Analysis of the First Kepler SETI Observations

Jan 09, 2012 By Paul Scott Anderson, Universe Today
Example of signals KOI 817 and KOI 812. Credit: The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence at UC Berkeley

As the Kepler space telescope begins finding its first Earth-sized exoplanets, with the ultimate goal of finding ones that are actually Earth-like, it would seem natural that the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program would take a look at them as well, in the continuing search for alien radio signals. That is exactly what SETI scientists are doing, and they’ve started releasing some of their preliminary results.

They are processing the data taken by Kepler since early 2011; some interesting signals have been found (a candidate signal is referred to as a Kepler Object of Interest or KOI), but as they are quick to point out, these signals so far can all be explained by terrestrial interference. If a single signal comes from multiple positions in the sky, as these ones do, it is most likely to be interference.

They do, however, also share characteristics which would be expected of alien artificial signals.

A couple of examples are from KOI 817 and KOI 812. They are of a very narrow frequency, as would be expected from a signal of artificial origin. They also change in frequency over time, due to the doppler effect – the motion of the alien signal source relative to the radio telescope on . If a signal is found with these characteristics but also does not appear to be just interference, that would be a good candidate for an actual artificial signal of extraterrestrial origin.

These are only the results of the first observations and many more will come during the next weeks and months.

Looking for signals has always been like looking for a needle in the cosmic haystack; until now we were searching pretty much blind, starting even before we knew if there were any other planets out there or not. What if our solar system was the only one? Now we know that it is only one of many, with new estimates of billions of planets in our galaxy alone, based on early data. Plus the fact that the majority of those are thought to be smaller, rocky worlds like Earth, Mars, etc. How many of them are actually habitable is still an open question, but finding them narrows down the search, providing more probable actual targets to turn the radio telescopes toward instead of just trying to search billions of stars overall.

All twelve signal examples so far can be downloaded here (PDF).

Explore further: Two families of comets found around nearby star Beta Pictoris

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

SETI@home completes a decade of ET search

May 01, 2009

The SETI@home project, which has involved the worldwide public in a search for radio-wave evidence of life outside Earth, marks its 10th anniversary on May 17, 2009.

SETI survey focuses on Kepler's top Earth-like planets

May 16, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- UC Berkeley is searching for evidence of intelligent life on planets identified by the Kepler space telescope team as having Earth-like environments. This search for extraterrestrial intelligence ...

Widening the search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Mar 01, 2010

"The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been dominated for its first half century by a hunt for unusual radio signals. But as he prepares for the publication of his new book The Eerie Silence: Are We Alone?," ...

SETI may be looking in the wrong places: astronomer

Aug 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A senior astronomer with the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, Dr Seth Shostak, has reported in an article published online that perhaps we should be seeking alien ...

Recommended for you

New window on the early Universe

17 hours ago

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

Chandra's archives come to life

20 hours ago

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

New robotic telescope revolutionizes the study of stars

20 hours ago

In the last 8 months a fully robotic telescope in Tenerife has been carrying out high-precision observations of the motion of stellar surfaces. The telescope is the first in the SONG telescope network and ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RitchieGuy
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2012
from the article:
"" (a candidate signal is referred to as a Kepler Object of Interest or KOI), but as they are quick to point out, these signals so far can all be explained by terrestrial interference. If a single signal comes from multiple positions in the sky, as these ones do, it is most likely to be interference.""

So, what is the purpose of publicizing pictures of these signals as though they were "KOI" and then go on to say that they are, in fact, terrestrial interference signals. Did the researchers choose to show sample signals to familiarize us with appearances? Could they not wait a few more months or years to show GENUINE ET SIGNALS, if such a thing can be found, rather than getting people to read a non-story? How disappointing.

Xbw
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2012
If we did somehow discover an alien signal from 800 light years for example, chances are, since it took 800 years for the signal to reach us, at this point they are either much more highly advanced or have obliterated themselves.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2012
So, what is the purpose of publicizing pictures of these signals as though they were "KOI" and then go on to say that they are, in fact, terrestrial interference signals.
That is NOT what the article said.

but as they are quick to point out, these signals so far can all be explained by terrestrial interference.
CAN is the operative word. Not IS, CAN.

