That Signal Wasn't Aliens — It Was Coming From Earth

The WOW signal has never had an explenation.

>Are the signals we send between each other and satelites detectable from other parts of the universe given enough time?
Probably not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Humans_are_not_listening_properly
>with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years,

And at interstellar distances CMBR probably drowns out such weak signals, regardless of the sensitivity of alien receivers.

>>First the WOW signal
>its fucking nothing
>>then Tabbys star
>its fucking nothing
We still don't have a plausible explanation for the WOW signal, and Tabby's star is also unexplained.
That doesn't mean "aliens", but nobody's been BTFO, either.

As expected.
Why are we even looking for them.
>Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute
what a meme

DELET THIS

NOBODY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH

>what a meme
>anyone who doesn't agree with my unsupported speculation is a moron

wew, lad

WOW signal was manmade as well. Just as this one.
Tabbys star has a natural light dimming. There isn't even a mystery there. Also we've been listening to it for a long time on many frequencies and theres no sign of alien life there.

Deal with it cumkid :^) There is no indication of alien life anywhere in the universe.

Thanks for the link. Been reading for a while, cheers.

Thanks for the link. Been reading for a while, cheers.

>Tabbys star has a natural light dimming

Caused by what?

Celestial bodies crossing between us and KIC

>WOW signal was manmade as well. Just as this one.
[citation needed]
It's been almost 40 years, and we still don't know the origin.
>Tabbys star has a natural light dimming.
This one's even worse. There's nothing in astrophysics that could explain the dimming, OR the periodic dips in output.
Calling it "natural" is probably a safe guess, but that's all it is: a guess.

>There is no indication of alien life anywhere in the universe.
I never said here was. I'm just disputing the allegations that WOW and Tabby have been explained.

celestial bodies that have only affect KIC and not the other stars nearby or the ones that it overlaps?

>It's been almost 40 years, and we still don't know the origin.
It's a signal caught just like any other signal or noise we send each other everyday a few thousand times. Just like this one. When will you learn ?

>There's nothing in astrophysics that could explain the dimming,
There are lots of scientific explainations, none of which involves ayylium spheres :^)
It's most likely a celestial body
>or the periodic dips in output.
You need atleast 3 dips to mark any interval. So far we had 2 random spikes, one in 2013 and one in 2015. celestial bodies easily explain the inconsistent dimming profiles and inconsistent timeline for any periodical dips.

Why the hell would it ?

Why wouldn't it? KIC as a light source from our perspective is right up balls-close with other stars, yet those stars don't show any sign of the same dimming that blocks 40% of KIC's light.

its 22%, not 40. anything passing by needs to be in the exact trajectory and distance to block any other neighbouring stars which is quite hard.

I knew it would be a sham.

>Just get used to the fact that we won't find alien life out there ever.

You can't say that but I'd say it's the most likely outcome.

>It's a signal caught just like any other signal or noise we send each other everyday
It might be. Or maybe not. It could be a natural phenomenon. Or maybe (longshot) it was aliens.
The source is still undetermined, 40 years later, despite your ipse dixit insistence otherwise.

>There are lots of scientific explainations, none of which involves ayylium spheres :^)
And a few that DO involve ayyliums.

The only way we can judge/measure the rarity of intelligent life is to see how rare the signs of such life is.
If WOW and Tabby are unrelated to intelligence, then we have no signs of E.T.'s and we could conclude the rarity is very high.
Conversely, if one or both are signs of intelligent life, then aliens aren't as rare as you'd like to believe.

You're relying on you own belief to interpret the evidence, then you interpret it in a way that supports your belief.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You're right, my mistake. Still, from Earth's position I doubt that the pattern wouldn't affect the other stars next to KIC, or that this has never happened anywhere else.

I don't believe in things with no evidence. You're the one trying to insert your manchildren fantasies about ayyliums with zero scientific basis or evidence and everything we experienced so far has proven to show no sign of alien life, which turned out to be some misinterpretation, a manmade signal or just an error in the telescopes.

Sorry cumkid, but your little green man tinfoiling belongs to

Shut up Veeky Forums stop using reason and let me believe in aliens

>Ayys don't exist
When the 2022 NASA Europa rover mission finds space squid you will cry.

Will it be powered by the meme drive to get there?

Sure I will. Space is filled with squids amirite ;-)

You won't be laughing when they bring back one of these and it escapes and eats you

You wish buttboy. Aliens donut real :^)

>I don't believe in things with no evidence
An absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
ESPECIALLY if you're going to dismiss potential evidence (long shot though it may be).

>You're the one trying to insert your manchildren fantasies about ayyliums
Nope, please actually read my posts:
>I'm just disputing the allegations that WOW and Tabby have been explained.

>everything we experienced so far has proven to show no sign of alien life,
That's just not the case.
Both Tabby and Wow have NOT been "proven to show no sign of alien life,"
Both are still unexplained, which is the only claim I've ever made.

>11GHz
>1GHz bandwidth

That's a big signal

It could be from a fucking broadcasting satellite as it's 11GHz ish.

Imagine that
>WE'VE GOT A MESSAGE FROM ALIENS
>it's a Sky cooking channel

Yfw this entire universes existence is some kind of signal from something "beyond" that wants to be known

Sorry buttkid, but aliens are never included in the list of possible explaination for these signals :^)

>implying aliens haven't already been to earth
They just have no reason to come back

>An absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Congrats, you just made the same argument that Creationists make when educated people ask them for evidence of G-d

lmao didn't expect anything else

>a Sky cooking channel
KEK

Nope, they dissipate out very quickly

COVERUP

Let me guess, their explanation was the signal bounced off of space rubbish and pinged back down to Earth?

