Intriguing New Development on Tabby's Star (KIC 8462852)

originally posted by: Ross 54
Variability of up to 22 percent in F type, main sequence stars is unheard of. These stars are remarkably stable.

Which I noted.

We have no information on the number or distribution of ET civilizations in our galaxy. How are we to determine that our happening upon signs of such a civilization is less likely than some unheard of astrophysical phenomenon?

Another true believer.

One might also appeal to giant space worms that are presently about to consume the star as a meal. You can't prove it ISN'T true.

You say we have no information. That isn't true. We haven't observed anything that can be attributed to an alien civilization. That's information to say "probably not". We do find new bits of astrophysics every day.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
No, what you are talking about is not even close to logical.
It is also not scientific.
It is, honestly speaking, simply without perspective.

When the first instance of discovering new physics/astrophysics occurred, how many times had that happened beforehand? That number is of course, Zero.
None.

How many times had water been discovered on another planet, before it was found to exist on Mars? (Or the first planet, Mars was not the first.)
Once again, none.

The reasoning you are using absurd. "A has occurred before, and B has not, though is not impossible. Therefore A."

Earth has water. Earth is a planet. Therefore, we know that water can occur on planets.

Occasionally, something knocks on my door. So far, it's been humans. COULD it be an alien come to visit, who is observing human social norms by knocking? Sure. Is it the most likely possibility? No.

COULD this variability be some super advanced civilization, out there building a ringworld or a Dyson swarm, who has mastered cheap transmutation of raw materials, and is using a space drive that's both insanely efficient AND which doesn't radiate stray EM that could be observed, sure.

But, it's not as likely as it's just something 'normal' and mundane we just haven't determined yet. It takes assumption after assumption to get to Dyson swarm. I know that's not exciting, but it's true.

You say we have no information. That isn't true. We haven't observed anything that can be attributed to an alien civilization. That's information to say "probably not". We do find new bits of astrophysics every day.

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.--Dr. Carl Sagan

a reply to: Ross 54

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - Freud

originally posted by: Ross 54

You say we have no information. That isn't true. We haven't observed anything that can be attributed to an alien civilization. That's information to say "probably not". We do find new bits of astrophysics every day.

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.--Dr. Carl Sagan

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" - Dr Theodore Woodward

a reply to: Bedlam

This situation is more similar to "When you hear hoofbeats and know it is not a horse."

originally posted by: Bedlam
Earth has water. Earth is a planet. Therefore, we know that water can occur on planets.

Occasionally, something knocks on my door. So far, it's been humans. COULD it be an alien come to visit, who is observing human social norms by knocking? Sure. Is it the most likely possibility? No.

COULD this variability be some super advanced civilization, out there building a ringworld or a Dyson swarm, who has mastered cheap transmutation of raw materials, and is using a space drive that's both insanely efficient AND which doesn't radiate stray EM that could be observed, sure.

But, it's not as likely as it's just something 'normal' and mundane we just haven't determined yet. It takes assumption after assumption to get to Dyson swarm. I know that's not exciting, but it's true.

Earth has people. Earth is a planet. Therefore, we know that people can occur on planets.

Yet it is still worthy of consideration. I am not saying that a dyson-sphere is the most likely cause of this phenomenon, I am saying that it should not be dismissed with a hand-wave as some are so wont to do.

When does "could" transform into "is"?
The tendency is that something is "unknown" until it is declared "not alien."

The issue I have with the mindset you (appear, though forgive me if I'm wrong) to possess, is henceforth: In a hypothetical scenario in which you possess evidence that points towards either (A): A single, never-before-seen natural occurrence, or (B) Aliens, you will unerringly select (A) as True and (B) as False when the answer is "Undecided."
If it comes down to a binary selection between (A) and (B), the one that is "Not Aliens" is the victor, though they possess the same degree of favorable evidence.

It takes assumption after assumption to get to Dyson swarm. I know that's not exciting, but it's true.

"You, too, make assumptions." - James Randi.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Bedlam

This situation is more similar to "When you hear hoofbeats and know it is not a horse."

But you do NOT know. You are assuming it's aliens, based on pretty much nothing. Other, of course, than "I'd like it to be"

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Yet it is still worthy of consideration. I am not saying that a dyson-sphere is the most likely cause of this phenomenon, I am saying that it should not be dismissed with a hand-wave as some are so wont to do.

When does "could" transform into "is"?
The tendency is that something is "unknown" until it is declared "not alien."

With which I agreed, you are just po'd because I stop at "unknown" and don't proceed onto "therefore aliens!" as a default choice.

The issue I have with the mindset you (appear, though forgive me if I'm wrong) to possess, is henceforth: In a hypothetical scenario in which you possess evidence that points towards either (A): A single, never-before-seen natural occurrence, or (B) Aliens, you will unerringly select (A) as True and (B) as False when the answer is "Undecided."
If it comes down to a binary selection between (A) and (B), the one that is "Not Aliens" is the victor, though they possess the same degree of favorable evidence.

There are plenty of never-before-seen bits of nature. We discover them all the time. And will, forever.

Aliens building dyson swarms/ringworlds/spaghetti worlds requires a LOT of separate probabilistic leaps, each one of which reduces the likelihood of that being the case. And as we haven't as yet had any conclusive proof, or hell, even really solid but inconclusive data, I'm going to say the odds are a lot better that we're seeing some new bit of stellar dynamics we haven't seen to this point.

