Fermi Paradox solved? (Possible evidence of Alien life)

[connor_in]

I've always struggled with....

Where did the Megaverse come from.

Did God create it?

If so, who created God, and who created those that created God... infinite...

Also, I think it's just plain stupid for us to believe that we are the only intelligent life out there given the size of the Megaverse,,,,, if one believes in simple and logical mathematics/statistics...

All that said, I do believe in a hire being (God). I'm also pretty sure I'm not smart enough to understand who/how/why... perhaps I'll get some answers in the next life (assuming...)

Just curious...why "megaverse"? Universe not encompassing enough? Do you feel universe is not inclusive of other dimensions?

 

[kmoose]

“Aliens should always be the very last hypothesis you consider," Penn State astronomer Jason Wright told The Atlantic, "but this looked like something you would expect an alien civilization to build.”

Really? There's no proof of life outside of Earth, but now we have expectations for the types of structures that they might build? We don't even know if they will need physical constructs, but we know what those physical constructs would likely look like?

I'm open to the idea of life in the Universe, but THIS GUY isn't helping convert anyone who isn't.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I used faith and reason as spring board to my strong beliefs today(I was a very vocal Atheist in my 20's).After much reading and studying I just didn't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Don't want to turn this into a religious thread, but I've never understood this argument. I do not have faith in the non-existence of the Christian god anymore than I have faith that there isn't an Easter bunny or any other mythical being. Faith doesn't play a role in my non- belief.

 

[Cali_domer]

Don't want to turn this into a religious thread, but I've never understood this argument. I do not have faith in the non-existence of the Christian god anymore than I have faith that there isn't an Easter bunny or any other mythical being. Faith doesn't play a role in my non- belief.

For me to look out at the cosmos and the fine tuning of the universe(among other things) it takes a leap of faith to say it was all an accident.

I'm not here to debate or muck up this thread. I came to my conclusion with faith and reason. If you want to talk more we can do it through PM.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Really? There's no proof of life outside of Earth, but now we have expectations for the types of structures that they might build? We don't even know if they will need physical constructs, but we know what those physical constructs would likely look like?

I'm open to the idea of life in the Universe, but THIS GUY isn't helping convert anyone who isn't.

The idea behind the dyson sphere is that whatever the specific nature of an advanced civilization, we'd expect their need for energy to increase with time. Because many solar systems formed billions of years earlier than our own, we'd also expect* that there are civilizations out there that are billions of years more advanced than our own. It makes some degree of sense that they would attempt to directly harvest energy from their sun.

But yeah, it's a pretty far out idea, and these guys certainly aren't claiming they've found proof of advanced life or anything.

 

[Irish YJ]

Just curious...why "megaverse"? Universe not encompassing enough? Do you feel universe is not inclusive of other dimensions?

From a Physics Prof I know..... Megaverse, and a few other terms are now the accepted and supported words to describe "everything". Universe I guess is not all inclusive anymore.

 

[BobbyMac]

Universe is everything physical that exists in our dimension that we can observe & measure if we had access to it through contact or technology .

Megaverse or Multiverse is any defined set of physical universes and including or not including their duplicates that exist in other theoretic dimensions.

Omniverse is all defined or undefined natures of an unlimited dimensional universe.

 

[Cackalacky]

Really? There's no proof of life outside of Earth, but now we have expectations for the types of structures that they might build? We don't even know if they will need physical constructs, but we know what those physical constructs would likely look like?

I'm open to the idea of life in the Universe, but THIS GUY isn't helping convert anyone who isn't.

I don't think he means a specific design or anything. Merely, the behavior of these objects based on the data is consistent with an large enouh to block out light but that does not fit into planetary body behaviors like comets, asteroids, moons, planets etc.

And yes, there are books by some people, OMM included apparently, that have been able to determine what an advanced civilization would be capable of, including power harnessing structures, space stations, and the like. There is not a primitive civilization A that immediately jumps to Advanced Socity R. There is most likely a slew of civilizations in variable states of development, obviously with the more.advanced ones able to travel elsewhere.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Don't want to turn this into a religious thread, but I've never understood this argument. I do not have faith in the non-existence of the Christian god anymore than I have faith that there isn't an Easter bunny or any other mythical being. Faith doesn't play a role in my non- belief.