It CAN be explained by interference. IF they can find a source for the, at present, SPECULATIVE interference. If they can't find a source that it may not be of terrestrial origin. Again MAY not be.

Learn to spot key words that indicate speculation. They have a signal. It MAY be interference.

I think it is likely that it is interference. None of the Kepler planets are likely candidates for life. They are all too close their suns because that is all that Kepler can find. Yet.

Ethelred
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2012
Ethelred. . . .I have always been skeptical of articles that contain the words "can be", "most likely", "might be", "the possibility", etc. . . .but I have to concede that my use of the word "are" may have been premature in light of all the speculative wording. Most often, I make a point of full comprehension of the wording of any article, but this time I goofed. My girlfriend and I are getting married next weekend and I have a lot of things in mind to tend before the wedding.
Thanks for the heads-up on my wording. I appreciate.
BTW. . .my fiancee now thinks you're a jerk, but far superior to GhostOtto and his lover-boy, FrankHerbert.
:P
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2012
Ethelred. . . .I think it is way to soon to say that there is no possible life on ANY of the exoplanets in the visible Universe. Life can take on other forms and combinations of elements, molecules, etc. other than carbon-based life. The evidence of anthropocentricity in supposedly open minded people in the Physorg threads regarding possible life on exoplanets is readily seen, and one can expect the predictable derision and idiocy from these people. . . .even without there having been enough research done by agencies other than NASA. My group and I will continue to research Mars pictures and will be opening a new website and closing the old one. My fiancee's sisters have received hundreds of emails with positive things to say about the pictures and how these people see the images.
In case you are also interested, here's the URL:

www.marscritters.blogspot.com
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2012
I have to concede that my use of the word "are" may have been premature
Or perhaps ignorant - would you be willing to concede that?
My girlfriend and I are getting married next weekend and I have a lot of things in mind to tend before the wedding.
And yet yesterday as Ritchie you had time to make 20 or so posts and as xbw you made a dozen or so more? I guess 'she' isn't quite as important as all the important flooding you're doing here yes? Keep up the good work. Perhaps one day your grandkids will be dome painters on mars.
My fiancee's sisters have received hundreds of emails with positive things to say about the pictures
Were they all from you? Where DO you find the time?
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2012
BTW. . .my fiancee now thinks you're a jerk, but far superior to GhostOtto and his lover-boy, FrankHerbert.
That's OK, I think she has idiotic ideas about Mars. If disagreeing with really bad thinking qualifies as a jerk than I will just have to be a jerk.

You however are jerk because you act like one. Frequently. Did it right there with that loverboy remark. That is the sort thing assholes say. If you don't like my saying that then stop being an asshole.

Let me get this straight for you.

Frank is not me or Otto.

I am not Otto or Frank.

Otto is not me or Frank.

Otto likes conspiracies but is not a jerk.

I don't care if YOU or she thinks I am jerk because you both seem short on touching base with reality.

This does not make me a Frank. Frank is his own asshole. Frank has used other names and seems to use sockpuppets as well. Both I and Otto have been here longer than Frank under any name.
>>
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2012
since it took 800 years for the signal to reach us, at this point they are either much more highly advanced or have obliterated themselves.

Either way it would still be intersting. We'll not exchange information with such far distant species, anyways. The roundtrip for the first "Hello" would be 1600 years. So it doesn't really matter whether they still exist or not. Only that they do/did exist would be important.

My girlfriend and I are getting married next weekend

When is the honeymoon? More importantly: How long will you NOT be posting?
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
IF people use sockpuppets to attack me I will respond in kind. I have only made on post on this site under another name and it was joke name aimed at Marjon who was too stupid figure out that it was me. Even after I said this the first time months ago.

Oh, Vendicar is not Frank either. They are both jerks too often but Vendicar is much smarter than Frank and there is no indication that he is using sockpuppets.

