Support NeoGAF

[Joey Fox]

Because science doesn't work like that.

When faced with something completely unexpected, you must be extra careful not to be fooled by your own biases and errors. If this means you have to work hard to rule out every other possibility first, then you have to do that.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

A sun-sized triangle is most rationally explained by intelligent manufacture, and to ignore that in the research paper was not helpful to anyone with the more evidence-supported hypothesis.

What makes triangular comet cloud better to hypothesize than intelligent design when we ourselves are intelligent and design? Who are we trying to appease?

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

 

[curls]

NASA is working on EM Drive.

Not just lttp NASA dude. Many groups are. The Chinese have developed a theory and are testing a more powerful drive. The Brits under the original inventor Roger Shawyer are developing their 2nd generation superconducting EM drive. plus some other competing groups.

Begun the EM drive race has.

 

[Nilaul]

I've tried that in the "Universe Sandbox" and it was exactly what happend. Pretty amazing software.

Our reality is just someones universe sandbox from the year 3000.

 

[Quazar]

That sucks. Nothing yet, not even a more plausible explanation.

 

[3phemeral]

A sun-sized triangle is most rationally explained by intelligent manufacture, and to ignore that in the research paper was not helpful to anyone with the more evidence-supported hypothesis.

What makes triangular comet cloud better to hypothesize than intelligent design when we ourselves are intelligent and design? Who are we trying to appease?

For that to be the final assessment, they'd have to rule out a lot of possibilities, plus think of other things which they may have never thought of before but are far more likely than an intelligently-designed spacecraft. "Every other explanation remains insufficient to explain this phenomenon, so it must be aliens" sounds a lot like another argument...

 

[Abstruse Moose]

For that to be the final assessment, they'd have to rule out a lot of possibilities, plus think of other things which they may have never thought of before but are far more likely than an intelligently-designed spacecraft. "Every other explanation remains insufficient to explain this phenomenon, so it must be aliens" sounds a lot like another argument...

Agreed. The science behind what we're seeing will eventually reveal itself. Everything is just speculation until then. Exciting speculation.

 

[Tapiozona]

Wouldn't anything with that much mass automatically become a sphere due to gravity? There's a reason why planets and stars are round.

 

[Joey Fox]

For that to be the final assessment, they'd have to rule out a lot of possibilities, plus think of other things which they may have never thought of before but are far more likely than an intelligently-designed spacecraft. "Every other explanation remains insufficient to explain this phenomenon, so it must be aliens" sounds a lot like another argument...

The way gravity works debunks your argument that other natural phenomena are more likely than intelligently designed spacecraft. But instead of people using their brains and acknowledging and preparing for the probability of super-advanced aliens, we'll waste 50 years for better and better telescopes to disprove more and more far-fetched hypotheses. Super.

 

[3phemeral]

The way gravity works debunks your argument that other natural phenomena are more likely than intelligently designed spacecraft. But instead of people using their brains and acknowledging and preparing for the probability of super-advanced aliens, we'll waste 50 years for better and better telescopes to disprove more and more far-fetched hypotheses. Super.

You seem awfully certain that it's intelligently designed without having evidence for it. As I implied earlier, lack of evidence for other phenomenon isn't evidence for aliens.

There's a lot about space we don't know about and it's far more likely it's a phenomenon we've yet to observe. You're pontificating some future scenario where we're unprepared for some eventual alien encounter. I'm not following your thought process when you say "We'll waste time building bigger telescopes to disprove far-fetched theories." Disproving theories isn't really the point. It's finding the truth. Isn't that the most important thing?

 

[HTupolev]

we'll waste 50 years for better and better telescopes to disprove more and more far-fetched hypotheses.

Alternate reality where the scientists are debating between what sort of alien civilization it is, but there's a natural explanation that wasn't talked about in a single research paper:

we'll waste 50 years for better and better telescopes to disprove more and more far-fetched hypotheses.

 

[Joey Fox]

You seem awfully certain that it's intelligently designed without having evidence for it. As I implied earlier, lack of evidence for other phenomenon isn't evidence for aliens.

There's a lot about space we don't know about and it's far more likely it's a phenomenon we've yet to observe. You're pontificating some future scenario where we're unprepared for some eventual alien encounter. I'm not following your thought process when you say "We'll waste time building bigger telescopes to disprove far-fetched theories." Disproving theories isn't really the point. It's finding the truth. Isn't that the most important thing?

Honest investigation would satisfy me. State artificial dimming as the best-fit model based on logic and try to disprove it. This back-end whispering to get SETI to investigate it is disingenuous.

 

[Quazar]

Honest investigation would satisfy me. State artificial dimming as the best-fit model based on logic and try to disprove it. This back-end whispering to get SETI to investigate it is disingenuous.

Can you go into more details? What other options besides SETI?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Honest investigation would satisfy me. State artificial dimming as the best-fit model based on logic and try to disprove it. This back-end whispering to get SETI to investigate it is disingenuous.

Assuming the coolest explanation and then waiting for someone to disprove it is not how good science is done.

 

[gutshot]

SETI says no evidence of deliberate radio signals:

http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/press-release/looking-deliberate-radio-signals-kic-8462852

Disappointing, but I expected this. It doesn't necessarily disprove the alien hypothesis either. 1400ly is a long way off so unless they are producing ridiculously strong radio waves or they happen to be pointing them right at us, we would not be able to detect them.

 

[Joey Fox]

Assuming the coolest explanation and then waiting for someone to disprove it is not how good science is done.

I said best-fit not coolest. Show me a natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass.

 

[Quazar]

Assuming the coolest explanation and then waiting for someone to disprove it is not how good science is done.

I guess there is an argument to be made on this. Maybe if we did approach everything more geared to finding life, we'd generate more funding and excitement towards the search for ET. Countless discoveries come from projects that weren't even geared for those discoveries.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I said best-fit not coolest. Show me a natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass.

Oh, we're going off of precedent? Okay, I'll look for one of those, you look for an alien mega-structure. First one back wins.

 

[Kettch]

I said best-fit not coolest. Show me a natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass.

Show me an artificial triangle in outer space of any significant mass.

We have a long history of discovering unexplained objects and processes in space that have so far all ended up being natural. Little green men haven't explained any of them yet. It makes sense to keep an open mind, but you can assume that it's most likely a natural object that we don't yet understand.

 

[Joey Fox]

Oh, we're going off of precedent? Okay, I'll look for one of those, you look for an alien mega-structure. First one back wins.

All I need to do is hold a triangle in front of a lightbulb to beat you in terms of proof of concept.

 

[Quazar]

Joey is good.

 

[Ettie]

When they say triangle, does that refer to both the general shape as well as the defined edge along the length? Could this be a cone, or funnel shape?

 

[Badlucktroll]

Maybe in the dying moments of their civilization. they built a beacon, shaped like a triangle, to show other species looking to see if they are alone in the universe, that they are not alone in the infinite blackness. A big shape orbiting the star intended to say (you are not alone)

 

[Orbis Tabula]

All I need to do is hold a triangle in front of a lightbulb to beat you in terms of proof of concept.

My claim isn't that artificial triangles don't exist. It's that enormous, triangular alien mega-structures probably occur with less frequency in the universe than natural vaguely triangular shaped objects. Given that, showing me a triangle in front of a lightbulb doesn't establish much more than "triangles exist" and "they can be opaque."

I mean, you should clearly be able to see that you're not comparing apples and oranges here. You required me to show a "natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass" while you just need to show "an artifical triangle." Shouldn't your requirement also be a triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass?

 

[maquiladora]

Disappointing, but I expected this. It doesn't necessarily disprove the alien hypothesis either. 1400ly is a long way off so unless they are producing ridiculously strong radio waves or they happen to be pointing them right at us, we would not be able to detect them.

Indeed. It was worth a shot, but always a remote chance we'd detect anything being beamed towards us. Hopefully we'll get a better understanding of what we are seeing from more observations in the future. This mystery is very much still a mystery.

 

[HTupolev]

When they say triangle, does that refer to both the general shape as well as the defined edge along the length? Could this be a cone, or funnel shape?

They have no concept whatsoever of the edge-shape of the object. A triangle is merely one shape that could cross in front of a light while causing the dimming pattern being seen.

I said best-fit not coolest. Show me a natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass.

You mean like the central brightness profile of the small magellanic cloud as viewed from Earth?

If we're not requiring truly perfect long-term stability, there are tons of triangular things out in the cosmos*. Hence why the proposed explanations frequently involve an object disrupting the solar system in some way or another.

*And heck, there are actually some stable triangular arrangements, although AFAIK not in terms of profile occlusion. There's an asteroid that share's the Earth's orbit around the sun to form a stable 3-point Earth/Asteroid/Sun system, for instance.

All I need to do is hold a triangle in front of a lightbulb to beat you in terms of proof of concept.

All that demonstrates is that an opaque triangle can occlude light, which doesn't make the aliens hypothesis any more likely than the alternatives.

 

[d00d3n]

Reapers

 

[Joey Fox]

All that demonstrates is that an opaque triangle can occlude light, which doesn't make the aliens hypothesis any more likely than the alternatives.

It demonstrates that an intelligent being can occlude light with a triangle.

The Magellanic Cloud part of your post was enlightening though, thanks for sharing. I didn't think any other stars were close enough for that theory to make sense, but I am not a scientist.

 

[Quazar]

Maybe in the dying moments of their civilization. they built a beacon, shaped like a triangle, to show other species looking to see if they are alone in the universe, that they are not alone in the infinite blackness. A big shape orbiting the star intended to say (you are not alone)

Doesn't have to be a dying civilization. 😜

 

[Tapiozona]

It demonstrates that an intelligent being can occlude light with a triangle.

The Magellanic Cloud part of your post was enlightening though, thanks for sharing. I didn't think any other stars were close enough for that theory to make sense, but I am not a scientist.

Clearly.

Quoting for reference...

My claim isn't that artificial triangles don't exist. It's that enormous, triangular alien mega-structures probably occur with less frequency in the universe than natural vaguely triangular shaped objects. Given that, showing me a triangle in front of a lightbulb doesn't establish much more than "triangles exist" and "they can be opaque."

I mean, you should clearly be able to see that you're not comparing apples and oranges here. You required me to show a "natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass" while you just need to show "an artifical triangle." Shouldn't your requirement also be a triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass?

 

[Quazar]

Clearly.

Quoting for reference...

That might not even be true as we have no clue what it is yet. To claim one or the other at this point is both asinine. There is no basis. The fact is, in 150000 stars this is the only one we've discovered like this. I'd say this is a case to rule out ET as much as possible, and in doing so you'll still make the discoveries you need.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

All I need to do is hold a triangle in front of a lightbulb to beat you in terms of proof of concept.

 

[Skinpop]

about the "triangle". It's my understanding that they haven't seen any kind of triangle. The instruments probably lack the fidelity to make out geometric shapes like that. What they've seen looking at the data is that there is an ease in dimming and a sharp cut off where it ends. A triangle is just an easy to understand example to explain how that could work. But you could imagine the same scenario with some blob of thick dust where one part is denser than the other(though that's been ruled out?).

 

[Quazar]

about the "triangle". It's my understanding that they haven't seen any kind of triangle. The instruments probably lack the fidelity to make out geometric shapes like that. What they've seen looking at the data is that there is an ease in dimming and a sharp cut off where it ends. A triangle is just an easy to understand example to explain how that could work. But you could imagine the same scenario with some blob of thick dust where one part is denser than the other(though that's been ruled out?).

Ruled out

 

[Bob Coffee]

In any case despite no radio siginals, doesnt mean we shouldnt get our science on and invetigate what ever this thing is alien or not. If its not aliens, its an intresting new phenomenon. If its aliens, then we awnser the question are we alone in the universe.

 

[maquiladora]

Donate now to increase the numbers of frames in this gif. Save a gif today.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

I've been thinking up natural scenarios where you'd get "triangular" dimming like this. All I can think of would be a hot Jupiter that was hit by a large, fast-moving object that either glanced it or pushed right on through and out the other side. You might end up with an occlusive gas cloud stretching out deep into space on one side, but relatively little thrown off matter on the impact side.

If the event happened very recently, it might explain why gravity hasn't done its work yet in regathering it all back together.

It would have to be a heck of a coincidence for something like that to occur at just the time that we've developed orbital telescopes, but I still think it more likely than us being able to see the relics of a space faring civilisation.

Spoiler

As much as the prospect excites me, unfortunately.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

but I am not a scientist.

That much is obvious.

 

[FyreWulff]

I've been thinking up natural scenarios where you'd get "triangular" dimming like this.

It can happen earlier in a sun/planet system's formation, naturally. It's strange though, because the star is old enough to where all of it's planetary discs should have turned into actual spherical planets by now.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

It can happen earlier in a sun/planet system's formation, naturally. It's strange though, because the star is old enough to where all of it's planetary discs should have turned into actual spherical planets by now.

That's why I came up with the hot Jupiter hit by a rogue planet idea. It would explain the weird dimming effect without having to invoke a phenomenon that has never been observed.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

That's why I came up with the hot Jupiter hit by a rogue planet idea. It would explain the weird dimming effect without having to invoke a phenomenon that has never been observed.

Would debris from an impact like that stay in a huge cluster like that and steadily stay in orbit?
Or wait.. a hot jupiter... what would that sort of impact cause? Lots of debris? Just a big cloud?

 

[pringles]

SETI says no evidence of deliberate radio signals:

http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/press-release/looking-deliberate-radio-signals-kic-8462852

Would have been insane if they found signals. Considering the distance and the requirements for signals to make it all the way here, I don't think this totally rules out something artificial. Still very, very curious about this and hope they can find out more about it.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

A sun-sized triangle is most rationally explained by intelligent manufacture, and to ignore that in the research paper was not helpful to anyone with the more evidence-supported hypothesis.

What makes triangular comet cloud better to hypothesize than intelligent design when we ourselves are intelligent and design? Who are we trying to appease?

I said best-fit not coolest. Show me a natural triangle shape in outer space of any significant mass.

That's not how intelligent speculation works...

If you encounter something that doesn't appear to resemble any familiar phenomena, what point is there to ascribe it to one particular imaginary concept and not another?

If it's not anything we've seen before, it could be a billion billion other things we haven't seen before. Arbitrarily narrowing down the possibilities without any data to support such a process is just wishful thinking.

And as far as hypothesizing that it might be a structure constructed by intelligent life forms, looking for certain radio frequencies is a pretty good way to go about investigating such a possibility, given the limited tools and knowledge at our disposal. So I'm not sure what more could be done that isn't being done, in your opinion.

 

[Crispy75]

Because science doesn't work like that.

When faced with something completely unexpected, you must be extra careful not to be fooled by your own biases and errors. If this means you have to work hard to rule out every other possibility first, then you have to do that.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

Also

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman

 

[Impulsor]

In any case, whatever we are seeing over there, happened 1480 years ago. So... two possibilities if it turns out to really be Aliens:

a)The Aliens are extinct.
b)The Aliens kept advancing....

Yeah.

Awesome!

 

[ultratruman]

Or George Lucas had a good telescope.

Lucas is one of them.

 

[jiggle]

Well that's rather disappointing

 

[Lord Thrappleper The 49th]

We should put up a wall to prevent those dirty benefit scrounging allens from getting onto earth.

 

[Joey Fox]

That's not how intelligent speculation works...

If you encounter something that doesn't appear to resemble any familiar phenomena, what point is there to ascribe it to one particular imaginary concept and not another?

If it's not anything we've seen before, it could be a billion billion other things we haven't seen before. Arbitrarily narrowing down the possibilities without any data to support such a process is just wishful thinking.

And as far as hypothesizing that it might be a structure constructed by intelligent life forms, looking for certain radio frequencies is a pretty good way to go about investigating such a possibility, given the limited tools and knowledge at our disposal. So I'm not sure what more could be done that isn't being done, in your opinion.

What could be done is honest writing in the research paper.

Consider the "Where's The Flux" abstract:

Over the duration of the Kepler mission, KIC 8462852 was observed to undergo irregularly shaped, aperiodic dips in flux down to below the 20% level. The dipping activity can last for between 5 and 80 days. We characterize the object with high-resolution spectroscopy, spectral energy distribution fitting, and Fourier analyses of the Kepler light curve. We determine that KIC 8462852 is a main-sequence F3 V/IV star, with a rotation period ~0.88 d, that exhibits no significant IR excess. In this paper, we describe various scenarios to explain the mysterious events in the Kepler light curve, most of which have problems explaining the data in hand. By considering the observational constraints on dust clumps orbiting a normal main-sequence star, we conclude that the scenario most consistent with the data is the passage of a family of exocomet fragments, all of which are associated with a single previous breakup event. We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system.

The scenario most consistent with the data is a passage of exocomet fragments? Has that been observed before? If exocomet fragments are the most consistent explanation then this thread wouldn't exist and SETI would not have pointed it's radio arrays at the star.

And the "necessity of future observations" part is so disingenuous. Nowhere in the research article is SETI mentioned.

Just say aliens are taboo in science and be done with it. Our very intelligence and existence make study of whether the occlusions are megastructures not only appropriate, but potentially the most important use of resources for published research.

 

[Red]

What could be done is honest writing in the research paper.

Consider the "Where's The Flux" abstract:



The scenario most consistent with the data is a passage of exocomet fragments? Has that been observed before? If exocomet fragments are the most consistent explanation then this thread wouldn't exist and SETI would not have pointed it's radio arrays at the star.

And the "necessity of future observations" part is so disingenuous. Nowhere in the research article is SETI mentioned.

Just say aliens are taboo in science and be done with it. Our very intelligence and existence make study of whether the occlusions are megastructures not only appropriate, but potentially the most important use of resources for published research.

You suggest this thread would not exist if extraterrestrial intelligence was not the most likely explanation for this anomaly. There was a thread on GAF about a large-breasted ghost woman on Mars. Scientists said she was an illusion in the Martian rocks. Does your reasoning carry over to that one as well?