It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SETI: On the Verge of a Breakthrough?

page: 8
170
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

might be just the opposite..
They are not afraid... of anything or anyone......
With that ability, they must have looked around the neighborhood and found no equal...

PS: S&F
edit on 17-10-2015 by DogMeat because: kudos to give




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vdogg
Type 0 civilization meets Type 2....Not a good scenario. It's akin to us meeting, not cavemen, but the slightly evolved primates that came before them. What we are observing is something that occurred 1500 years ago. In the unlikely scenario that this pans out, they were constructing megastructures when we were living in villages hunting animals with bows and spears and picking nuts and berries. If it really is aliens ( unlikely) our best bet would be to simply observe, and not say a word.


I totally agree with this, but it's too late. If they are another sentient species, building megastructures, they probably know where Earth is already. Since we have only been transmitting radio signals into space the last 75 years, they don't know we exist yet. Eventually, if they are still around, they will detect our technogical signals and draw their attention. Exciting but kind of scary.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: jjsr420

originally posted by: SBargisen
a reply to: Vdogg

I don't believe that, honestly.

With intelligence comes respect and reasoning. They would have nothing to fear from us, nor would they have anything to harvest on Earth. Everything on Earth is abundant everywhere in the universe.


Then explain all of humanities wars.

Ditto. If the height of intelligence is reflected by the (deceitful) image of freedom and democracy so venerably spearheaded by the USA, which has contributed to, or directly caused, so many conflicts and violence across the world, then perhaps intelligence is not the best way for life to exist. After we make ourselves extinct on this planet, it's the more primitive life forms that will survive and carry on the "organic" history of Earth.


I would like to think about aliens being friendly, but who knows about their psychology. We can't assume they share the same human values or thoughts. Their whole neurological makeup could be vastly different.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Any aliens technically advanced enough to build megastructures would absolutely know that Earth is a life bearing planet, and probably would have known that for a long time. The percentage of oxygen in our atmosphere can only be explained by the presence of life. All they need is one pixel worth of spectrographic data to figure it out. NASA and others are already working on technology to directly image the atmospheres of alien worlds, and we should have the capability ourselves in the not too distant future. Its just a matter of collecting photons, and if they are capable of building megastructures then they can create giant telescopic arrays to collect lots and lots of photons and survey the neighborhood. In fact it is even feasible to build a telescopic array large enough to image the surface of Earth even at 1400 light years distance.

As far as aliens colonizing us, why would they bother? It's probably more trouble than its worth. Even if they could breathe our atmosphere, they would have no natural defenses to flesh eating bacteria and all the other nasty microbes that are ubiquitous on Earth. We're also not threatening enough for aliens to wipe us out. They would probably just study us out of intellectual curiosity.

Now if humans were to start colonizing other star systems at some point there may be a problem, but the galaxy is enormous so maybe some kind of diplomatic arrangement could be made.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
While I’m sure this is possible considering the immensity of possibilities in the universe.

How plausible is something like what is pictured here?





Besides Kepler’s ability of finding small, rocky worlds orbiting distant stars, it can also detect different space phenomenon like stellar flares, star spots and dusty planetary rings.

This time however, Kepler detected the signal of a supposed vast artificial structure orbiting a star only 1,500 light years away from Earth.

After finishing all plausible explanations, scientists now believe that this complex structure might be an artificial construction made by an advanced alien civilization way up on the Kardashev scale of comparison.


ufoholic.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: deccal
Phage, I wonder what do you think about this discovery? Is there a kind of advertisement campaign behind all this hype or more?


I think it should be noted that this isn't a discovery as much as it's an observation. That is a distinction that needs to be made right now.

It is a good thought exercise to imagine alternatives.. and as noted last night a hell of a lot easier after a few pints. But ultimately, if anyone respected were to do so publicly on the topic it would probably sound a lot like the below:



edit on 17-10-2015 by slip2break because: to many hells in one sentence

edit on 17-10-2015 by slip2break because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
but then the dips would not be consistent unless the moons were stationary which is unlikely



originally posted by: amazing
Must be really weird to discount multiple moons?



edit on 17-10-2015 by bottleslingguy because: added an "s" to moon



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

A while ago on a separate thread I looked at the logistics of constructing a Dyson sphere, even something with a fairly thin shell would require vastly more mass and energy than is contained in an entire solar system to actually create so it's unlikely anyone/thing would want to build one. Even if you did and moved it to another star again you face the issue of the amount of energy to move it would outweigh any gains. The net gravity centre point on such a structure would mean it wouldnt track a star as such and so you would have to be continually adjusting it's trajectory which is another vast expenditure of energy. Even a strip such as the one illustrated likely has more mass contained within it that all the planets and star itself could be harvested to provide, so if you could spontaneously create such large amounts of mass and energy there would be no need to harvest a star in the first place. A Dyson swarm is much more likely in my view as a realistic method of efficiently harvesting a stars energy, the lower mass wouldn't provide so many issues and would be more sustainable in orbiting the star.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: slip2break

Someone forwarded this thread to me the other day after I had mentioned reading the first articles that hit the google news feed

I was surprised this thread wasn't longer when I got here - but now I see you've got 150 flags and it makes more sense this way

Not really much anyone can say. Leaves you kinda breathless - doesn't it?




edit on 10/17/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: slip2break

Ah yes, sure it is an observation, my mistake. Thanks for the input. So the comets are orbiting the star?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: andre18

I like those guys. I like to watch that show on the weather channel " 3Scientists walk into a bar". Thanks for posting this video.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: deccal
a reply to: slip2break

Ah yes, sure it is an observation, my mistake. Thanks for the input. So the comets are orbiting the star?


