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.

 

They’re not saying it’s aliens, but signal traced to sunlike star sparks SETI interest

page: 8
126
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
Lets call it a day and shut down CERN..... it's all theoretical, no use in searching.
and lets not look for evidence, why waste the time... The human race is to stupid.

I used Tachyons as an example.... meh you guys are no fun.




I don't know where you got all that "shut down CERN" nonsense.

It just sounded like you were making the case that a currently theoretical concept would undoubtedly be employed by any advanced alien race located in the direction of the signal we sent. If that's not what you meant, carry on.




posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Yup. He was.
edit on 31-8-2016 by daerath because: misc



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   


Ars contacted Nick Suntzeff, a Texas A&M University astronomer, for insight into what this signal at 11Ghz might be if it were not of alien origin. "If this were a real astronomical source, it would be rather strange," Suntzeff told Ars. Although there are mysterious, high-energy astrophysical phenomenon called “fast radio bursts” that are seen at a few gigahertz, they last only 10 milliseconds or so (this event lasted longer). Unfortunately, he said, there is no information given about the strength of the signal as a function of frequency.

Suntzeff added that he would not be surprised if the signal was due to a terrestrial origin, because it was observed in part of the radio spectrum used by the military. "God knows who or what broadcasts at 11Ghz, and it would not be out of the question that some sort of bursting communication is done between ground stations and satellites," he said. "I would follow it if I were the astronomers, but I would also not hype the fact that it may be at SETI signal given the significant chance it could be something military."

arstechnica.com...


Turns out the signal astronomers saw was “strong” because it came from Earth



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Yes I was being theoretical, as in dealing with theories.... ET could have a "faster-than-light particle detector for RF radio frequencies."

ET's tachyon detector sounded more cool, even though tachyon's haven't been detected yet by us, it doesn't rule out faster-than-light particles..... or particles from a multiverse.

Particles from a parallel universe could possibly detect RF from 100's of light-years away instantly... need not be faster-than-light!

yes its all theoretical....

------------------------------------
11Ghz, is not that high really...... Ham radio also works around that range too.... so I wouldn't be surprised it was our signal////..

However this doesn't discount my theory.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Why doesn't someone in NASA or SETI or anyone just admit that there is life out there other than our own. Who in the hell is sending "the signal", then? Maybe it's two meteorites bouncing off each other. Or maybe the rings around a Saturn-like planet are rubbing the planet itself? Just joking! It's so ridiculous. Are we the inly ones, EVER, to send something into space hoping for a response?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

I think your confused about what theoretical physics is.

Cern is testing things that have been well researched in modelling and mathmatics and is needing physical verification.

In this sense everything is theoretical until tested physically.

Theoretically I will burn my hand on the Sun but i havent done it yet so I cant say for sure.

Tachyons are in the idea category right now.

And none of what your saying is supported by known physics.

As it is the entaglement teleportation is a hybrid technology with limits of use. The way photons are projected just aint going to make it very far right now and the laws as we understand them arent showing anything different.
edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

This should clear it up for you..... I was using the word plausible... theoretical applies too....

theoretical www.dictionary.com...
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied).
2.
existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3.
given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.


plus the fact that I used Tachyons as an example....
My examples was only about faster-than-light-particles.


tachyon Word Origin
noun, Physics.
1.
a hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light.
www.dictionary.com...

I guess you would be wrong..... nice try though!

as well CERN is discovering things that' haven't been researched.....
I wasn't talking about us using teleportation technology.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Well we are using teleportation entaglement expirements.

And hypothetical and theoretical are very different words in physics.

So there is a distinction between the theory of relativity vs hypothetical scenarios.


edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: luthier

This should clear it up for you..... I was using the word plausible... theoretical applies too....

theoretical www.dictionary.com...
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied).
2.
existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3.
given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.


plus the fact that I used Tachyons as an example....
My examples was only about faster-than-light-particles.


tachyon Word Origin
noun, Physics.
1.
a hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light.
www.dictionary.com...

I guess you would be wrong..... nice try though!

as well CERN is discovering things that' haven't been researched.....
I wasn't talking about us using teleportation technology.


I think the problem is that people (including me) misconstrued the opening salutation of your post (let me bring you up to speed), not as the play on FTL you intended it to be but as an insult suggesting you were going to "school" us.

It sounded like you were saying it was pretty clear any aliens over there would be using FTL particles.

Which of course is not true -- meaning it's certainly not a foregone conclusion they are using FTL particles as we're not even sure physics allows for such a thing.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Greggers


Yes I was being theoretical, as in dealing with theories.... ET could have a "faster-than-light particle detector for RF radio frequencies."