Incorrect double negative aside, unless you are claiming belief in Christianity?

Many posit, myself included, it's as difficult or almost as difficult to believe that everything just is, that it just came to be, that there was no great progenitor and there is no intention in any of it.

Given everything we experience requires something before another something comes about, it's very difficult conceptually to put faith in the idea that nothingness became somethingness. I have heard a number of scientists attempt to explain how this could occur, including one Stephen Hawking, but.... it still seems like a difficult proposition. I've even read certain philosophers claim we can't say "somethign from nothing" because it's misleading and then they continue to parse the language and explain why it's a trick.

This doesn't defacto prove a God must exist but it's a starting point for rational faith.

Nihilo ex nihil fit.

 

[TDHeysus]

does this mean that the earth is more than 6000 years old?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

does this mean that the earth is more than 6000 years old?

Give or take a few billion, so what's your point?

 

[ND NYC]

For Carl...

 

[kmoose]

For Carl...

Spackler?

 

[GATTACA!]

Hubble's dead, man. It's going to be replaced by the James Webb in a few years.

Whatever, my question still stands. Can that new telescope be pointed at this planet?

 

[pumpdog20]

Fell asleep before Coast to Coast the last two nights. I know George has been all over this.

Hopefully it's not the Borg's hive.

a fellow C2C fan, yes

 

[MNIrishman]

Whatever, my question still stands. Can that new telescope be pointed at this planet?

1) It's not a planet, it's a star.
2) The telescope can and very well might be pointed in that direction, but I have my doubts it will be able to observe anything meaningful. First, the star's pretty far away, at around 1500LY, so it will be challenging to observe whatever the small occluding object is. That is compounded by the fact that it's an optical telescope and whatever is blocking the star is not emitting light.
3) It's extremely unlikely that the occluding object or objects are planets, which is why this is so interesting. Whatever it is, isn't regular---it occludes at random times which doesn't fit with a planet in orbit. Also, it blocks up to 22% of the light of the star, which is impossible for a planet. Even a gas giant next to the star can't do that---it'd be undergoing fusion in its core and would in fact be a star unto itself.
4) They tested the theory that it might be dust clouds, which is another thing an optical telescope might be able to help with. There aren't any there.

 

[Irishman77]

.

 

[IrishinSyria]

1) It's not a planet, it's a star.
2) The telescope can and very well might be pointed in that direction, but I have my doubts it will be able to observe anything meaningful. First, the star's pretty far away, at around 1500LY, so it will be challenging to observe whatever the small occluding object is. That is compounded by the fact that it's an optical telescope and whatever is blocking the star is not emitting light.
3) It's extremely unlikely that the occluding object or objects are planets, which is why this is so interesting. Whatever it is, isn't regular---it occludes at random times which doesn't fit with a planet in orbit. Also, it blocks up to 22% of the light of the star, which is impossible for a planet. Even a gas giant next to the star can't do that---it'd be undergoing fusion in its core and would in fact be a star unto itself.
4) They tested the theory that it might be dust clouds, which is another thing an optical telescope might be able to help with. There aren't any there.

Yeah, it sounds like using SETI to listen for radio waves is the most promising play.

All we really know for sure is that we've never seen anything like this before.

Also, I want to thank everyone who answered the question about faith. It came from a place f genuine curiosity, I was not trying to suggest that it should or shouldn't impact anyone's faith one way or the other.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Incorrect double negative aside, unless you are claiming belief in Christianity?

Many posit, myself included, it's as difficult or almost as difficult to believe that everything just is, that it just came to be, that there was no great progenitor and there is no intention in any of it.

Given everything we experience requires something before another something comes about, it's very difficult conceptually to put faith in the idea that nothingness became somethingness. I have heard a number of scientists attempt to explain how this could occur, including one Stephen Hawking, but.... it still seems like a difficult proposition. I've even read certain philosophers claim we can't say "somethign from nothing" because it's misleading and then they continue to parse the language and explain why it's a trick.

This doesn't defacto prove a God must exist but it's a starting point for rational faith.

Nihilo ex nihil fit.