Ethelred. . . .I think it is way to soon to say that there is no possible life on ANY of the exoplanets in the visible Universe
I don't know why anyone thinks I made such a claim. I did not. I said it was unlikely on any of the planets the Kepler has found and don't think there is much INTELLIGENT much less TECHNOLOGICAL life.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
The galaxy is a big place but much is likely to chaotic for life to get very far. It is even possible that only planets with large moons like ours can develop complex life but those may be more common than most presently think. Early stars may be able to support life but the lack of the heavier elements would make both complex life less likely and technological life exceedingly difficult.

Life can take on other forms and combinations of elements, molecules, etc. other than carbon-based life.
Unlikely. Carbon allows for very complex molecules. Silicon does as well but the energy levels are not conducive to making them. CO2 is a gas and water soluble at that. SO2 is a solid and quite insoluble in anything short of hydrofluoric acid. Life MUST use Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, maybe silicon in high temperature environments for the simple reason that they are available and other atoms that can make complex molecules are just plain rare in the Universe.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
Expecting life to occur without enough atoms capable of supporting complex active molecules is silly. Even if there is some silicon based life somewhere in the Universe it would likely be rather slow to get anywhere.

The evidence of anthropocentricity in supposedly open minded people in the Physorg threads regarding possible life on exoplanets is readily seen,
The evidence of minds so far open their brains fell out is even more readily seen. Wanting things does not make them real.

and one can expect the predictable derision and idiocy from these people.
Sorry but the idiocy is from the cranks. Yes, you are one of those with that ridiculous Mars nonsense.

My group and I will continue to research Mars pictures and will be opening a new website and closing the old one.
Wanting things does not make real. I repeat that because you clearly don't get it. Wanting thing will not make them real.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2012
My fiancee's sisters have received hundreds of emails with positive things to say about the pictures and how these people see the images.
Billions think there was a Great Flood. That is nonsense as well.

The key information about the photos you guys clearly do not understand.
CENTER_FILTER_WAVELENGTH = 700
That is a RED filter.
FILTER_NAME = "RED"


Anything red or white will be white anything not either white or red will be dark. On top of that there is a frequent tendency to act as if the shots were of the side of canyon when they are OVERHEAD satellite photos on top of that really bad choice of RED filtered shots for the breathless examination.

The dark areas are very frequently not actually dark in the color versions.

CENTER_FILTER_WAVELENGTH = (900 , 700 , 500 )
Heck that one has infrared and no real blue.

FILTER_NAM = ("NEAR-INFRARED", "RED", "BLUE-GREEN")>>
RitchieGuy
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 11, 2012
@Ethelred:
The Reality of things has nothing to do with wanting a thing to be so, that is clearly understood. This is not a discussion on religion.
The pictures on the website clearly have nothing to do with wanting, the pictures are there to be looked at and either appreciated as reality or rejected as unreal. Thus, the pictures on the first page have been appreciated as real life forms by hundreds of people who were kind enough to send their emails to affirm their belief that humans are not the only intelligent life. You have stated that ""Expecting life to occur without enough atoms capable of supporting complex active molecules is silly. Even if there is some silicon based life somewhere in the Universe it would likely be rather slow to get anywhere."" We have no idea at what speed they are capable of travel. Two-dimensional pictures don't give a whole lot of information on what is in them, so one can only surmise at the probabilities and nothing more.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2012
We do not expect the whole world to agree as to the presence of the life forms on Mars. There will always be skeptics as I once was. The shapes in the pictures are too human-like to "push them to the side" as geological formations. We understand geology enough to know that such a formation as the "face on Mars" is, and was, only geology.
The fact that the poll taken by the Brookings Institute in the early 60s had advised the government, in so many words, that people were not ready for any revelation regarding extraterrestrials, cautioned that any revelation would have an adverse effect, so it was agreed that such things were to be dealt with by misinformation and secrecy. At the time, it was about UFOs. And now, several former NASA employees who were privy to the images sent back from Mars have publicly stated that NASA is, and has been, obliterating, smudging, masking, filtering out, and a number of methods of hiding what is truly on Mars that the government does not want the general
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2012
public to know about. It is not my concern who believes and who doesn't believe in living creatures on Mars. That is up to each individual. And it's odd how so many people can speculate on what kinds of life could exist on exoplanets far far away, and yet, reject the notion that there may be life forms similar to ourselves on the next planet over. What strange ideas.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2012
Hmm lets see the RGB data, nope got a 404. The image does look quite different.

