View Poll Results: Approximate chance KIC 8462852 is artificial

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • 90% or more

    0 0%
  • Around 75%

    0 0%
  • Around 50%

    4 11.11%
  • Around 25%

    4 11.11%
  • Around 10%

    5 13.89%
  • 3% or less

    23 63.89%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 118 of 118

Thread: Chance KIC 8462852 is ETI site

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Plat View Post
    So you don't think its that?
    It doesn't match what we're seeing, which is evenly spaced dimmings. Different orbits means different orbital speeds and different timing for each individual satellite. The odds that they'd all coordinate their motions to leave distinct gaps like this are incredible.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,586
    How does the comet theory sound to you guys?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Plat View Post
    How does the comet theory sound to you guys?
    It doesn't sound so sound at this point.
    As above, so below

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Plat View Post
    So you don't think its that?
    The problem I see with this whole problem, and I've stated it before, is that no matter what we see, it could always be an artificial structure. If it turns out to be a planet, it could be an artificial planet. If it's comets, they could be artificial comets. If it's a dust cloud, it could be an artificial dust cloud. Now, if we find something that is distinctly artificial, say a signal coming from it, then we have the prize. But to conclude that it's artificial because (a) we can't find a natural cause and (b) for any observation, we can make up an artificial structure that would fit the bill, since it's artificial after all, seems unwise to me.
    As above, so below

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    The problem I see with this whole problem, and I've stated it before, is that no matter what we see, it could always be an artificial structure. If it turns out to be a planet, it could be an artificial planet. If it's comets, they could be artificial comets. If it's a dust cloud, it could be an artificial dust cloud. Now, if we find something that is distinctly artificial, say a signal coming from it, then we have the prize. But to conclude that it's artificial because (a) we can't find a natural cause and (b) for any observation, we can make up an artificial structure that would fit the bill, since it's artificial after all, seems unwise to me.
    My opinion is that artificial should be the answer of last resort, but it should remain as a resort: "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." (Arthur Conan Doyle)
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    Quote Originally Posted by swampyankee View Post
    My opinion is that artificial should be the answer of last resort, but it should remain as a resort: "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." (Arthur Conan Doyle)
    Yes, I would completely agree (with your statement). Though I don't think I completely agree with Doyle's quotation, however. I would prefer, "once you eliminate everything you believe to be impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth, or there must be some other possibility that you failed to consider."
    As above, so below

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    Could it be that shading objects are radiating heat, but only in specific directions? Is there some way to physics that up?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Could it be that shading objects are radiating heat, but only in specific directions? Is there some way to physics that up?
    I don't think so for a natural object. For an artificial, you can imagine objects under deliberate guidance to radiate the heat in a certain direction.
    As above, so below

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    What are the chances that it's a distant and slow moving super-Saturn around that star and currently moving through our line of sight. Some of these are brown-dwarf sized and can have large rings spanning hundreds of millions of kilometers in diameter. Or maybe it's a rogue planet with giant rings on a line between here and there.

    Alternately, it could be aliens, but my first thought wasn't a Dyson Swarm but an armada of solar sail vehicles heading from that star in our direction, powered by arrays reflecting sunlight. These might explain the periodic changes by assuming not only artificial dimming, but artificial brightening. This should be falsifiable by checking dimming events against parallax shifts from Earth's orbit.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    What are the chances that it's a distant and slow moving super-Saturn around that star and currently moving through our line of sight. Some of these are brown-dwarf sized and can have large rings spanning hundreds of millions of kilometers in diameter. Or maybe it's a rogue planet with giant rings on a line between here and there.
    I didn't know about the superSaturn. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    Alternately, it could be aliens, but my first thought wasn't a Dyson Swarm but an armada of solar sail vehicles heading from that star in our direction, powered by arrays reflecting sunlight. These might explain the periodic changes by assuming not only artificial dimming, but artificial brightening. This should be falsifiable by checking dimming events against parallax shifts from Earth's orbit.
    Psyche! They're actually on the way to Alpha Centauri, we are just catching the edge of their beam. It's like when someone waves at you, and you say Hi, only to realize they were waving at the person behind you.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    The descriptions here remind me of a science fiction novel called Second Genesis. In it, the human race has long since died off in the Milky Way, but before we vanished managed to send our complete DNA codes to another galaxy, where aliens re-created us. These new humans have now returned to the old home galaxy after millions of time-dilated years, seeking their roots.

    They find the source of the signal that sent them. It is a Solar System sized artifact made up of a star surrounded by dozens of giant disks similar in size to an Alderson Disk, but in coordinated orbits and rotations with one side facing the star to collect energy to power the immense intergalactic transmitters. The entire array is similar to both a Dyson Shell and a Dyson Swarm at the same time.