Let me guess, you find ayylmaos more plausible than a simple refracted signal?

No but if they were covering something up it would be an easy cover story.

the people who believe in aliens never committed to the signal
we know they're here because pilots astronauts etc caught on radar etc
so, not really btfo
I personally never cared about the signal threads since the results were so ambiguous

Even the SETI guy said this signal is most likely nothing and it's fairly common, only idiots were excited by it.

Meanwhile Tabby's star only gets more and more interesting, it's not comparable.

>literally 1 gorillion planets exist
>ours is the only one with life

yeah good thing we're in the center of the solar system and universe, too, right

Well, show me 1 other planet with life.

Pro-tip: you can't, and will never be able to.

>X exists
>Therefore Y exists
>Even though X has no direct effect or cause on Y

your /x/ tier fallacies belong to

this is the reason why it was a huge mistake to educate the pleb. Unhealthy skepticism out of your ass, and sadly most of it doesn't come from a lack of knowledge, but a feeble emotional scumberg, probably molested as a child by illegal aliens

it's not a fallacy

it's called induction

It's called spouting bullshit with zero evidence.

Life is a natural process.
We know of one planet with potential to harbor life (as we know it), Mars,Venus and Europa come close so that's 4 potential planets just in our solar system.

Intelligent life is much much harder tho but not really /x/ since we already know of one intelligent civilization, if it happened once there's nothing stopping it from happening somewhere else.

agreed, problem is some people think with their feelings, it feels like we are all alone in the universe, the earth feels flat...

>www.popsci.com
>reputable
Pick one.

I guess SETI's official statement they quoted isn't reputable anymore either since it's been featured in this website.

Inverse square law and background noise. All electromagnetic signals, once far enough away from the source, fall off as 1 / r^2. If there were absolutely no background noise in the universe, then in principle you could still detect any signal from an arbitrary distance, if you have a sensitive enough detector and wait long enough to integrate the signal. But, since the universe IS filled with background radiation at all frequencies (e.g. cosmic microwave background, radio waves from stars, etc.) then once your signal becomes significantly weaker than this background noise, it becomes difficult or impossible to recover the signal.

Also I suggest you look up the concept of "signal to noise ratio" or SNR.

>All electromagnetic signals, once far enough away from the source, fall off as 1 / r^2

Just to be clear what I meant by this, in case any pedants try to correct me. EM fields from things like dipoles, quadrupoles, etc. can fall off even more rapidly than 1/r^2. But the inverse square falloff is the *best case* that you can ever achieve. Radio antennas, visible light sources, even highly-collimated highly-coherent sources like lasers eventually suffer from 1/r^2 losses.

Only isotropic transmissions have inverse square law decay. A focused beam of signal have nothing on its path in empty space to prevent it from reaching another star sytem. The background noise is still an issue for sure but you can find the common denominators from a repeating signal to filter out the background noise to a good degree.

Nope. Even a tightly focused beam eventually spreads out according to the inverse square law. It is literally impossible to collimate an EM beam so that it is completely parallel and divergence-free. Read about the diffraction limit.

The divergence angle is determined by the wavelength of light and the diameter of the aperture of the source. Any source of finite width will necessarily produce a beam with some non-zero divergence.

*tips fedora*

You can expect a tiny divergence which doesn't decay it nearly as much as inverse square.

No. At long distances, beyond the beam waist, any beam will look like a cone. The cross-sectional area A of a cone at a distance r from the apex is proportional to r^2. Hence, the power per unit area falls off as 1/r^2.

Read about "diffraction limit". Look up "diffraction-limited beam", which is a beam with the lowest possible divergence. It still eventually falls off as 1/r^2 at large distances.

Again, I'm not refuting the fact that there is a divergence and decay. I'm saying it's not as big as inverse square and still has enough intensity to reach to other star systems. And a consecutive signal will take care of the background noise problem.

Ok. I think maybe we're each trying to answer different questions here. Originally, this guy asked:
>Are the signals we send between each other and satelites detectable from other parts of the universe given enough time?

Then another user said "no" and the original guy asked "why?". So my interpretation of the question is:

> Can the signals we send out be detected from arbitrarily large distances?

To which my answer is "no" because of the inverse-square law and background noise.

I think the answer you're trying to answer is:

> Could we, in principle, send signals to other star systems

To which I would agree with you that the answer would be "yes". And a tightly-collimated beam would be the best way of doing so. And if your source has a wide enough aperture and/or you're using a short enough wavelength, then you should be able to focus the beam such that the beam waist occurs at the target star system. The signal divergence over this distance would be small, and would NOT be governed by the inverse-square law. So I think we can both agree on that.

However, when you go significantly beyond the beam waist, then the signal WILL begin to diverge according to the inverse square law. Check out the diagram taken from this page:

k3pgp.org/Notebook/Lasersam/laserioi.htm#ioicdf0a

in particular, read the context surrounding this sentence:

> This equation (and the normal inverse square law for light intensity) really only applies at distances from the laser which are beyond the Rayleigh Length (well beyond the beam waist)

Yeah I guess it had to be clarified. I have no objections to that post.

The first signal of a dead world. They most likely have gone extinct or gave up and conquered the galaxy when we weren't looking.