How about using the RGB data versions of those spots? Bet they don't look wet even to Jeanie. The photos were taken in the Martian winter. There is no wet at that time. Its WAY below freezing.

You two just don't know what you were looking at and clearly didn't want to find out.

Reality, what concept.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2012
Life MUST use Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, maybe silicon in high temperature environments

I'd be very cautious about such extrapolations from one datapoint (since it seems pretty conclusive that life arose on this planet from one common ancestor (proto)organism we effectively only have one datapoint what life can be like).

Unless we have looked, in depth, within a number of possible life bearing environments (deep down in Mars rock, subsurface oceans of Titan, IO, Europa, ... ) I'd withhold any prediction.

Earlier we thought the crucial elements were CHONPS (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosophrus and sulfur. I remember reading that it is thought that phosphorous can be replced with arsenic.

With atomlike behavior of small molecules even more complex substitutions may be possible.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2012
The pictures speak for themselves. I am only the messenger. And the fact that SETI is still going strong after all these years of disappointment tells me that there are many others who are not wishing and hoping, but are giving the possibilities a try. Whether or not there are exoplanets far, far away that are conducive to harboring carbon-based life is not important. We will never get to those planets. . .not in a million years. Our species may die off on this rock and we will go out with either a bang or a whimper. But we will go out and never have known whether or not there was life on those distant planets. But Mars, the closest one, is not even given a chance to show us what she's got, mainly because the reality of life there would have an adverse effect on the humans of Earth. It's a sad thing. . . .and rather silly.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2012
antialias. . .I am not a scientist and everyone knows that by now, but I refuse to believe that the only possible chemical combination to create a lifeform on another planet is our own combination only because it is the combination most suited to the environment of the Earth. Time is being wasted with the dumb idea that there cannot possibly be anyone alive on or within another planet, just because we say so? We don't know the true age of the Sun, we are only guessing, and it could blow up any time, while we are here on Earth fiddling around with our stupid wars and blaming each other for everything gone wrong. Somebody needs to contact the government and tell them to prevent NASA from masking the Mars pictures forthwith. You might be astonished at the truth that is being hidden from your own eyes.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2012
@Ethelred. . . .none of the pictures from Mars were taken in the Mars wintertime, and they were all from mid latitudes. Summer on Mars at or near the Equator can reach up to a balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Some of the images on the first page were colored by a simple program to bring out the details a little better. Other than that and a little bit of sharpening, nothing else was done to them.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2012
This is not a discussion on religion.
Actually you are acting just like the religious. Its the same kind of thinking. Ignore reality if it goes against the belief.

The pictures on the website clearly have nothing to do with wanting, the pictures are there to be looked at and either appreciated as reality or rejected as unreal.
They aren't real. They are RED light only and you did not know that. Does that get through at all? In any way? Are you going to evaluate the RGB images? Or just ignore that as well as the alleged layers not being actual layers.

Thus, the pictures on the first page have been appreciated as real life forms by hundreds of people who were kind enough to send their emails to affirm their belief that humans are not the only intelligent life.
They are wrong. So are you. They were remarkably incompetent people.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2012
We have no idea at what speed they are capable of travel.
I was talking about the speed of the chemical reactions. They would evolve slowly. And yes we can know that.

Two-dimensional pictures don't give a whole lot of information on what is in them, so one can only surmise at the probabilities and nothing more.
Nonsense. You did a lot more than surmise. We can evaluate using actual reason and science. You didn't do that. Again you weren't even aware that the dark parts of the image were dark because they weren't red.