It's not a starting point for rational faith, it's an argument from ignorance fallacy. "I don't understand something.....so God!". And I've never once said the universe came from nothing, I don't know what caused the universe to be.
Like Calidomer said, if we continue this, let's go to PM's please.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The complexity argument does kind of beg the question, because wouldn't an omnipotent God be even more complex than the universe and thus even less likely to just happen? That being said, the more we learn about the universe the more it's clear just how profoundly ignorant we are, and God seems like a good vehicle for expressing that concept.

 

[GATTACA!]

1) It's not a planet, it's a star.
2) The telescope can and very well might be pointed in that direction, but I have my doubts it will be able to observe anything meaningful. First, the star's pretty far away, at around 1500LY, so it will be challenging to observe whatever the small occluding object is. That is compounded by the fact that it's an optical telescope and whatever is blocking the star is not emitting light.
3) It's extremely unlikely that the occluding object or objects are planets, which is why this is so interesting. Whatever it is, isn't regular---it occludes at random times which doesn't fit with a planet in orbit. Also, it blocks up to 22% of the light of the star, which is impossible for a planet. Even a gas giant next to the star can't do that---it'd be undergoing fusion in its core and would in fact be a star unto itself.
4) They tested the theory that it might be dust clouds, which is another thing an optical telescope might be able to help with. There aren't any there.

Gotcha. Misread the OP I thought it was saying they were irregular objects orbiting a planet. Is there any way to tell if it has any heat signature? Or would that be obstructed by the star so close?

 

[MNIrishman]

Gotcha. Misread the OP I thought it was saying they were irregular objects orbiting a planet. Is there any way to tell if it has any heat signature? Or would that be obstructed by the star so close?

That's actually how they showed it has no dust around it. They looked at it in IR (heat) and there wasn't anything besides the star. Any nearby dust would be glow brightly in the IR compared to the space around it, but there was nothing there.

 

[GATTACA!]

That's actually how they showed it has no dust around it. They looked at it in IR (heat) and there wasn't anything besides the star. Any nearby dust would be glow brightly in the IR compared to the space around it, but there was nothing there.

One more question since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, how do we know this isn't something closer to earth inbetween us and this star? Something that's not in that stars orbit. Since its closer it could appear larger?

 

[connor_in]

http://youtu.be/38EDhpxzn2g

 

[IrishinSyria]

One more question since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, how do we know this isn't something closer to earth inbetween us and this star? Something that's not in that stars orbit. Since its closer it could appear larger?

Not an expert, but I think the answer to that is that it's got to be in orbit because it's recurring and it only blocks out some of the light.

 

[BobbyMac]

Don't feel bad... Most people do fall asleep before three in the morning....

It's on 600 KFI and 640 KOGO at 10pm thorugh 4am.

 

[MNIrishman]

One more question since you seem knowledgeable on the subject, how do we know this isn't something closer to earth inbetween us and this star? Something that's not in that stars orbit. Since its closer it could appear larger?

If the occluding object were nearer to earth, it would affect other stars in the region and most likely blot out the observed star entirely. The thing that's weird is that it only blocks the one star, and does so repeatedly---just not regularly. Since that's the case, we know it must be near the star. The lack of regularity would seem to preclude the object being in orbit. There are a couple explanations that seem to fit the bill, but they have a few problems. Multiple large objects could be orbiting, causing the lack of regularity, but that's got the issue of those objects needing to be WAY too large, and there's the fact that in the years of data on this star, there aren't any patterns. They just occlude randomly. It could be multiple objects near a lagrange point, but that'd be really strange, since things don't tend to appear at a lagrange point...unless someone puts them there. And you still have the issue of them being REALLY REALLY big.

 

[GATTACA!]

If the occluding object were nearer to earth, it would affect other stars in the region and most likely blot out the observed star entirely. The thing that's weird is that it only blocks the one star, and does so repeatedly---just not regularly. Since that's the case, we know it must be near the star. The lack of regularity would seem to preclude the object being in orbit. There are a couple explanations that seem to fit the bill, but they have a few problems. Multiple large objects could be orbiting, causing the lack of regularity, but that's got the issue of those objects needing to be WAY too large, and there's the fact that in the years of data on this star, there aren't any patterns. They just occlude randomly. It could be multiple objects near a lagrange point, but that'd be really strange, since things don't tend to appear at a lagrange point...unless someone puts them there. And you still have the issue of them being REALLY REALLY big.

Thanks man! This is fascinating stuff!