I wasn't trying to be jerk about it. I think the difference is why there is less commentary on the topic. There is no conclusion, so there isn't much people can say about it.

The theorized comet cloud is in orbit, yes.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Interesting that no evidence of planets orbiting this star was found. It's apparently now believed that all essentially all stars have planets. The Kepler Space Telescope probably should have been able to detect planets in this case.

Some sort of material has been detected moving about KIC 8462852; its planet-bearing plane is apparently nearly aligned with Earth. The seeming absence of planets may well be real. If so, this would strengthen the supposition that any conspicuous planets were converted into a partial Dyson Sphere.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: slip2break

No, I wasn't implying anything too
This is internet, easy to be misunderstood. I think too the difference between discovery and observation is an important one here.
I wonder how big should a comet cluster be in order to cloud such enormous proportion of light. Lets see what will they discover; exciting.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Irreverent implications
1) What is the orbital distance of the items?
2) Would they require any type of propulsion to maintain the orbit?
3) Outside the norm. Could several large wandering planets be caught by the solar system and bashed into another existing planet and create this?
4) If it is an artificial object it had to be inserted into it's present orbit. That would require a humongous amount of energy to be expended. If this is actively being built there must be large energies to be seen. What kind of propulsive evidence could persist? No energy signatures would define this a natural occurrence.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: datasdream

I was wondering, and you may know the answer, Kepler looked at an area with 150,000 stars and none of them had the same light anomolie as Tabby s star, so, if this is down to a large comet cloud, then are these clouds THAT rare?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ObsidianEclipse
a reply to: masqua

A while ago on a separate thread I looked at the logistics of constructing a Dyson sphere, even something with a fairly thin shell would require vastly more mass and energy than is contained in an entire solar system to actually create so it's unlikely anyone/thing would want to build one. Even if you did and moved it to another star again you face the issue of the amount of energy to move it would outweigh any gains. The net gravity centre point on such a structure would mean it wouldnt track a star as such and so you would have to be continually adjusting it's trajectory which is another vast expenditure of energy. Even a strip such as the one illustrated likely has more mass contained within it that all the planets and star itself could be harvested to provide, so if you could spontaneously create such large amounts of mass and energy there would be no need to harvest a star in the first place. A Dyson swarm is much more likely in my view as a realistic method of efficiently harvesting a stars energy, the lower mass wouldn't provide so many issues and would be more sustainable in orbiting the star.


Freeman Dyson's original ideas for it were in fact "clouds" of satellites, much like what you say here. The "Dyson Sphere" concept as a vast encircling surface is more tied to the science fiction which employed it.

Also there's some ambiguity regarding whether the "dyson sphere" completley encloses everything or whether it's being used externally. For example, is hte Dyson Sphere enclosing atmosphere or habitable zones? Is it trying to keep things inside? These questions are important. Is it instead being used to produce anti-matter fuel for starships? Is it collecting energy and then beaming it elsewhere further out? (essentially redirecting it, otherwise it would be lost to interstellar space.. even the Earth relies on a compartively thin ray of energy from the sun)

EDIT: The earth is like a period at the end of a sentence in a newspaper. The sun is like a soccer ball 60 feet away. That's how thin the ray of "sunlight" is. Think of all the other rays which penetrate interstellar space. Should be calculable to estimate. Just get the area of the 60 foot sphere and divide by the area of the period--adding some to compensate for gaps.

Admittedly I thin it's a huge leap to suggest a higher civilization will create such vast "nets" to capture the sun's light. Yet the people studying this must give it some credit or they wouldn't be searching for it.
edit on 10/18/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedoctorswife
a reply to: datasdream

I was wondering, and you may know the answer, Kepler looked at an area with 150,000 stars and none of them had the same light anomolie as Tabby s star, so, if this is down to a large comet cloud, then are these clouds THAT rare?

It's thought that any given star will have another star pass close enough to it to disrupt it's comets roughly once every million years. Its not clear how recently the supposed stellar encounter would have happened at 'Tabby's Star'.

In order for their to be only one such instance, which is what we find, it would have had to have happened within the last 10 years. Moving at the expected velocities of stars, the intruder star should still be within 100 astronomical units of Tabby's star. No such star is seen.
A red dwarf star is seen roughly 1000 a.u. away. If it were responsible for the supposed disruption of comets, then this stellar encounter would have happened about 100 years ago, and we should expect to see 10 similar encounters in the Kepler Space Telescope sample of ~ 100,000 stars.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm guessing it's a planet the size of Jupiter that happens to be in the right place at the right time. It's very plausible that it was a planet that is 22% the size of the star than extra-terrestrial objects. Eclipses happen all the time and this is more likely to be found on other stars.




top topics



 
170
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join