We do not expect the whole world to agree as to the presence of the life forms on Mars.
Of course not. It would help if you had evidence.

There will always be skeptics as I once was.
Girl friends can distort anyone's mind. Same for boyfriends.

The shapes in the pictures are too human-like to "push them to the side" as geological formations.
Humans evolved to see humans. Even where they aren't and the sure aren't there on Mars.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2012
It is very odd that you think you see human like being and also think they are silicon based. Weird that pairing is.

The shapes in the pictures are too human-like to "push them to the side" as geological formations.
You didn't even know that the pictures you used were red light only. The site is saturated with ludicrous statements that are quite contrary to the actual images. The images are ALL taken from above yet in case after case they are treated as if they were taken at ground level looking at the layers in the side of canyon or mountain. That isn't even silly it is simply stupid.

And now, several former NASA employees who were privy to the images sent back from Mars have publicly stated that NASA is, and has been, obliterating, smudging, masking, filtering out, and a number of methods of hiding what is truly on Mars that the government does not want the general
Show evidence. It would help of the claimants show more signs of rationality than you.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2012
t is not my concern who believes and who doesn't believe in living creatures on Mars.
It isn't my concern that you are silly.

And it's odd how so many people can speculate on what kinds of life could exist on exoplanets far far away, and yet, reject the notion that there may be life forms similar to ourselves on the next planet over.
Nothing odd about it. There is no evidence of life on Mars and those sure don't show any. You saw water where it didn't exist. A pipe that was a ridge. Oil when there is none.

Again LOOK AT THE RGB PHOTOS. Try reality for a change. Darwin eventually quit coddling his wife's religious beliefs, time for you do that.

The pictures speak for themselves.
No they don't. There was a lot silly writing on that site and none of mentioned the lack of blues, greens, yellows in the images. I suspect you don't even now know what I am talking about.>>
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 11, 2012
You mean there are not any transparent sexy humanoid creatures on Mars. How disappointing. I was getting quite excited by the thought of some exotic new thrill. I kinda thought Hubble could get a few upskirt pics.

Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2012
They weren't there, not because it was B and W but because the source light was only red light. So all those colors came out dark. And you mistook that for wet.

I am only the messenger.
No. You invented nonsense from ignorance.

And the fact that SETI is still going strong after all these years of disappointment tells me that there are many others who are not wishing and hoping, but are giving the possibilities a try.
And none of them think there is silicon based life on Mars or large wet areas in the middle of winter. Nor have any of them actually found anything. Yet.

We will never get to those planets. . .not in a million years.
Now I know it is you without imagination.>>
Ethelred
Jan 11, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
I'd be very cautious about such extrapolations from one datapoint
I am not using just one data point. We know what elements exist in the Universe.

we effectively only have one datapoint what life can be like).
True but we know chemistry works. Life isn't going to evolve on planets that don't have enough chemicals to put at least a few thousand atoms, ones capable of producing complex molecules, together in the same place.

I'd withhold any prediction.
That is you. Do you have ANY reason to think that complex molecules can form without being based on atoms that have 4 valences? Do you know of any polymers that are based on atoms with only three valences? Even if you want to try to use silicon how are you going to keep it from becoming silicon dioxide? Removing the oxygen from CO2 is much easier than getting out of the SO2.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
I remember reading that it is thought that phosphorous can be replaced with arsenic.
The catch is that arsenic is less prevalent. So it isn't likely to used instead of phosphorous. Is this getting the idea of availability counting across? Try it another way. Life can't use what isn't available. Silicon isn't available if it is tied up in SO2. Sulphur isn't really available if it oxygen is much more prevalent. Life uses sulphur on Earth but not nearly as much as it does oxygen. Do you really think this is mere accident?

With atomlike behavior of small molecules even more complex substitutions may be possible.
Not if the small molecules can't form. And if they do they will be less stable than individual atoms. Plus they will larger and you still won't get four valences, where it counts at the outside of the molecule, if you don't have atoms with four involved.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2012
But Mars, the closest one, is not even given a chance to show us what she's got, mainly because the reality of life there would have an adverse effect on the humans of Earth.