    The disks are determined to be made from mostly common light elements and had been spun up by "foaming" polymers over huge pinwheel-like webs of fiber many times stronger than any theoretical materials currently known. The disks' planet-sized mass means that only their balance between spin and stretch keeps them from collapsing into spheres. The 50 mile wide edges of the disks had been settled by humans millions of years ago, and some ruins remain. The ancient transmitter system also was hijacked in later eras by other species evolved from Earth life, who also tried to use it to spread their genes to other galaxies.

    Over millions of years without maintenance many of the disks had slid out of place or turned slightly, causing slivers of light to peek through to become visible to the outer system and the human visitors' ship. That's how they found the system to begin with.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #102
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks, Noclevername, for reminding me of a very good science fiction novel!

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    I found a nice summary of what has happened so far. The most interesting point is that the PI of the DASCH collaboration said that he is not convinced that the long-term dimming is true (though he doesn't think it is false either). He seems to have said that more work will be necessary to determine whether there was an actual long-term dimming or not.

    I wonder when the next dimming event will happen. . .
    As above, so below

  14. #104
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I found a nice summary of what has happened so far. The most interesting point is that the PI of the DASCH collaboration said that he is not convinced that the long-term dimming is true (though he doesn't think it is false either). He seems to have said that more work will be necessary to determine whether there was an actual long-term dimming or not.

    I wonder when the next dimming event will happen. . .
    If the two observed events give a period, the next one is "scheduled" for May 2017, IIRC.
    Of course, they may be random, so the next one could be tomorrow or in the year 2525.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    Of course, they may be random, so the next one could be tomorrow or in the year 2525.
    Why, we'd be lucky to still be alive!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #106
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Why, we'd be lucky to still be alive!
    Sometimes I feel we would be lucky to be alive tomorrow, not just in 509 years.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Since I posted this poll, we have had a result that Tabby's Star also dimmed somewhat over the 4 years it was observed by Kepler.
    Is this enough to justify a new poll?

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,910
    I voted 50%, either it is or it ain't. But I believe it is definitely the result of intelligence, as Carl Sagan said when discussing the cannels of Mars, "The question is: "on which end of the telescope is the intelligence."

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    Since I posted this poll, we have had a result that Tabby's Star also dimmed somewhat over the 4 years it was observed by Kepler.
    Is this enough to justify a new poll?
    I think that is November we will get the second batch of the follow-observations. I would suggest waiting for that as it will give us an idea if the Kepler data was somehow a fluke or not as well as a better idea of what is happening.
    As above, so below

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    Since I posted this poll, we have had a result that Tabby's Star also dimmed somewhat over the 4 years it was observed by Kepler.
    Is this enough to justify a new poll?
    I don't think science is determined by polls, and sometimes the only answer is "we don't know". I think that is the answer for Tabby's Star, and it will be the answer for a very long time. Trying to force a conclusion without sufficient data is often a way to get into trouble.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Let the science happen.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Superluminal View Post
    I voted 50%, either it is or it ain't. But I believe it is definitely the result of intelligence, as Carl Sagan said when discussing the cannels of Mars, "The question is: "on which end of the telescope is the intelligence."
    That's not really an appropriate use of 50/50.

    Just because there are two choices does not mean those two choices are equally likely.

    We know we don't fully understand stellar formation, there's lots left to discover. The chances of this anomaly being a tweak to our existing body of astrophysical knowledge are far, far more likely than the chances of the existence of an unprecedented entire alien civilization.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    That's not really an appropriate use of 50/50.

    Just because there are two choices does not mean those two choices are equally likely.

    We know we don't fully understand stellar formation, there's lots left to discover. The chances of this anomaly being a tweak to our existing body of astrophysical knowledge are far, far more likely than the chances of the existence of an unprecedented entire alien civilization.
    yes, but we also don't know how much intelligent life there is out there. All we have is this planet. There could be billions of intelligent ET planets out there or non.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Yes, I know that polls are not science.
    But at this date, when we don't know the answer, they are...well, interesting.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    448
    I put in 25%, finally. I'm very hopeful, but yes past experience inhibits me from saying even 50%.

    That said, the potential capabilities of advanced nanotechnology and energy reclamation could address some of the IR issues... metamaterials, room temperature superconductors, etc. And the reality that it might not be a planned outcome, just an eventuality over time. Add in robots building robots which each collect power super-efficiently and use superconducting circuits and short ranged network communications webbing across them... it is very easy for me to see with technology nearly achievable NOW how they could be difficult to detect.

    And an incomplete structure may have a very simple explanation: they could be running out of materials to build with. Or are doing a Shkadov thruster.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Given that I live in Cleveland (think Cleveland sports teams) I must believe we are the only life in the entire universe.
    Uh-oh. You might have to change your vote.
    Solfe

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    470
    I voted but a while back but not sure what choice I took. My opinion, as of this moment, is 10%. Likely wishful thinking even at that % but it's an intriging anomaly
    no matter how you slice it.
    What does God need with a starship?

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Sardonicone View Post
    I voted but a while back but not sure what choice I took.
    your choice should be in italics, from the list of options...although it doesn't stand out much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •