/sci/ - Science & Math

>1,500 light years away
>relevant

even if it is a system filled with alien motherfuckers we will never meet them

>>8249894
Someone remind me - we know about variable stars. Why is this so surprising?

>>8249901
>No known or proposed stellar phenomena can fully explain all aspects of the observed light curve.

If it was a periodical dimming on certain intervals then I could entertain the possibility of aliums. But it's not.

so >>>/x/

>>8249905
>No known or proposed stellar phenomena
how about orbital debris you faggot?

>>8249905
And therefore Dyson sphere / swarm? Yea...

>>8249907
Is orbital debris a known or proposed phenomena? Oh my gosh yes it is

>Our first extraterrestrial contact is with a type II civilization

We're doomed, aren't we?

>>8249908
You see, if we cant currently explain something, then the ayy-fanclub always goes aaayyyy confirmed. For some reason.

>>8249914
Why? It means we are so far behind as to be totally non-threatening

Didn't it dim just like twice so far ?

>>8249923
>threatening

everyone always assumes aliens will be strange and weird but essentially human with humanistic desires and motivations/feelings

what makes you believe aliens have a concept of human fear in the first place

as soon as you ascribe any human attributes to aliens this gets ridiculous

>>8249931
Fear of threat is not a strictly human trait

>>8249931
Because any aliens will come about as a result of evolution, and so they will not be completely incomprehensible.

Of course, perhaps they might be like ants, with little to no individuality. But they would still have a fear-threat response of sorts, because if they didn't, the species would not survive.

>>8249937
alien visitors would most likely by artificial though. can't imagine the terror of being visited by an alien robot with no emotions, no feelings, no real concept of death or anything.

>>8249894
Cloud of kvegmoplasma? If I said it right, is it something right? Like when sun is covered by the cloud in sky so you cannot see it directly... Where can I get pictures so I can do analysis myself, will you get me free computer to analyse that? I dont want cloud computing, truth dissapears from that.

>>8249905
Which is completely incorrect.

>>8249912
It is debris. Occam's Razor is calling you a faggot.

>>8250161
>It is debris

Where's the IR then?

>>8250165
Infrared ? What makes you think every debris causes an infrared filter effect ? We are talking about huge ass masses that block 20% of the light here, not dust streams.

Two asymmetric orbiting black holes

>>8250181
Two huge black holes orbiting a star? Yea, sure.

>>8250222
Cloud of milliards of little ones?

>>8249937
Beings capable of interstellar travel could be the result of genetic engineering or artificial intelligence. They could be the product of processes we can't even imagine.

>>8249901
>Someone remind me - we know about variable stars. Why is this so surprising?

KIC 8462852 doesn't look like any of the known varieties of variable stars, and no analogue is known in the Kepler prime or K2 missions.

>>8249906
>If it was a periodical dimming on certain intervals then I could entertain the possibility of aliums. But it's not.

We're missing two prospective intervals. Last I heard, the light curves observed by Kepler actually fit pretty well with multiple Niven rings, which is the idea posted in the OP.

>>8250180
>What makes you think every debris causes an infrared filter effect

All bodies absorb some percentage of the light that hits them, and all bodies re-emit that light as heat. Orbital debris capable of blocking the percentage of light observed in the Kepler data should be emitting some serious black body radiation, but no one has managed to observe any at KIC 8462852.

>>8250783
Nope. We had two dips with inconsistent intensities and inconsistent intervals and inconsistent occlusion profiles. There isn't even a 3rd dip yet to call it a pattern, let alone asume anything artificial.

This is /x/-tier wishful thinking with zero evidence or scientific basis.

>>8250794
>Nope. We had two dips with inconsistent intensities and inconsistent intervals and inconsistent occlusion profiles.

If the two we've seen fell into intervals, we missed one just before Kepler launched, and not long after Kepler's reaction wheels failed. Those are the two I am referring to.

>>8250798
Since there are no dips recorded, there is no basis to assume there was any. There are only two known dips as for now and they don't fit a consistent interval. There is no known dipping before or after that and until we have such data, any discussion about "what if"s are pointless since we can't confirm any patterns.

>>8250806

Extrapolation and prediction is a core tenet of the scientific method, and many a discovery, including the Higgs Boson, were born from prediction. It's not a huge leap to guess that this might be periodic, and shitting on any discussion because we don't yet have enough data to say yes or no is counterproductive.

>>8250817
Yeah but if wishful thinking is all you have to desperately reach a conclusion as if this is some alien indication, it's not science, it's autism. And none of the evidence leaves any doors open for that kind of assumption. If we had a third dip around the same expected interval, I'd say you have a point and I'd be curious as well, but we don't. So until we do, this is nothing more than fairy tales.

>>8250844
>stop talking I hate this topic

>>8250847
not at all. you just need to discuss things with no evidence in >>>/x/

>>8250854

Look, we obviously can't conclude it's aliens, and questions like "what is the alien megastructure made of," "who built it," "what is the megastructure for," etc do not belong on >>>/x/, but the nature of the dimming events, what kinds of bodies might be occluding the star, and whether or not the observed occluding events can be reasonably explained as natural processes are reasonable topics for /sci/. "It can't be aliens, go back to /x/" is a waste of the thread topic.

>>8250868
>etc do not belong on >>>/x/

Fucking hell. I meant to say they DO belong on /x/.

>>8250868
Look, we just don't have anything to work with okay ? The data is out in the open. There are only 2 dimmings that doesn't fit with each other. Thats it. There was one satellite listening to signals coming from KIC on almost on every frequency way back from 2015 and it didn't recieve anything at all.
Now any wild opinions built upon this very data will be very primitive and impossible to prove at the moment. Especially when you insert an inexistent 3rd dipping.

So I don't really know what is there to discuss that would fit in a scientific frame with the current knowledge we could gather.

>>8250886
>So I don't really know what is there to discuss that would fit in a scientific frame with the current knowledge we could gather.

The shape of the light curves, the overall trend line of the star, and the existing spectral data was enough for today's new paper to be released. This star is just plain weird, to the point that it's very, very difficult to explain the observations.

What's more likely? that we as humanity fight the aliens to secure our future as a species or we interbreed with them and get wiped out.

>>8250870
No take-backs.

>>8250898
>What's more likely? that we as humanity fight the aliens to secure our future as a species or we interbreed with them and get wiped out.

This kind of post belongs on >>>/x/

>>8250868
Aliens are not paranormal

Aliens are natural

>>8250904
Aliens are not paranormal

Aliens are natural.

We have to wait until next year to get a better understanding. Also if its AYYSSSSS, then they would know we're watching. They would have figure out how to communicate across vast distances without waiting for long periods of time. I personally think this is some star about to go supernova or collapsing onto itself.

>>8250912
Then prove their existence.

>>8250917
>Also if its AYYSSSSS, then they would know we're watching.

How would a prospective civilization know we were watching? Recorded history goes back 5,000 years, Pre-history is believed to extend back another 200,000 to 1.5 million years, and Hans Lippershey didn't even invent telescopes until 1608.

>>8250798
>>8250783
Yes, multiple rings with gyroscopic motion could explain everything.

>>8249912
phenomenON

>>8250917
>Also if its AYYSSSSS, then they would know we're watching.

They probably wouldn't, honestly. They're 1500 ly away, there's absolutely no reason for them to notice us or even focus in our direction in particular. It's possible that, through sheer chance, they may have catalogued our Sun as a life-bearing star, but since 1500 years of light lag puts them well behind anything that could possibly signal the existence of intelligent life on Earth, there's no way they could know we were looking at them right now.

If they even exist, which I do wish to clarify is extremely unlikely.

>>8250948
>since 1500 years of light lag puts them well behind anything that could possibly signal the existence of intelligent life on Earth,

The earliest visible indication of intelligence would actually be a spectral shift associated with agriculture, which could go back as far as 12,000 years.

>>8250941
>>8250941
>>8250941

>>this reply was only for >8250783, my phone glitched

>>8249931
Alien's would've also had to survive, so there would be a mechanism for survival which will make them want to survive in face of threats.

Imagine if ayliianes were real, and they would share their technology/knowledge with us, and we get like superpowers and shit shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiet

I hope aliens read this thread and raped every single one of you.

Like one by one.

>>8250956
This. They'll know something is up in the atmosphere. Changing the landscape of the planet to suit your dietary needs will result in spectral shifts that don't correlate with something natural.
>>8250948
Although unlikely they're ayys we don't know how they'll find us or if they have something that looks for life in a general vicinity of the galaxy. Maybe we don't fall under their definition of sentient species.

>>8250927
Life is a natural phenomena
Therefore life exists in the universe

>>8250993
>Life is a natural phenomena
>Therefore life exists in the universe

We've conclusively shown that it exists on Earth. We have no evidence that it exists anywhere else, and we have no good reason to believe it exists in close proximity to the Earth.

>its an unknown phenomenon
>/sci/ logic: it has to be ayyyyy lmao.

>>8249907
Orbital debris has been suggested. A long time ago. From about the beginning. And it was found to be highly unlikely.

Have you concluded otherwise?

>>8251001

idiot

>>8250180
>What makes you think every debris causes an infrared filter effect ?
Why talk about filter effect??

The issue here is that debris would absorb short wave heat and re-emit as longer wave infrared radiation. And the question remains: just where is that long wave radiation?

>We are talking about huge ass masses that block 20% of the light here, not dust streams.
Blocking is either by absorption or reflection (away).

Absorption: that would mean heat absorption and temperature increase and thus re-emission.

Reflection: that would mean the radiation was reflected somewhere and that has not been seen. Also no plausible mechanism for a reflection.

>>8250181
One tail wagging a dog.

>>8250227
Milliards of tails wagging one dog.

Not plausible.

>>8250963
Not necessarily.

>>8250230
>They could be the product of processes we can't even imagine.
Earth's biosphere and civilization are perfectly detectable using hypertelescopes.
They would be aware of our presence.
As would others. If they exist they likely don't care or just observe.
My theory is that these are mostly old machine intelligences occupied with abstract mathematical theories and simulation of universes and we are simply like bacteria to them.

>>8250788
>More complex scenarios in which the ingress timescale
re
ects the spreading of debris along its orbit after a re-
cent collision or the precession of an occulting disk into
our line of sight could perhaps explain the appearance of
a transit. For example, a cloud that slowly increases in
density would manifest itself in the light curve as induc-
ing a change in
ux similar to that observed in Quarter
12. However, to produce the apparent
at bottom of the
supposed transit event, such a cloud would then need to
be extended over a fraction of its Keplerian orbit and
would need to maintain an approximately constant den-
sity through its entire length as it passes in front of this
star.

>>8250932
>How would a prospective civilization know we were watching? Recorded history goes back 5,000 years, Pre-history is believed to extend back another 200,000 to 1.5 million years, and Hans Lippershey didn't even invent telescopes until 1608.

They would be able to observe our biosphere through advanced telescope arrays.
Possibly hypertelescopes or using focal points they could image Earth enough to see signs of civilization(I think Babylon and Rome were visible as points of light from space during the night, maybe agricultural fields too)

>>8250956
>The earliest visible indication of intelligence would actually be a spectral shift associated with agriculture, which could go back as far as 12,000 years.

That's a very good point, I didn't think about this one.

>>8251275
>hypertelescopes
And what is this?

>>8251001
there is proof life used to exist on the moon. six times, in fact

>>8249946

Why would their creators have not built/taught their AIs with many of the attributes that contributed to their success as a species.

Why would they put their legacy on retard robots?

>>8249946
>>8252538
>implying the actual aliens wouldn't be like that

>>8252526
>there is proof life used to exist on the moon. six times, in fact
Awesome.

I am looking forward to sources for this.

>>8250956
>The earliest visible indication of intelligence would actually be a spectral shift associated with agriculture, which could go back as far as 12,000 years.

Which spectral shift wold that be? If you think of oxygen, this shift was caused by bacteria during the oxygen catastrophe and was not related to intelligent life. If on the other hand you think of chlorophyll that would be algae in the oceans and plants on land, neither of which are considered intelligent.

And 12,000 years ago we had an ice age. What agriculture are you thinking of?

>>8252586
>I am looking forward to sources for this.

>>8252586
>And 12,000 years ago we had an ice age. What agriculture are you thinking of?

Neolithic agriculture dates back to 9,500 B.C. Not quite 12,000 years, but close.

>Which spectral shift wold that be?

Swathes of ecosystem being stripped out and replaced with a much smaller variety of plants.

>>8251018
yeah how STUPID does he have to be to think that we, worthless humans, are the only ones in this magnificient universe! doesn't he know how many planets there are out there which are PROOF that there is extraterrestrial life.

way to go my fellow redditor!

>>8252677
>the principle of relativity is sooo reddit
>muh internet wars
this is an 18+ site

>>8252724

The distribution of life in the universe is primarily a question of statistics, not relativity.

>>8250904
more like >>>/d/

>>8252734
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity_principles

>>8252677
Check out the rare Earth hypothesis. Smarter people than you have thought long and hard about this.

>>8252742
>>8252749

In any case, all parties are comically missing the point; the sample size of known planets with life in the universe is one.

>>8252636
>Swathes of ecosystem being stripped out and replaced with a much smaller variety of plants.
This would have no effect on the atmosphere. Replacing trees and and bushes with corn and wheat makes no difference. It's still pumping out oxygen. Do you even know what "spectral shift" means? Do you have any experience studying spectra, especially that of other planets?

>>8252761
It's not about pumping out O2. People till the land, grow their crops, harvest them, dispose of the waste, and generally construct a nice and orderly system to do the job. With a Sufficiently Advanced Detector, polarimetry could be used to detect agricultural activity; it's already widely used for precision agriculture. Detecting it on planets would be an entirely more complicated affair, but we're talking about a hypothetical alien observation scenarios to begin with.

>>8252753
so? seems you are missing the point

>>8252779
>so? seems you are missing the point

Apparently I am. What is the point?

>>8252753
>Everyone but me are comically missing the point
Right.

>the sample size of known planets with life in the universe is one.
That is not the problem. To the contrary, that is the reason for the rare Earth hypothesis.

>>8252780
please read
>>8252742
and think really hard about why relying on statistics isnt alway a good way to explain the universe

>>8253032
>>8253697

>and think really hard about why relying on statistics isnt alway a good way to explain the universe
In absolute terms, what's your point? Let's stop beating around the bush.

>it can't be aliens because they don't exist
>therefore it must be these other things which it couldn't possibly be either

Sure is science around here.

>>8252749

>appeal to authority fallacy

>>8254008
>we dont know how to currently explain it. It could be (insert a number of theories here).
>aaaayyyyylmmmaaaao
>Well, thats one of theories, yes.
>AAAAAAYYYYLMMMAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>8254914
I believe you mean it must be evidence of God.

>>8254914
>there is a possibility that there are ayys involved
>REEEEEEE go to /x/, we only have a sample size of one, that means ayyys cant be real

>rare Earth

We only identified 1,700 planets. 10 of them are candidates for life. We haven't proved nor disproved the existence of life there. 1690 are ruled out on principle of being too different to Earth.

There are billions of planets in the observable universe, and 10^23 more in the whole universe.

What does it matter if it's aliens or not? We cant go to them, we can't meaningfully comunicate, we can't even observe them properly.

>>8254951
it's only 1700 light years away

>>8254951
oh sure, that would mean it doesnt matter.
brainlet

>>8254914
This. And also, this. >>8254944
Both are equaly retarded

>>8254983
while only the second argument was made itt

>>8254990
I was making a point in the broader, pop-sci facebook sense, but yeah.
Like i said, each of those crowds are pure cancer.

>>8255045
true

>>8250788
The system is 1,500 light years away, and the black body radiation from the debris is much dimmer than the light rays hitting the debris. The reason for this is because, if the debris isn't there, then the light leaving the star will follow a mostly unobstructed path to earth, keeping the rays in (roughly) the same direction and strength (but, because of the inverse square law, the observed intensity of the light is very low). However, If debris is there, then the light will be obstructed, turning into thermal energy, which can become infra red light. But this light is not pointed in the same direction as the source radiation, so infra red rays will be launched in all directions (this is especially true if few emitting surfaces of the debris are normal to our point of view), lowering the observed brightness (from earth) even more. Combined with the inverse square law, the infrared light would be too dark to see, so debris is still a sound explanation for the phenomena.

>>8254944
Are we talking about this or something unrelated ? Coz OP made a thread about KIC dimming and said ayyliens confirmed, which is a single case and clearly not aliens. I didn't know you had some privileged knowledge about aliens that NASA doesn't have.

now back to >>>/x/ UFOkid

>>8255053
>there is a possibility that there are ayys involved
>REEEEEEE go to /x/, we only have a sample size of one, that means ayyys cant be real

>>8255058
Sure aliens mite b real. So can ninja turtles, cthulhu and half life 3 ;)

now back to >>>/x/

>>8255062
Yeah, humans are special snowflakes and life isnt just a complex chain of chemical reactions that would ultimately happen on other planets, too. God made us, right?
>>>/x/

>>8255053
>and clearly not aliens
[citation needed]

>>8255065
>strawmanning this hard
If it's so abundant, then show me the evidence in your next post.

And when you realize that you can't show the evidence and you're in a science board, fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>8255068
I can't prove something that doesn't exist kiddo, neither can you.
>>>/x/

>>8255062
>he thinks alien lifeforms are as plausible as fictional stuff becoming real

>>8255071
ssshhh...aliens can hear you m8. better put on one of these so they can't read your thoughts.

also remain in /x/ so they just think you're a nutjob and not worth harvesting your brains ;^)

>>8255069
How was it strawmanning? You claimed the possibility of aliens existing is as absurd as ninjaturtles. I countered, that there is no reason to believe we are special unless you believe in god.
Please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity_principles
and explain to me, why we should assume that earth is so special, that it is the only planet in the whole universe to have life on it.

until now you literally only done
>REEEEEEE go to /x/, we only have a sample size of one, that means ayyys cant be real

>>8255072
>>8255070
you are a talentless troll. git gud

>>8255073
Well maybe im an alien working on discrediting the earthlings perception about our existence.
How bout that O_o

>>8255076
sorry bud. aliens made me wrote that with their mind control powers...uhoh they keep making me write stuff..here I go !

>>>/x/

This guy makes an important point.

https://disownedsky.blogspot.com/2016/08/aliens-perhaps-but-not-aliens-of-gaps.html

>The truth is that nobody really knows how common ET civilizations are, or how long they flourish, and the so far null result of our (so far) very poorly funded SETI enterprise isn't much help in resolving it one way or the other, as has been argued by such persons as Jill Tarter for many years now.

>So, saying that it could be ET is not the big mistake. The real mistake is closely analogous to an old argument for the existence of God, now largely abandoned by educated theists - called The God of the Gaps argument. In this argument, what we don't know about our origins or how the universe works is attributable to divine intervention - miraculous actions He must take to bring about that which nature can not - as if the nature of His design is somehow deficient. As science closes down the gaps, this god becomes smaller and smaller, and I think you can see why this would be unacceptable to enlightened religious people.

>If we can't argue for the existence of God from the gaps in our understanding of human origins, neither can we argue for aliens based upon the gaps in our understanding. It's really just re-labelling our ignorance as "aliens." No one should be convinced by this.

>>8253802
In science we have a few rules of thumbs. These are not the answers in themselves but rather tolls we use to search for answers or at least a working hypothesis.

When we search for something countable we expect typically zero, one or many. In this case we have the choice of one or many. And we have not seen many. Sure, we see many exo planets these days but still zero signs of life.

OK, now look at what made Earth what it is: the home to a some time intelligent life. And what are the requirements?
1: In the Goldilocks zone - not common
1b: The orbit must be suficciently stable and with low excentricity to avoid extreme climates
2: With water so that it exists as a solid, vapour and liquid - very small margins
2b: Also with plenty of water yet with some solid land - cold be small margins
3: With a reasonable gravity - so far this seems to involve small margins
4: With plenty of carbon, the element essential to life as we know it, the only element that provides for such a rich set of stable compounds
5: We also need a working carbon cycle which means plate tectonics - nowhere else in the solar system, could be very rare
6: A large moon, in order to maintain tectonics and also stabilize the orbital axis of the planet - experience so far is that this is very, very rare
7: A central sun that is stable, no X-ray flares etc - not too uncommon but it rules out giants
7b: No double or tripe stars in the system that would destabilise climate - somewhat common
8: The solar system needs a cleaning planet like Jupiter, which with its huge gravitational field will such in debris and with the huge gas envelope will catch and remove all debris and prevent bombardment of the planet with life - seems common but this may involve selection bias, we don't know.
9: Galaxtic neighbourhood must be safe, in fact a long way between neighbours and thus far from the galactic core,, to prevent massive radiation sterilisation of the planet - this eliminates a huge number of stars

>>8255205
>5: We also need a working carbon cycle which means plate tectonics - nowhere else in the solar system, could be very rare

To be pedantic, Pluto seems to have active tectonic analogous activity.

>>8255205
saved to be reposted indefinitely

>>8249905
>>8249907
>>8250161
>hurr look at me, I'm so smart, surely none of those dumbass scientists thought about using any the phenomena I just mentioned to explain the results
>I have no calculations to show, but I explained it

>>8249905
Sorry, I meant to tag >>8249901 in >>8255346

>>8255346
What calculations retard ? When you're light years away from the shit, all you can do is to accumulate any data you have and make a logical deduction out of it. Every light dimming we've seen so far is either caused by debris, asteroids or celestial bodies. NONE of the dimming we've seen so far was ever ayliums.
So we already know the possible reasons, we just don't know which one it is.

>>8255363
>he keeps on going
Calculations like how many asteroids or debris or whatever you'd need to dim the star by x percent, and how much IR radiation would that cause. It's something ridiculous iirc, like a bunch of jupiters or something.

>>8250844
/thread

>>8255363
>What calculations retard ?
Fuck off from /sci/ or reduce your activity here to lurking, brainlet

>>8255422
back to >>>/x/

>>8255433
>says the one who doesnt know shit about calculations
wow, what a sad attempt. this is really not your place

>>8255437
ssshhh back to your board ufokid >>>/x/

>>8255442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

>>8255457
>>>/x/

>>8255106

The difference is that ET civilization is a possibility.

>>8255205

>anthropic criteria

>>8256072

Arguing for aliens due to holes in our understanding of the universe is still a logical fallacy.

>>8256150

Hypothesizing an ET construct as a possibility because none of the natural theories make sense is science. Discounting the possibility because of preconceived bias is ignorance.

>>8256150

Godfaggot detected. Go back to your cave.

>>8256160
>because none of the natural theories make sense is science
Because starlights dimming is such a wierd thing we never saw before ? Any celestial body can cause dimming between the billions of kilometers between KIC and us. Aliens are not even in the list of probable causes.

>>8256163
>anyone who doesn't believe in things without evidence is a godfaggot
You're reaching /x/tard. Back to your containment board before they probe your tinfoil ass >>>/x/

>>8255205
I forgot to add
10: a sufficient magnetic field to shield the atmosphere from being stripped by solar wind

>>8256075
>>anthropic criteria
Strictly speaking no. These criteria also regard complex molecules. Strong radiation or heat will damage complex molecules by disintegration. A near by supernova will bathe the entire planet in a neutrino flux that will shred molecules throughout the entire cross section of the planet.

Rather this list is based on the definition of life and that also involves metabolism.

>>8256165

You act as if it's some crackpot internet observers pointing this out, and not professional astronomers who know what they're talking about putting forward a theory after all known theories failed.

>>8256166
>the definition of life

As observed on Earth. Viz antropic criteria.

>>8256843
There is just one paper with a bunch of names suggested such a thing which is swallowed by some popsci magazines to hype up ayylmao memes. Nobody else is even considering aliens.
Even the original paper couldn't outright came out and claimed they might think it's aliens coz they know it would make them look like nutjobs that nobody will respect.

>>8255205
>1: In the Goldilocks zone - not common
Untrue, goldilocks planets are very common with conservative estimates being 20% of systems containing planets in this region. This isn't including other possibilities like moon systems.

>2: With water
Water is incredibly common.

>2b: Also with plenty of water yet with some solid land
Volcanos are common on rocky bodies, therefore raised rocks. But not essential for life.
>3: With a reasonable gravity
Define reasonable gravity outside of maintaining an atmosphere. Mars has reasonable gravity for an atmosphere, it was just blown away by the solar wind.
>4: With plenty of carbon
Exceedingly common and delivered en-masse by comets, along with amino acids and carbohydrates.
>5: We also need a working carbon cycle
You're just making shit up now.
>6: A large moon
Making shit up.
>7: A central sun that is stable, no X-ray flares etc
Making shit up. All stars pump out incredible radiation.
>7b: No double or tripe stars in the system that would destabilise climate
Making shit up.
>8: The solar system needs a cleaning planet like Jupiter
Exceedingly common.
>9: Galaxtic neighbourhood must be safe, in fact a long way between neighbours and thus far from the galactic core
Making shit up.

There may not be massive evidence for intelligent life in the universe and I've seen an example of why.

>>8256848

Regardless, it's more feasible than any of the other theories which do not fit at all.

>>8256843
>they're talking about putting forward a theory after all known theories failed.

They're talking about putting forward new theories for natural origins for the simple reason that "artificial construct" is a low effort hypothesis which, despite having been proposed many times for many previously unexplained phenomena, hasn't yet borne out. All conceivable, less extraordinary possibilities must be exhausted before we can safely conclude that these observations stem from an artificial construct.

>>8256856
>Making shit up.

I think the working hypothesis here is that technological life is only born on land, while life first evolves in the seas. Some form of selection pressure is needed to push life onto land, such as lunar tides.

>>8256858
>theres light dimming and it can't be any celestial bodies crossing,the only logical thing is ayyliums guise xDDD
This is why /x/tards shouldn't be crossboarding under any circumstances.
>>>/x/

>>8256856
>Untrue, goldilocks planets are very common with conservative estimates being 20% of systems containing planets in this region.

Aren't Venus and Mars both on the very edges of that zone here in our own solar system? I do believe their inhospitable environments are do to factors mainly separate from their distance to the Sun

>>8256870
>Aren't Venus and Mars both on the very edges of that zone here in our own solar system?

I believe you're right, and the Goldilocks Zone is defined as the regions that receive the stellar flux of Venus at the hot end, and Mars at the cold end.

>>8256865

That's a fairly anthropic viewpoint although not unreasonable, still unfounded.

>>8256872

AKA the anthropic zone.

>>8250956

At that time the only agriculture you had was practiced on small scale by tribes in a small areas, I doubt it had much effect.

Besides, they would probably think it's some natural phenomenon. It's not like they know about plant biology.

>>8256877
>AKA the anthropic zone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

>>8249906
you're a twat and you don't understand what's going on or what people are saying about it. fuck off kindly.

>>8256897
I read the initial paper on the dimming, I read the signal data report from 2015 to 2016, I read the follow up news on KIC. There is literally nothing remotely indicating anything artificial unless you're nutjob and misconstruing the crystal clear data to fit it to your infantile aylien bullshit.

now back to >>>/x/

damn you nerds are hostile

>>8256925
nothing personnel kid ;^)

>>8249899
why are you even here

>>8252626
Thank god we have an ms paint edit to prove 6 civilizations on the moon

>>8256856
>>1: In the Goldilocks zone - not common
>Untrue, goldilocks planets are very common with conservative estimates being 20% of systems containing planets in this region. This isn't including other possibilities like moon systems.

>>2: With water
>Water is incredibly common.
Citation needed.

>>2b: Also with plenty of water yet with some solid land
>Volcanos are common on rocky bodies, therefore raised rocks. But not essential for life.
Perhaps not essential for life but if we are to detect life it has to be in a place where we can see it. Water is rather corrosive and not suited to e.g. radio technology.

>>3: With a reasonable gravity
>Define reasonable gravity outside of maintaining an atmosphere. Mars has reasonable gravity for an atmosphere, it was just blown away by the solar wind.
Too great gravity and the planet will gather a gas envelope and become a gas giant. Also too high pressure means we are outside the realm of the triple point for water,

>>4: With plenty of carbon
>Exceedingly common and delivered en-masse by comets, along with amino acids and carbohydrates.
Is this observed for exo-planets?

>>5: We also need a working carbon cycle
>You're just making shit up now.
No

>>6: A large moon
>Making shit up.
No. The Moon is more than a pretty face.

>>7: A central sun that is stable, no X-ray flares etc
>Making shit up. All stars pump out incredible radiation.
Not all have flare-ups.

>>7b: No double or tripe stars in the system that would destabilise climate
>Making shit up.
Oh.

>>8: The solar system needs a cleaning planet like Jupiter
>Exceedingly common.
Cite.

>>9: Galaxtic neighbourhood must be safe, in fact a long way between neighbours and thus far from the galactic core
>Making shit up.
A nova will wreck your day.

>There may not be massive evidence for intelligent life in the universe and I've seen an example of why.
May. Perhaps. Possibly. Maybe.

>>8257875

I see, you're an idiot.

>>8258094
Your shitposting is tolerated too much already
>>>/x/

>>8258096

Confirmed idiot.

>>8258115
sure thing ufokid

now back to your containment board >>>/x/

Hey look at this, humans are made from the most common elements in the universe. Wow magic!

>>8258128
Yet, when you put all those together, somehow it doesn't create life :^)

>>8258121
>>8258096

You are literally the worst shitposter on /sci/. Besides the obvious stupidity and hostility, your ignorance is breathtaking.

>>8257822
dumb fuck

>>8258130

In your case, probably not. I've had better conversations with a rock.

>>8258132
>>8258136
If you can't take people not indulging your baseless manchlidren fantasies than fuck off back to your unscientific cesspool already.

>>>/x/

>>8258146

Cuck.

Alright, /sci/, I could use some help with this one. I am absolutely terrible at math, so I apologize in advance.

If memory serves, and assuming there is an orbital period associated with the large dips that occurs every 727 days, whatever might be occluding KIC 8462852 is orbiting at 1.4 AU (1.4 AU and whatever the habitable zone of this star are factors that I am concerned that I do not recall correctly).

Over the observational period, the star's luminosity has decreased by approximately 4%. In a hypothetical scenario where that brightness was lost from a "star eater" machine, this would constitute a reduction from 1.43 solar masses to 1.413 solar masses.

The original Where's The Flux paper detected no change in angular velocity over the Kepler observation period from 84 km/s (+/-4 km/s), to within 400 meters/s.

If the hypothetical 0.17 solar masses of material was moved to a further orbit, to what distance could the material be moved before the change in angular velocity would exceed the 400 m/s margin of error?

>>8259146
>star eater

dude, why would you assume something is altering solar matter instead of just, you know, BLOCKING LIGHT?

>>8259153
>dude, why would you assume something is altering solar matter instead of just, you know, BLOCKING LIGHT?

The long term dimming trend. Pulling material out of the star solves multiple problems.
>The life of the star is extended by reducing its mass
>Abundant mass for construction material is supplied in fusion products
>Said materials can be used to build one or more megastructures
>Nuclear fusion of the harvested materials will supply energy that can be used to drive the star eater machine

>>8259157
Decreasing luminosity by removing stellar mass also accounts for the dimming trend without other measurable occluding bodies, which may or may not be present.

When did everyone start talking about this? I'm reading the article on Wikipedia, and it says the readings were taken in 2009 and 2013... Was this seriously 3 years ago??

What the fuck

>>8258146
you just got cucked

>>8259153
>dude, why
Not him, but...
Hitchen's and Occam's Razors aren't always right, they're just right MOST of the time.
Whatever is happening here is odd, by definition.
Even if it's a problem with our observations, it's something out of the ordinary.
Besides, a thread with 168 replies SHOULD explore many ideas.

>>8259169
>Besides, a thread with 168 replies SHOULD explore many ideas
ideas within the scientific frame. if you're trying to insert your baseless and childish alium retardation, then you belong to >>>/x/

>>8259166
Don't know when it started here on sci but it could have been earlier this year or end of the prior.

>>8259173
Yeah it must have been last year, it didn't seem that long ago.

How come it took two years then, after the second reading, for any discussion to begin?

>>8259172
Stop fucking talking about aliens, we're talking about the phenomenon. You need to go the fuck back to /x/.

>>8259166
So does that mean the next dip is expected to be seen in 2017 ?

Was the 2 big dips recorded in 2009 and 2013 or did I misunderstand it ?

>>8259173
>Don't know when it started here on sci but it could have been earlier this year or end of the prior.

It began with the publication of "Where's the Flux?" The data was recorded years ago, but it wasn't noticed until people poured over the Kepler data set by hand to find stellar dimming events that the algorithms for planet detection weren't certain about.

>>8259183
Correct, next is May 2017 I believe. Kepler will be watching.

>>8259186
>Correct, next is May 2017 I believe. Kepler will be watching.

Kepler will not be watching, due to the failure of reaction wheels. Kepler is pointing at a new patch of sky indefinitely, using radiation pressure to help stabilize the imaging sensors along with the remaining reaction wheels.

>>8259166
>>8259183
>>8259186
Correction. I got the date of the first dip wrong.

It was 2011, then 2013, the next should have been recorded 2015 but the telescope was malfunctioning. The third is 2017.

>>8259187
Ah, shit. I thought it was temporary.

That fucking sucks.

>>8252538
>>8249946
Robots with alien emotions would be much, much worse. Something operating on pure logic, you might be able to predict... But operating on emotions, it might decide to exterminate your species because it didn't like the way you touched your face.

...And emotional robots are much more likely than unemotional ones, as anything organic life finds valuable, they are likely to code into their AI - and that's assuming they don't simply take the quickest route to AI - ie. create a simulation of their own brains. Meaning, the robot will be exactly as emotional as its organic counterpart.

>>8259194

It really does. On the plus side, they've doubled the amount of sky they're sampling with Kepler. They haven't managed to find any analogues to KIC 8462852 in the K2 data set yet.

>>8259194
>>8259190
>>8259187
http://sputniknews.com/science/20160618/1041546944/alien-megastructure-kickstarter.html

>Kickstarter Raises $100,000 to Investigate a Star for Aliens

>The money will support a year-long study into KIC 8462852, analyzing the star’s luminosity with the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network.

We will be watching KIC for a whole year with dedicated telescopes from Earth.

>>8259202
Hopefully that covers the next dip in 2017

>>8259166

That's how long it took to eliminate all the obvious theories, which is why they're up to "dunno, possibly artificial"

>>8257875
>Calls Goldilocks zone planets common
>Doubts water is common
...WTF do you think happens to ice in a goldilocks zone? Do you have any idea how common ice fucking is in the universe? (I'll give you a hint: it's in the top five most common molecular formations and found absolutely fucking everywhere.)

Jupiter sized planets are also fairly common (most of the planets we've found are of this class, though that's neither here nor there). At the same time, you don't necessarily need them, you just need traffic to calm down enough to support life before your host star dies, or hope most if it is underground.

...and you don't necessarily need most of the shit this guy is going on about, it just theoretically helps (though in some cases, those same elements can backfire.)

Putting a number of the Drake Equation with the information we have available is a meaningless effort though. Insufficient data doesn't begin to describe it. Given everything that needs to come together to make a recognizable civilization, however, which is even more speculative, life could be common as fuck, and we could still end up alone in the galaxy.

>>8259206
Well the kickstarter goal have been reached in 17 june. It would be pretty fucking shitty if there's a delay in the assumed dip and we miss it right before it happens.

>>8258128
God must be an economist :^)

>>8259217
>God must be an economist :^)
>God must be a Jew
he is...

>>8259190
>the next should have been recorded 2015 but the telescope was malfunctioning
Nobody else was watching KIC in 2015 ? the 2017 assumption is pretty flimsy as there is no clear pattern yet.

>>8259223
There's so many observatories, and so many bored astronomers, I'm sure hundreds of folks were watching it, one way or the other... There's just not all that many orbital telescopes.

>>8259153
>BLOCKING LIGHT
That would mean absorbing truly humongous amounts of energy which would cause this blocking object to re-radiate equally massive amounts of infrared.

And that infrared signature was not found.

>>8259226
Do we need orbital telescopes for that ? Can't we use the star telescopes here on earth ?

How long does the dimming last anyway ?

>>8259251
>Do we need orbital telescopes for that ? Can't we use the star telescopes here on earth ?

We can use ground based telescopes. They're just not quite as good, and only work at night.

>How long does the dimming last anyway ?

A few days, I believe.

>>8259256
>a few days
Nice. We'll know if theres a dip or not atleast.

I hope they get Kepler running by then though.

>>8259262
>I hope they get Kepler running by then though.

Kepler is running, but it physically can't point itself like it used to with just two functioning reaction wheels, and needs to use passive stabilization to perform its stellar observation mission.

>>8259214
>...WTF do you think happens to ice in a goldilocks zone? Do you have any idea how common ice fucking is in the universe? (I'll give you a hint: it's in the top five most common molecular formations and found absolutely fucking everywhere.)
That means water can exist. It does not mean water does exits. It could be bone dry like Mars which still is (barely) within the Goldilocks zone.

Moreover the orbit could be bound in which case water from the day side would precipitate to the night side and get locked up there. Sure, it is H2O, it just is not water.

That is is about what helps, that is the point. And that list is what we have on Earth. We know it worked here so since the universe does not appear to be teeming with intelligent life the age old question is then to find what could possibly make Earth unique.

Sure, we might not need all to match to get life but for all we know we might need most of it.

I agree on the Drake equation though, it does not seem to provide us with any hjelp in this matter.

>100% of the planets we have comprehensively surveyed have intelligent live

Really makes you think

>>8259272
>earth has intelligent life

So as a pleb what the fuck is happening.

What is blocking the sun and the telescope?

>>8259537
This thread along with the 5000 previous ones were focused on discussing that very mystery, so the only thing we know is that we don't know for certain what it is.

But it's aliens.

>>8259537

>>8259537
>So as a pleb what the fuck is happening.
>What is blocking the sun and the telescope?

For once, absolutely nobody knows what's going on. Nothing like it has ever been seen before.

>>8259573
whats the mystery here ? isn't this whats going on ?

>>8259598

No. This kind of system is not capable of duplicating the behaviors observed.

>>8259598

The problem is objects around stars don't work like that. There's none of the usual signs of planet formation or debris collisions, just a bizarre amount of things orbiting the star that shouldn't really be like that.

>>8259573
lol wouldn't those objects get burnt

>>8259604
>not capable of duplicating the behaviors observed.
So they don't orbit the planet twice ?

>>8259605
Any celestial body crossing is enough to dim the light. Doesn't even need to orbit.

There's hardly any mystery here.

>>8259146
>>8259157
>>8259159

Looks like there's already a name for the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting

>>8259616
>So they don't orbit the planet twice ?

Not with this light curve. The Neptune comparison serves no other purpose than to highlight the scale involved.

>>8259616
Find me an object that can do that while so close, so quickly, without emitting any of the IR radiation that it should be picking up from the star, and isn't a black hole, and we'll talk.

Never ceases to amaze me how a few thousand trained scientists can look at something and go "WTF?" - and yet some random average Joe will come along and say, "Dudes, it's obvious!"... Fucking weed man.

>>8259621
Thats the second dip right ? The inconsistent dimmings clearly show that celestial bodies varying in size occluded the light coming from KIC. The inconsistency also eliminates any hypothetical open doors for something artifical.

As I said, there is nothing odd here.

>>8259616
IIRC non-orbiting phenomena were ruled out a while back but I might be misremembering.

>>8259628
Literally any celestial body.
>so close
We have zero data about the occluders distance. Your assumption is based on if the occluder is orbiting KIC.
It can be anything crossing between the billions of kilometers of distance between Kepler and KIC.

>>8259629
>The inconsistent dimmings clearly show that celestial bodies varying in size occluded the light coming from KIC.

It does nothing of the sort. The percentage of light blocked is too great, there's no wobble associated with sufficiently massive stellar companions within a dozen astronomical units of the star, and there's no sign of black body radiation associated with orbiting debris (and black body radiation will be present if stellar debris is present in this quantity, full stop). To top it all off, the overall luminosity of the star decreased by a full 2% over this observation period; no sensible collection of bodies can explain these trends. It's far more likely than a wholly unknown phenomena within the star itself is at play than orbital debris is blocking the light this way.

>>8259635

If it's something moving between the star and the observer then surely they would have noticed a similar phenomenon before on nearby stars? I know they dug out a bunch of records and tried to find similar patterns for this, it happened a bit after the initial paper.

>>8259635
There's this thing called spectrocity shift, we fucking know whatever's occluding the light is fucking close as fuck to that star, and it ain't occluding anything else.

We've, literally, ruled out every natural phenomenon we can think of. I'm not saying ayylmaos - but it's very likely something we ain't seen or theorized of before.

>>8259635
>We have zero data about the occluders distance. Your assumption is based on if the occluder is orbiting KIC.
>It can be anything crossing between the billions of kilometers of distance between Kepler and KIC.

What an observer sees in our solar system is not going to be affected by parallax without distances on the order of light years. The phenomenon's exclusivity to this star eliminates the possibility of it being caused by something in deep space.

>>8259637
>The percentage of light blocked is too great
Too great for what ? Where are you even coming up with these wierd comparisons ?
> there's no sign of black body radiation associated with orbiting debris
I can agree that its not debris
> the overall luminosity of the star decreased by a full 2% over this observation period
Which have implications that its losing mass, but thats all.

I have yet to see any reason to throw away all the plausible natural explainations that work and look elsewhere.

>>8259643
Can you show the paper you are basing your argument on what their assumption is related to the occluders distance ? Because I've never seen anything about its distance in any study about KIC ever.

>>8259651
>Too great for what ? Where are you even coming up with these wierd comparisons ?

Have you ever wondered how large of a circle you need to block out 22% of the area of another circle? To cut to the chase, it needs to have half the diameter of the larger circle. That's a lot of surface area to dim the star that much.

>Which have implications that its losing mass, but thats all.

We actually don't have implications that it's losing mass. Radial velocity measurements of the star (84 km/s, +/-4) remain constant within a margin of error of 400 m/s.

>I have yet to see any reason to throw away all the plausible natural explainations that work and look elsewhere.

Natural causes have not been ruled out. The list of celestial phenomena presently known to man have.

>>8259651
>I have yet to see any reason to throw away all the plausible natural explainations that work and look elsewhere.
We've spent the better half of the past decade systematically eliminating every natural possibility. We're out of them. So, either it's not natural, or, more likely, it's something we've not thought of before.

>>8259658
>We actually don't have implications that it's losing mass.
The lack of wobble rather precludes it losing mass, nothing large enough nearby to draw it off.

>>8259658
>Have you ever wondered how large of a circle you need to block out 22% of the area of another circle?
Oh wow, look at the moon. Just imagine how large the moon has to be to block out 100% of the light coming from something so gigantic as the sun.

No this is definitely a mystery. Maybe it's an alien mothership !

>>8259668
>The lack of wobble rather precludes it losing mass, nothing large enough nearby to draw it off.

Which would place any detectable loss of mass without an associated wobble within the realm of Star Lifters, but that's a bit of a moot point without some number crunching by those who are able.

>>8259675

I actually crunched the numbers on this one. Jupiter would need to be closer to Earth than KIC 8462852, which is 1,500 light years away, to block 22% of its light.

>>8259675
YES! YOU'RE A FUCKING GENIUS! WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT TO TEST FOR THIS SHIT!? WHY AREN'T YOU WORKING FOR NASA DAMNIT!?

>>8259680
>Jupiter would need to be closer to Earth than KIC 8462852, which is 1,500 light years away, to block 22% of its light.
Ok ? And you think it's impossible for the occluder to be less than 750 light years away ?

>>8259675
lmao what has /x/tards have to say against this ?

>>8259684
>Ok ? And you think it's impossible for the occluder to be less than 750 light years away ?

The occluder(s) have been determined to be within the gravity well of KIC 8462852. Which is to say, yes.

>>8259688
Can you refer to the paper you are citing this from ? I wanna clarify the assumed distance of the occluder.

>>8259692

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622.pdf

>>8259684
There's shitloads of stuff behind KIC 8462852, they measured over 500 stars all but overlapping it. None of them are dimming, so whatever is occluding it would have to be damned close to it.

Believe it or not, we did actually work out the science for telling how far away a celestial body or an umbra generated by one is, over a fucking century ago. So no, it isn't a Jupiter sized planet in perfect synchronous orbit half way between us that just happens to be passing back and forth on a perfectly aligned pendulum to create the illusion of periodic dimming at a distance - even if it was God just fucking with us (though I suppose it still could be God just fucking with us - just not by that method).

>>8259694
>In order to quantify what limits we can set on the mass of
an hypothetical close companion star, we carried out the following
analysis. We assumed a circular orbit because there are insufficient
data points to fit for the parameters in an eccentric orbit.
Their entire argument is based on an assumption of orbiting body but it's not based on any data, measurement or evidence. It even says in the paper that they calculated the orbiting occluder by the 2 year dimming period only if this is a case of orbiting.
So there isn't even any implication yet alone a measurement-based deduction that the occluder is in its orbit.

>>8259705

You're missing the obvious point that of the 150,000 stars in the Kepler Viewing Field, KIC 8462852 is the only star affected by the phenomenon.

>>8259705
There's no known physical mechanism that could cause the dimming without being an occluder. Since none of the stars behind it are dimming, we have to assume said occluder is in close orbit.

Either that, or there's something about how F type stars work that we don't know that can cause them to dim like this, despite the fact we can't observe the behavior in any other F type star - which would have implications nearly as interesting as aliums, as that means we've got some core principles of physics wrong.

>>8259708
But that has no indications alone. None of the other data gives any reason to assume anything odd about it. If the star is going through a different period and losing mass then these might be some effects we observe but whatever it is, it's gonna be something natural.

>>8259710
>Either that, or there's something about how F type stars work that we don't know that can cause them to dim like this, despite the fact we can't observe the behavior in any other F type star - which would have implications nearly as interesting as aliums, as that means we've got some core principles of physics wrong.

what would be the implications?

>>8259711

If you want to get more pedantic about the required distances, see section 4, under Scenario-Independent Constraints.

>>8259711
It might be something natural, indeed, it's probably something natural, but if it is, it's something we've never even theorized the existence of before. Thus, worth looking at.

>>8259711
>it's gonna be something natural.

Probable, but not certain.

>>8259713
You're asking me to predict the implications of us having core rules of physics wrong, without knowing how they are wrong?

Might be a trivial trick of light we hadn't thought of... Might indicate the beginnings of a false vacuum event destined to doom the universe... Might be the solution finally gives us ToE. Might be anything in-between. WTF knows. But it's worth checking out any which way.

That's why the lack of infrared radiation.

https://medium.com/@mickdarling/think-like-an-alien-engineer-a3b974582d9b#.txzw2qy45

>>8259915
Can you explain without your MSpaint artwork ?

>>8259923
Basically, they're dissipating all of the infrared radiation in a direction orthogonal to the orbital plane, meaning towards the north and south pole. Hence why we aren't detecting any IR.

Rembember, the REAL mystery here is no longer the presence of a giant ass artificial alien structure, IT'S THE LACK OF INFRARED!

Please, read the blogpost where this guy explains why they phyisically need to do this in order to maintain a stable orbit, otherwise they'd be screwed.

>>8259710
>Either that, or there's something about how F type stars work that we don't know that can cause them to dim like this, despite the fact we can't observe the behavior in any other F type star - which would have implications nearly as interesting as aliums, as that means we've got some core principles of physics wrong.

No, that doesn't follow. Just because certain stellar phenomena have never been predicted does not mean they cannot be described by today's physics.

Imagine this thing being a type of lighthouse signal by aliens to whoever can see it and we're the one's picking it up but can't decipher it.

Too bad it's not, people should stop saying it's aliens, it can't be.

>>8259944
Why is the lack of infrared a mystery ? Celestial bodies don't emit infrared.

ci join ##sci on freenode let's continue these discussions

webchat.freenode.net

/join ##sci

need to grow

>>8259944
>read the blogpost where this guy explains why they phyisically need to do this in order to maintain a stable orbit, otherwise they'd be screwed.
He hasn't thought it though correctly. It's blocking visible light (if it is an occulting body), we already know their would be an unbalanced force. Balancing the trust of infared emission is pointless when the absorbed light pressure is unbalanced. Leaving it to naturally radiate on the hot side would actually reduce the unbalanced force compared to his idea which would do nothing.

That engineer hasn't thought very hard about it. He's fixated on the infrared and forgotten what he's talking about.

There is still no evidence is a massive alien structure.

>>8258146
cuck

>>8259963
Yes they do.

>>8259675
Well, the show us your calculations. What produces the dips we see? How big are the planet(s) and how are they orbiting?

>>8259963
Pretty much everythin above 0K does.

>>8259975
So why is it a mystery if both planets and artificial structures emit infrared ?
...
oooohhh. shit.

>>8259996
Dude, you're not following.
THIS artificial structure is not emitting infrared.
At least not the HUGE amount it should be emitting given its size.

>>8260003
>THIS artificial structure
evidence of it being artificial ?

>>8259915
That assumes an alien mega structure. Scientists are first looking for a natural explanation before taking a tangent that presumes megastructures by intelligent life.

What could cause this?

>>8260016
muh dick

>>8260016
literally anything blocking the light.

>>8260012
Thanks god I'm not a scientist.
I'm free to speculate about all sort of things like these.

Besides, they literally ran out of ideas.

/sci/ join #sci on rizon.

https://rizon.net/chat

/join #sci

We need more /sci/ folks

>>8260035
Well, scientist are also free to speculate. Most astronomers are sci-fi fans.
But their job is it to explore the most likely cases first.

>>8260016
Infrared being absorbed

>>8260027
>>8260028
retards get out

>>8249905
>it is an unknown phenomenon therefore it's aliens.

>>8260050
Real channel is:

##sci on webchat.freenode.net

>>8260101
404 not found?

>>8260105
Copy paste
webchat.freenode.net into your browser

On Channels type ##sci

>>8260094
Yes, but this curve is very smooth. Can rocks or gas do that?

>>8260114
no. rocks and gas always produce a saw waves

ITS NOT FUCKING ALIENS

>>8260124
[citation needed]

>>8260124
You haven't proven that to my satisfaction ;^)

>>8260124
t. killjoy

Guys they said the star is continually dimming in addition to the drops in luminosity so what if it's just burning weirdly? Maybe it has some fucked up fusion reaction that causes it to momentarily lose power.

>>8260119
I guess changes in internal processes of the star then.

>>8260114
a large enough rock could do that

What do you guys think it's the structure?
I bet it's a Bernal Sphere.

https://medium.com/space-anthropology/three-visions-of-human-space-settlement-cfd64a6fe7c6#.5j6m42obb

>>8260169
>site looking like it was designed for phones
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

>>8260012

>implying life isn't a natural explanation

>>8260266
mega structures build by intelligent life are not natural

>>8259952
We've tested for everything predicted by today's physics. Thus, assuming it's a natural phenomenon, it's something new we've yet to predict, thus not predicted by today's physics, thus, yay, new physics.

Now, it maybe some combination or consequence of the existing rules we've never thought of before, but that'd still mean new consequences of physics that may force us to go back and rethink our predicted models of the universe.

Granted, given that we've turned our model of the universe on its head at least four times in the past century alone, that wouldn't be that surprising in the grand scheme. (But might some cause some conniption fits on this board, given the number of folks who assume we know all there is to know.)

The whole alien megastructure thing just kinda falls flat for me because I don't understand why you'd want to build something that big.

Space colonies, telescopes etc don't need to be anywhere near the size and if it's a Dyson swarm then it's got a lot of holes. I don't buy the whole giant signpost thing either because they'd have made it more obviously artificial so we wouldn't be arguing over it like we are now.

I think it's much more likely to be some sort of naturally-occurring thing.

>>8260612
Maybe it is their fleet

But seriously, I agree. But as >>8260597
pointed out, it is going to be something new and exciting either way.

>>8249923
Relativistic bombs are never not-threatening, and even a type1 civ can make them.

If i was of an ayyy lmao inclinaison, i'd genocide the shit out of everything i can spare the ressources for, and wiping humans is as simple as launching a big rock at a fraction of the speed of light towards a big dumb ball of rock since we're planetbound.

>>8260612
Well, the current idea behind mega solar collector arrays is to generate the power needed for artificial black holes created by laser arrays. You then power your ships off said. You'd also need such a beast if you wanted to create an artificial universe, after having discovered the top quark in this one isn't stable, or some such (don't ask me how you transfer your civilization to said artificial universe though).

Not that I think it's at all likely to be an artificial structure. I also think it likely that any species that isn't extremely resource conscious would fail to reach the technology level to be able to build such a thing, in addition to the fact that any space faring race would likely be wary of being detected by other such races, and thus, well, wouldn't build such a thing, even if it could... But there are theoretical uses for such ridiculous structures.

>>8260597

I'm rather of the opinion that most physicists don't understand most physics at all, but learned how to fake this well. A big part of the challenge is completely disregarding what 98% of all physicists have to say about physics. No one knows half as well as they think they do and most of them less still.

Healthy skepticism is healthy.

>>8256075
This. Fucking this.
>>8256249
>Strictly speaking no.
Yes. Do you think earth is the only place where "complex" molecules like amino acids etc.exist? And who says they have to be the initial building blocks for self-replicators anyway?
>A near by supernova will bathe the entire planet in a neutrino flux that will shred molecules throughout the entire cross section of the planet.
You realize that neutrinos only interact through the weak force, right?

>>8260631

Yeah, but our planet is moving.

>>8260631
>genocide other races
>more advanced races see you genociding other races
>they genocide you
Best is just to stay unnoticed, son.

>>8260631

Logically speaking there's no reason to destroy an alien civilization from a long distance away. The likelihood of them killing you first is counterbalanced by the potential value of what another intelligent species might develop, in terms of technology or science. Considering the fragility of life, the unknown number of potential civilizations within reach and the potential benefits to communication, it'd be wasteful to preemptively wipe them out just in case.

>>8260648
While, unlike most people on /sci/, I'm fairly confident they know, collectively, way the fuck more than I do, I am totally on board with the fact that we're similarly all collectively pic related. So many of us are so damned confident that we know everything there is to know about the universe, or at the very least, that everything we know is so absolutely true and unquestionable, it's refreshing to have a star come along and do something wonky enough to remind us of just how false and fragile that assumption is.

Someone has to remind Scotty that the laws of physics defy themselves just fine, every once in awhile, because we didn't write them.

>>8260636

But wouldn't an advanced civ just skim off ZPE?

>>8260670
Assuming it's a thing, and you can get a fair amount of energy out of it.

...A little black hole will get you hundreds of petra-watts for years... Assuming a lot of other stuff.

Invariably, there's a lotta assuming with all this stuff.

>>8260657
In a very predictable way.
>>8260660
Hard to stay unnoticed if even some intelligent monkeys from a backwater planet can see you.

Seriously though guys, it's not alliums. Get over yourselves.

>>8258130

No because life is magic right? :^)

>>8260597
>We've tested for everything predicted by today's physics. Thus, assuming it's a natural phenomenon, it's something new we've yet to predict, thus not predicted by today's physics, thus, yay, new physics.

Astrophysics is one of the least precise sciences. A 20% error bar on the diameter of a star is currently a precision measurement. Nobody has particularly good data on stellar dynamics. New astrophysical phenomena broaden our understanding of the Universe, but new physics are not required; the function of existing stars with known physical principles is still largely a mystery.

>>8261041
no anon, life isn't magic :(
>>>/x/

>>8261160

>20% error bar

That's about what I figured. I imagine that error bar was a lot higher as little as 100 years ago.

I'm stating the obvious here, but the greater the distances involved + the lack of a thorough understanding of stellar processes will continue to yield uncertainty for years to come.

Eventually breakthroughs will happen, including fusion power. I think our understanding of how stars form and operate may improve by several orders of magnitude once we succeed in understanding and building our very first self contained fusion reactor.

Or, vice versa. However given the size and complexity of building a space probe that can peer into the inner workings of a star...the chances of us building such a power reactor that would yield a better understanding is greater than the alternative.

>>8261180

Nice of you to visit from your paranormal board, but please go back. :^)

>>8261203
Yep. Whoever spergs about ayylmaos with their baseless unscientific assumptions on /sci/ should get permabanned. You agree right friend ? :^)

>>8261212

I'd say it's fairly unscientific to discount ET constructs without consideration. But you know that already don't you cuck cuck :^)

>>8261222
how am I not surprised by your ayylmao sperging without any scientific basis

>>>/x/

>>>/x/

>>>/x/

>>8259657
are you really this retarded?

>>8261243
back to >>>/x/

>>8261160
>A 20% error bar on the diameter of a star is currently a precision measurement
At 1500 light years? This thing is relatively close as observations go. I mean we can make it out clearly enough to do the spectrocity and count up the hydrogen lines to classify it as F-type.

...and you'd definitely need some new physics to have that kinda light dip from an F-type star without an occluder being involved, especially since no other such star is doing any such thing, and there's a lot of such type stars in view, plenty of them a whole lot closer.

I mean, yeah, there maybe some nuances of star function we're not aware of, but the whole fusion function is pretty well established, and if the sun suddenly turned pink for a year, physics would be BTF back to the drawing board trying to explain that shit.

>>8261271

>Turning pink

Or, say, purple

>>8260016
a fly might have passed infront of the lens

next question

>>8259166
well i only found out about this after i watched the TED talk about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gypAjPp6eps

i also think this video will be interesting for some people, its about trying to find alien civilizations by detecting specific infraded radiation

>>8261672
wow, i forgot to post the second link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7tDy_QC0M

It's pathetic how religioncucks feel the need to shut down any notion of extraterrestrial life.