So yes, you're quite right. Given an ambiguous phenomenon, I'm not going to go for "therefore, aliens!" unless there's more evidence in that direction. I'd love it to be so. I think. But the data are so far devoid of any bias in that direction.

a reply to: Bedlam

Oh? I didn't know I was assuming it was aliens, I guess you know something about myself that I do not. I've stated thrice that I don't think the most likely explanation is "Aliens," after all.

in all probability, it likely is not a phenomenon of alien origin.

Of course, I'm not saying that this is an alien mega-structure, in fact it probably isn't.

I am not saying that a dyson-sphere is the most likely cause of this phenomenon

And yet you're still telling me I'm assuming it's aliens? Please, have you actually read my posts?

What I am "assuming" is that it could be aliens, based on the the same evidence that says it could be a hitherto unobserved natural occurrence. Given the precedent for the latter, that makes it "more likely", but the former is not impossible and is still worthy of respectful consideration.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

What I am "assuming" is that it could be aliens, based on the the same evidence that says it could be a hitherto unobserved natural occurrence. Given the precedent for the latter, that makes it "more likely", but the former is not impossible and is still worthy of respectful consideration.

"Oh, it's not too much to think, it's just that "therefore, aliens " might not be the first conclusion to jump to. In terms of probability. "

"There's a lot of investigation between here and aliens as a cause. Could it be, sure. It could also be something novel in terms of astrophysics."


Waiting for you to point out the impossible part, or the not being considered part.

a reply to: Bedlam

With which I agreed, you are just po'd because I stop at "unknown" and don't proceed onto "therefore aliens!" as a default choice.

Actually, it's closer to "Unknown" proceeding henceforth onto "Anything but aliens!"

There are plenty of never-before-seen bits of nature. We discover them all the time. And will, forever.

I am not disagreeing. Extraterrestrial life is part of nature, correct?

Aliens building dyson swarms/ringworlds/spaghetti worlds requires a LOT of separate probabilistic leaps, each one of which reduces the likelihood of that being the case. And as we haven't as yet had any conclusive proof, or hell, even really solid but inconclusive data, I'm going to say the odds are a lot better that we're seeing some new bit of stellar dynamics we haven't seen to this point.

A lot?
The largest issue is that we happened to observe it, but that could be said of any natural phenomena. Taken as a whole, the natural explanation is more probable than an ET intelligence. Yet, looking at individual explanations, they have not found one which fits.
"Eventually."
I wonder long eventually will last for.

So yes, you're quite right. Given an ambiguous phenomenon, I'm not going to go for "therefore, aliens!" unless there's more evidence in that direction. I'd love it to be so. I think. But the data are so far devoid of any bias in that direction.

Are you saying you're biased?

a reply to: Bedlam

My apologies, I made a mistake. The issue I have is that you do not appear to be considering it seriously, not that you believe it totally impossible.

It's also an issue I have with probability. Such a terrible, terrible thing...

Still, it is likely we ultimately share the same opinion in regards to this specific phenomenon.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Bedlam

My apologies, I made a mistake. The issue I have is that you do not appear to be considering it seriously, not that you believe it totally impossible. The issue I have is that you are biased.

I'm biased for more likely explanations over less, yes.

It's also an issue I have with probability. Such a terrible, terrible thing...

Still, it is likely we ultimately share the same opinion in regards to this specific phenomenon.

Probability is often the death of fantasy, yes.

Again, if there's some data that makes this likely NOT to be natural, what would that be, other than "we haven't seen this before?" I don't consider "this is new" to be co-equal to "thus it's likely to be of alien origin".

a reply to: datasdream

The light curve doesn't match a transit or occultation.

a reply to: StanFL

I guess everybody knows that it looks like the dimming is from poor calibration of the very old Harvard University Observatory photographic plates. False alarm...

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Ross 54

You say we have no information. That isn't true. We haven't observed anything that can be attributed to an alien civilization. That's information to say "probably not". We do find new bits of astrophysics every day.

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.--Dr. Carl Sagan

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" - Dr Theodore Woodward

well sure that applies when you are on Earth but we're talking something completely different here. What you are saying is keep yer eyes staring at the ground because if you look up the ground is no longer there and you wouldn't want to fall off. lol

you have every right to believe in flying worms or spaghetti monsters. if that's the extent of your mind then good for you, but considering the potential number of advanced sentient beings in just our galaxy one should consider the fact that if we keep looking we're gonna find one or two. I mean look at our propensity for exploring/exploiting space- at some point we're gonna find something unexpected and need to wrap our heads around that idea so we can think rationally and prudently.

there's really no harm is allowing the idea to settle in gradually. it's the holdouts like you who are gonna have the toughest time with it once it's undeniable.

originally posted by: Bedlam

"I'm biased for more likely explanations over less, yes."



and what would those be? are they things you have to make up?

a reply to: bottleslingguy

List the data that unequivocally imply an alien race is building Dyson spheres over some more mundane explanation.

I'll wait.

a reply to: Bedlam

List the data that unequivocally implies a mundane explanation over an alien race building a mega-structure.
No, the absence of alien civilisation discoveries in our history is not that data.

Works both ways.

I'll wait.