No, SETI Has Not Detected Alien Signals From Space

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, SETI Has Not Detected Alien Signals From Space

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 6, 2012 @07:36AM from the feel-free-to-panic-anyway-though dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "Rumors are going around that SETI astronomers have detected possible alien signals from space. Bottom line: signals were detected when the Green Bank Telescope was pointed at target planets discovered by Kepler, but the signals are almost certainly interference from man-made satellites orbiting the Earth. This happens pretty often, so we need to be aware that these kinds of false positives pop up."

37 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"almost certainly" by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-06 07:37 · Score: 5, Funny

So, theres still a chance of aliens
1. Re:"almost certainly" by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sure. It could very well be the original broadcasts of 'I Love Kleeg' and 'Zaxak's Island'. It might be quite good, if we could figure out their modulation scheme.
  Perhaps if we recklessly go about reverse engineering it and violating their intellectual property rights they'll send their lawyers to us with a C & D letter.
  I'm not quite certain that could be viewed as a positive development ... imagine making contact with a civilization where they'd excell at legal thinking and came here to practice law? could be a scary thing.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:"almost certainly" by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-06 07:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's a smegging garbage pod!
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:"almost certainly" by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From those of is with speech issues, "Fuck You"
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:"almost certainly" by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:"almost certainly" by fusiongyro · 2012-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not pessimism, it's just acknowledging that one example isn't a pattern. To take away from it that the universe is teeming with life is reading just as much into the tiny scrap of evidence we have as saying there is no life. In general, when you can use the same evidence to make two equally strong yet completely contradictory arguments, you're better off just shutting up.
  So with Brent as my witness, let's leave it at "well, dude, we just don't know."
6. Re:"almost certainly" by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-01-06 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  To me that's just being naive.
  Asserting certainty for a fact for which you have zero evidence and you're calling other people naive.
  Slashdot never ceases to amuse.
7. Re:"almost certainly" by thygate · 2012-01-06 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Broadcast on all frequencies and all known languages, including Welsh.
8. Re:"almost certainly" by jackbird · 2012-01-06 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Well that's easy for you to say.
9. Re:"almost certainly" by KingMotley · 2012-01-06 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  More like to get the location of the planet with the blue girls.
10. Re:"almost certainly" by macromorgan · 2012-01-06 10:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Broadcast on all frequencies and all known languages, including Welsh.
  I thought you said known languages?
11. Re:"almost certainly" by Grishnakh · 2012-01-06 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A few problems with your ideas:
  1) Maybe intelligent, star-faring species don't want to disturb others. After all, if your intention is to observe, you don't want your presence to be known or else your observations won't be useful. When we observe the behavior of, say, dolphins when they're mating, we don't go down there and swim around with them and annoy them as they're having their orgies. We watch with cameras, undetected, so we can see what their normal, natural behavior is, not what their behavior is when some strange alien land-dwelling creature is attempting to swim with them.
  1b) Highly advanced races might not have any interest in communicating directly with us, and prefer to simply observe, the same we observe ants rather than attempting to communicate with them. They might have a Prime Directive and know from past experience that contacting pre-spaceflight species doesn't go over very well. Such races might also prevent other races (which disagree with their PD) from contacting those within their sphere of influence. We might be within a United Federation of Planets quadrant where contact with primitive species is strictly prohibited, rather than a Ferengi-controlled quadrant where the opposite is true (primitive species are pushed to use high technology ASAP so they can become consumers). Too bad since our species (esp. Americans) are very Ferengi-like.
  1c) There might already be a big "Hi there!" sign, just sitting on the far side of the Moon waiting for us to uncover it, or perhaps on Pluto. But to get there, we have to have sufficient development to go find it; we're not that developed yet, and it's questionable whether we ever will be. After all, we got bored after we took a couple short trips to the moon and hit some golf balls, so we never went back as we found it much more worthwhile to engage in wars and fight each other over one-click patents.
  2) Intelligent races that actually survive long enough to achieve starflight and send out interplanetary probes might be very rare; maybe most of them destroy themselves shortly after they invent nuclear weapons.
12. Re:"almost certainly" by Xyrus · 2012-01-06 14:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
  You know, that is a deeply depressing thought.
  
  --
  ~X~
Beh by Hognoxious · 2012-01-06 07:37 · Score: 2

It's the North Koreans. They're up to something, sure as eggs is eggs.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Beh by discord5 · 2012-01-06 07:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's the North Koreans. They're up to something, sure as eggs is eggs.
  It is space saying mourning the honorable half-god Kim Jong Il's departure. Spontaneous radio broadcasts from space are known to happen when the heavens weep.
Uh-huh by warrax_666 · 2012-01-06 07:38 · Score: 4, Funny

That's just what the aliens want us to believe!

--
HAND.
1. Re:Uh-huh by nschubach · 2012-01-06 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  Deciding to believe we don't exist, or covering up that we exist so their populace won't be scared of us...
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Please my alien brothers... by stevegee58 · 2012-01-06 07:43 · Score: 2

...pluck me from my miserable existence and take me to your glistening planet!
Oh. Never mind.
1. Re:Please my alien brothers... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, they are here to serve us.
  
  --
  Huh?
Warning. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Phil Plait is the official PR person for the Illuminati's Extra Terrestrial Embassy Group. The goal is to keep the occupation of Earth quiet until such a time that Their footsoldiers are placed at strategic positions around the world. Bodyguards for high ranking politicians and diplomats, military personnel, etc.

He is NOT to be trusted.
Oblig by should_be_linear · 2012-01-06 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new satellite-interference-simulating-before-landing-and-raping-us overlords.

--
839*929
Call me an idiot ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you’re pointed at an alien transmitter, then moving the telescope will point you in a different direction, and the signal should go away. On the other hand, strong satellite signals can be detected by radio telescopes even when they point in another direction; the signal can leak into the telescopes even when you’re pointed well away.
If you move a thousand miles and the source is a thousand light years away, the angular deviation is almost precisely zero.
But if you move a thousand miles and the source is ten miles away, you're basically moving out of the source's way.
So wouldn't you expect the signal to go away for a man-made satellite, and stay for an alien signal? That's the precise opposite of what they're saying.
And if telescopes in any location, pointing to some specific direction, pick up the same satellite, surely they also pick it up when pointing to other stars? So this satellite that magically interferes with two different telescopes must be a real problem for those telescopes.
Something smells fishy to me.
1. Re:Call me an idiot ... by methamorph · 2012-01-06 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Idiot. :) They don't suggest that the telescope moves from one place on the earth to another (while keeping the same angle) but rather change the angle of the telescope that will cause the signal from a remote source to disappear.
2. Re:Call me an idiot ... by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-06 08:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you move a thousand miles and the source is a thousand light years away, the angular deviation is almost precisely zero.
  But if you move a thousand miles and the source is ten miles away, you're basically moving out of the source's way.
  So wouldn't you expect the signal to go away for a man-made satellite, and stay for an alien signal? That's the precise opposite of what they're saying.
  Side lobes. Radio transmitter antennas typically do not radiate in a perfectly spherical, cow shaped arrangement. There are strong lobes and weak (side lobes). If you track the signal through space, you should get a pretty good idea what the shape really is. You can compare that to the generalized, known shapes of the antenna radiation patterns are on various spacecrafts and get a pretty good idea if it's either a satellite or the most godawful giant radio transmitter the universe has ever seen.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Call me an idiot ... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Are we pointing at Epsilon Erindi? Could we be reading the Great Machine?
  
  --
  Huh?
4. Re:Call me an idiot ... by joebok · 2012-01-06 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  I think the original statement isn't as clear as it could be. It isn't talking about "moving" the telescope relative to the source, but rather just changing the point of aim - i'd swap "moving" out for "rotating" in the quoted blurb. A local, strong source will be detected regardless of the aim, but a distant, faint source can only be detected by precise aim.
  If you’re pointed at an alien transmitter, then rotating the telescope will point you in a different direction, and the signal should go away. On the other hand, strong satellite signals can be detected by radio telescopes even when they point in another direction; the signal can leak into the telescopes even when you’re pointed well away.
5. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Suddenly_Dead · 2012-01-06 22:05 · Score: 2
  
  I just watched that episode. I think you might be in my mind.
Really bad article by mbone · 2012-01-06 08:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, I had to really dig through the Berkeley web site to figure out what they were actually claiming. It's no wonder people are confused.
It's as if I took pictures of some distant airplanes and posted a blog about taking pictures of UFOs, highlighting my pictures, and talked about how these pictures had all the confirming points I was looking for in a UFO picture, with a note at the bottom saying that, as I didn't have any actual UFO pictures, I substituted these.
It would be hard to claim sympathy if I was then ridiculed, which I suspect they will be.
Signal Partially Translated by knarfling · 2012-01-06 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I have managed to obtain a copy of the signals and have partially translated them. Some of the concepts are untranslatable and I am not completely sure about the things I was able to translate, but here is what I have so far.

My fellow [untranslatable]. It is [concept of time] for [choosing/electing] supreme [unknown concept]. My [friend/acquaintance/opponent] is a [feeble-minded/stupid] [weak/ineffective] [some sort of insect]. [Reminds me/makes me think] of a [not sure here, might be human]. I [pledge/promise] a [small animal] in [each/all/every] [cooking container]. I will [reduce/lower] [required payments/taxes]. [Elect/vote for] Kodos in [unknown time].

Hmmm .... seems like a political speech. No intelligent life out there after all.

--
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
1. Re:Signal Partially Translated by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-01-06 15:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I heard it was something like:
  
  Dear [Planetary Inhabitants], I am a [wealthy] [royalty] who is in need of your assistance in transferring a large amount of [monetary units] from my planet to yours. Please send me your [monetary management system]'s [identification schema] so that I may complete this transfer
Get Seth by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

to do an interview on slashdot.
Also, get their podcast. It's lame puns and excellent science
http://radio.seti.org/

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by jellomizer · 2012-01-06 08:40 · Score: 2

I remember seeing somewhere that although our radio signals reach on for long time. About when it leaves our solar system they become so intertwined with all the other sources of radio that it becomes unreadable.
It will be like encrypting a message with using a true random message that you cannot find the seed.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Signature of humanity by pclminion · 2012-01-06 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Humans should module some very low bit-rate, spread spectrum, wide band signal onto every single transmission we generate, which identifies that transmission as being human in origin. In the future, if we detect a signal we can just check if this signature is there. If it is, question answered. If not, something interesting is happening.
1. Re:Signature of humanity by pclminion · 2012-01-06 12:56 · Score: 2
  
  It does nothing of the sort. It would make it easier to rule out many signals as being extraterrestrial in origin. It has no effect on the difficulty of hoaxing.
A sense of scale by IWantMoreSpamPlease · 2012-01-06 08:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have photographed the Green Bank Radiotelescope a few times, that place is *massive*, pictures don't do it justice, I mean it's really friggin' big. Best I can show is this pic I took of the area http://plaguedbethyangel.blogspot.com/2011/10/closer.html I love it made the news (the GBR, not my pics) today

--
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by Hartree · 2012-01-06 09:46 · Score: 3, Funny

So, you're saying:
1. Find aliens.
2. Announce to world.
3. ...
4. ...
5. Profit!
How is that not news? by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-06 10:32 · Score: 2

Man-made satellite circling around distant star.

--
Fandroids hate facts.