidden from everyone? 

Again with the no ET's existing. I'm honestly not sure where you're getting this from. 

That's never been my argument. The argument is that there's no reasonable proof that we have been visited by another alien species.

Yes, that's pretty much how it works. That's evolution. 

How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas?

Because there are variations in estimates in the chronology of significant milestones in the Universe, we get a free pass to imagine advanced civilisations. 

unifixed_by_jaysimons-d9ispcc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Just to get to the Andromeda galaxy even takes light 253 million years. 

I am no Astronomy buff, but I know that is incorrect, it is much closer, about 2 or 3 million light years

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I am no Astronomy buff, but I know that is incorrect, it is much closer, about 2 or 3 million light years

Yes you're right that's a typo, it should read 2.53 not 253. Thanks for the correction. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Just as an aside,

The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are in the very slow process of "the dance", - that very destructive dance around each other that will one day end in their merger into one elliptical galaxy. And in the process, the two massive black holes in the center of each galaxy will undoubtedly collide.

and we don't even feel a thing B)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I am no Astronomy buff, but I know that is incorrect, it is much closer, about 2 or 3 million light years

prove it;)

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Learn something new every day.

Quote

“We think the warp may have been caused by interactions with satellite galaxies,” Skowron says, noting that the Milky Way today is surrounded by a swarm of dwarf galaxies.

So I checked it out at wiki. 

Quote

The Milky Way has several smaller galaxies gravitationally bound to it, as part of the Milky Way subgroup, which is part of the local galaxy cluster, the Local Group.[1]

There are 59 small galaxies confirmed to be within 420 kiloparsecs (1.4 million light-years) of the Milky Way, but not all of them are necessarily in orbit, and some may themselves be in orbit of other satellite galaxies. The only ones visible to the naked eye are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, which have been observed since prehistory. Measurements with the Hubble Space Telescope in 2006 suggest the Magellanic Clouds may be moving too fast to be orbiting the Milky Way.[2] Of the galaxies confirmed to be in orbit, the largest is the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, which has a diameter of 2.6 kiloparsecs (8,500 ly)[3] or roughly a twentieth that of the Milky Way.

Well, I don't know about close, 420 kiloparsecs. That makes the outer bounds to be about 12 MW diameters away. I guess that's close!?

good stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 8/31/2019 at 2:17 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Learn something new every day.

So I checked it out at wiki. 

Well, I don't know about close, 420 kiloparsecs. That makes the outer bounds to be about 12 MW diameters away. I guess that's close!?

good stuff

I am so glad you checked out one of my links.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
psyche101
On 8/31/2019 at 8:44 AM, Habitat said:

You misunderstand me, analysis of light spectra can reveal the chemical composition of matter very far away, if certain :synthetic chemicals were found, it would point to a non-natural origin.

No I don't misunderstand. That's what they will be looking for with the James Webb. We don't have powerful enough telescopes to see an exoplanets atmosphere, most are detected through star wobble, not direct observation. When we have that ability, which as I say is something we are working on right now, then we will be looking for chemicals in light spectra. At the moment they are still arguing about what gasses we should look for, when we will be able to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

No I don't misunderstand. That's what they will be looking for with the James Webb. We don't have powerful enough telescopes to see an exoplanets atmosphere, most are detected through star wobble, not direct observation. When we have that ability, which as I say is something we are working on right now, then we will be looking for chemicals in light spectra. At the moment they are still arguing about what gasses we should look for, when we will be able to do it. 

I mean chemicals that are synthetic, not naturally occurring, if anything can really be pinned down 100%, like that. Their presence, anywhere in space beyond the solar system, would surely command attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Habitat said:

I mean chemicals that are synthetic, not naturally occurring, if anything can really be pinned down 100%, like that. Their presence, anywhere in space beyond the solar system, would surely command attention.

My understanding is that first they want to detect more basic gasses. Oxygen, methane etc. Combinations that are naturally occuring with life itself. Even if its a planet of vegetation only, those gasses should be there. 

Industrialisation is proposed down the track as we develop the method. For now, just life itself is the goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
5 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

 

Yep, biosignatures.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
Not Invented Here
On 8/10/2019 at 5:28 PM, Not Invented Here said:

Unless any message that was received was deliberately designed to be easy to decode (and how would an alien species know enough about our psychology or technology to make it easy?) we would probably never be able to understand it. See the various undecipherable languages (Linear A; Cretan hieroglyphs) that we cannot interpret to this day, despite the fact that those laguages were made very recently (on a galactic scale), by humans who traded with humans whose languages we can read.