ET's tachyon detector sounded more cool, even though tachyon's haven't been detected yet by us, it doesn't rule out faster-than-light particles..... or particles from a multiverse.

Particles from a parallel universe could possibly detect RF from 100's of light-years away instantly... need not be faster-than-light!

yes its all theoretical....

------------------------------------
11Ghz, is not that high really...... Ham radio also works around that range too.... so I wouldn't be surprised it was our signal////..

However this doesn't discount my theory.


One more point. In the world of physics, theoretical doesn't really mean "dealing with theories." It typically means, "experimentally unverified, but mathematically supported."

I'm truly not sure tachyons satisfies that definition, but perhaps some physicist somewhere would disagree. If so, Okay. But that's what theoretical physics means.

It's also important to keep in mind that the amount of mathematical support can vary wildly. Some people would refer to multi-verse as theoretical physics. I would call it science-fiction, as the amount of mathematical validation is sparse.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I apologize if I was too theatrical.... and thanks for your input....

Hey it looks like I nailed number 3 on dictionary.com


Yes I was being theoretical, as in dealing with theories...


theoretical
www.dictionary.com...

3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.





edit on 31-8-2016 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Thats not how its used in science man.

Both of us have tried to explain this.

Tachyons are not a scientific theory.

This is the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Or use your own source. It says the same thing.
www.dictionary.com...


And for good measure.

Theory vs hypothesis

www.diffen.com...

Not even sure tachyons meet the hypothesis definition.
edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Greggers

I apologize if I was too theatrical.... and thanks for your input....

Hey it looks like I nailed number 3 on dictionary.com


Yes I was being theoretical, as in dealing with theories...


theoretical
www.dictionary.com...

3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.






Yes, but that is "theory" in the secular sense. In the scientific sense, a theory is something completely different. A scientific theory is a model supported by empirical evidence, such as Evolution, Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics.

Theoretical physics is as I described above.

To be clear, here is the complete definition of theoretical physics: Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

I don't really know of any mathematical model that predicts tachyons.

As far as the theatricality goes, no worries man.
edit on 31-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Also the whole imaginary mass tachyon model has been pretty much abandoned.


Its not to say string theory didnt and doesnt predict such a thing but negative mass particles and other explainations arr available.

Nobody has obsereved a tachyon.

Fermion yes Tachyon no.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Name one theory I used in this thread?
Answer: = ?

The problem with modern physics is they dislike words like "tachyon" simply because they didn't come up with word first, so they go and change it's meaning because it violates their causality..... same here!



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Uh no, that is not the problem at all. Its because every expirement to find them has failed. Modelling has failed.

Its because other explainations for string theory have become more realistic and have more credibility in expirementation.

Also it seems like your more on the syfy realm of the subject.

Lots of physicists were very excited about tachyons in the 60's and 70's even a few expirements in 2000's.

They just have come up empty.

Could it be possible sure.

I dont mean to say its hogwash but its a bit dated as far as an explaination.

You are trying to use the word theory in science the same as it is literature and language.

A hypothesis is not in anyway the same as a theory in science.
edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How long will it take for you to answer this question.....

Name one theory I used in this thread?
Answer: = _______ ?


You can talk about tachyon's till your blue in the face. it doesn't change anything, and while your at it go ahead and tell dictionary.com they are wrong.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: luthier

How long will it take for you to answer this question.....

Name one theory I used in this thread?
Answer: = _______ ?


You can talk about tachyon's till your blue in the face. it doesn't change anything, and while your at it go ahead and tell dictionary.com they are wrong.



Maybe this is all just a big miscommunication.

But I thought you were disputing my definition of theoretical physics, or of what theory means in science, when you mentioned that you had nailed one of the definitions on dictionary.com.... I thought you intended that to be a counter argument.

If you did not intend that to be a counter-argument, again I digress.

It seems you're acknowledging that tachyons at present are just wild speculation with no mathematical or empirical support, which is accurate, in which case you and I are on the same page.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator

Again.

You completely misused the word theory and hypothesis and assumed they mean the same thing in science.

You know very well what you did.

And i provided the actual dictionary.com definition that has any relevance to this discusion.

Just like you misused theoretical physics.

Look its a hypothetical suggestion that has far more paradoxical issues than explanation.

Does a tachyon have mass?

What kind of tachyon?

Can you communicate in the past then? Well there is an issue there as well. Particularly if you are giving a resting mass to the tachyon.
edit on 31-8-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
126
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join