But certain types of messages using radio or light would be almost unavoidably recognised as artificial if we ever detected them. The "wow!" signal was a powerful, narrowband radio signal that was briefly detected for 72 seconds in 1977. Never to be heard again, and although there was no obvious infomation contained in it, it remains unexplained by any natural process. 

But SETI doesnt just look for radio. They also have a project looking for laser light pulses from space. 

In the meantime, we need to pose the question at the heart of the fermi paradox. "where is everybody?"

I have spent an awful lot of my life reading everything I can and I think that the below article is the most profound, fascinating thing I've ever read on the web in my 40 years. If you have time to sit and read something read this (by a scientist who can also communicate beautifully) about the leading theories about why we're not knee deep in aliens, and hope that the "great filter" is behind us! https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html  For those familiar with the fermi paradox it is even more worth a read as it ranges widely.

The other, more neglected way that some of the original people who set up SETI thought we might detect alien life was via artifacts in space that we would be able to detect. Of course to be detected at interstellar distances such artifacts would need to be beyond any sort of human scale. So we may as well start with the biggest.

Carl Sagan predicted that maybe one day we might find stars that had been altered by artificial means. Stars are surprisingly (to me at least) well understood. An awful lot can be understood from a star's spectra - the exact colours of the star's light tells us which elements the star contains, and because we know a lot about how elements behave on earth a lot can be said about a given star's make up, age etc from it's spectra.

So how would we detect stars that have been altered either deliberately as a 'beacon' or via dumping or other activity? By spotting elements in a star that shouldn't be there according to known physics. Welcome to HD 101065 or Przybylski’s Star - where iron and nickel appear in "unusually low abundances, but there are short-lived ultra-heavy elements, actinides like actinium, plutonium, americium and einsteinium. Hence the mystery: How can such short-lived elements persist in the atmosphere of a star?" https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2017/03/28/the-challenges-of-przybylskis-star/  what , or who is putting them there?

There are other interesting stars out there too. Shout out to https://www.reddit.com/r/KIC8462852/ "Tabby's star". This has seen such huge temporary 'dips' in the amount of light (20%+ reduction) being seen, plus century long overall dimming, that astronomers genuinely started to wonder whether a huge structure was being built around the whole star. Further analysis suggests that the dips were in fact caused by dust around that star, but the mechanism for the creation and sustaining of the dust (it should 'blow out' of the system) remain unknown. The dips are the wrong shape to be caused by comets and to date that star's peculiarities remain unique.

(Also - should have been an astronomer - you get stars named after you!)

Finally there is 'Oumuamua. The first object ever detected as arriving from outside our solar system. Weird things about it: It may as much as ten times as long as it is wide - at 230m long, that is an unnatural shape. It arrived on the sort of trajectory that earth scientists use when sending probes around the solar system, it will have got a good 'look' at three of the four rocky inner-system planet circling our sun (that includes earth). Unsurprisingly, lots of telescopes were trained on it, including SETI ones. Result? Looks like a boring rocky surface. No signals emanating from it. Probably a rock. It's also going too fast to realistically catch up with it. But then... on the way out of our system it starts to accelerate in a way not due to gravity.... 

 

"Tabby's Star" is going through a dipping phase. 3% in some light bands - to be confirmed but dips are also in the wrong band to be dust.

For reference, a very large Jupiter sized planet causes dips of 1% to 1.5%.

Astronomers and interested amateurs discussing it here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

Tabbys star is interesting. But as much as I would like to believe that the dip has to do with some alien mega structure....

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-dimming-tabby-star.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free99
On 8/30/2019 at 10:30 AM, psyche101 said:

1 - There's no proof that life here was kicked off by panspermia. 

2 - If someone aas sending out a signal, wouldn't they make it as basic and easy to detect as possible to increase the chances of reward for their efforts? 

There is no solid proof of anything regardless of what you believe in 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 11/10/2019 at 2:31 PM, Free99 said:

There is no solid proof of anything regardless of what you believe in 

That's not quite true, but more to the point, nothing actually connects UFOs and space. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.