That is idiotic. There simply isn't any evidence for life on Mars and it is just plain stupid to claim NASA is covering it up when NASA would love to have evidence. That would get them funding. Massive funding.

Reposted because some imoderator didn't like what I had to say about the site. I think. As usual they don't have a clue as to how to moderate. The rest of the post was completely on topic and any competent moderator would have only removed that part they felt was off topic.

Ethelred
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 11, 2012
hey bluehigh. . .good to see you. I see that Ethelred has made up his mind that there is nothing alive on Mars. . .end of story. The raw images from the HiRise camera aboard the MRO had to pass inspection from NASA, JPL and the U. of Arizona. The original images were black and white and there many instances of manipulation of the images to block artifacts, et al, from public view. Any layering, etc. was done by these agencies BEFORE the pictures were made public.
There are a lot of disinformation agents whose job it is, is to prevent people from viewing the Mars pictures of life forms and accepting them as fact. Among these agents is a man named Andrew Basiago who claims to have been transported to Mars as a child through time travel and, as an adult, discovered life forms living on Mars. I viewed the pictures that he provided and there was no evidence of life forms in his pictures. . . .just geology. And yet, he has written books and maintains a website. All I saw in his pictures
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 11, 2012
were stones and rocks, sand and hills in the distance. Nothing more than that. The respondents who sent emails approving of our pictures mentioned that their facial recognition and body recognition also helped them to identify the forms as human-like. That was my own experience also. As usual, if a paper has not been written by a top scientist to the effect that life exists on Mars, then the official stance would be that life doesn't exist on Mars and anyone saying otherwise will not be believed. RGB has nothing to do with it because, as I said, the raw images were already processed by NASA and they did what they wanted with the images. I agree that the wording is silly, but my fiancee's sister was an amateur when she wrote the texts.
I see that Physorg has a new format, dividing each thread into next and previous pages. I'm not too happy with that.
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 11, 2012
In any case, SETI and Kepler searching in the skies together is a good alliance, rather than just SETI going it alone. Oh, BTW, My user name, RitchieGuy received 2 PMs from FrankHerbert aka the troll, which say:
========================
FrankHerbert 01.09.2012 15:10

haha you read it.
=========
FrankHerbert 01.08.2012 20:56

retard
======================
In my former user name, I did not open the 49 PMs that FH had sent me, nor the 12 PMs from 6 of his many sockpuppets. But this time, I got curious, and I saw a good example of his mental illness in those 2 PMs. I understand that FH is still sending PMs to Noumenon, calling him a racist and I have seen copies of those PMs. I also see that FH and his sockpuppets are still rating me ONES no matter what I say. I'm still wondering if Physorg is offering a prize for the most FIVES. Perhaps a gold cup might be the driving force for FrankHerbert and his sockpuppets to vote most everyone down. Interesting concept.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2012
I see that Ethelred has made up his mind that there is nothing alive on Mars. . .end of story.
No it seems to me he made up his mind that your website was full of ignorant lies and nonsense. For instance:
The images are ALL taken from above yet in case after case they are treated as if they were taken at ground level looking at the layers in the side of canyon or mountain. That isn't even silly it is simply stupid.
This is a complete game-changer. It means the aliens you see standing up are actually lying down. Why would they be lying down pirouette?

In another thread someone mentioned that your aliens must be very big. Skyscraper-sized perhaps. Have you made any effort to determine their size and mention this on your site?

Are you making efforts to ascertain how these FACTS affect your interpretation of those pictures, and stating so on your website? What are all your respondants going to say about your gross misrepresentation of these primary aspects of these pictures?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2012
Here let me out. Does this in any resemble what you think you are seeing?
http://en.wikiped...7_08.JPG
EverythingsJustATheory
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2012
RGB has everything to do with it. Light (in this case your photos) were taken with light filters, meaning that any light not of that frequency will not pass through the filters and will show up dark. As you previously noted that the "face" was due to shadowing, it should be clear the difference a red filter will have compared to a RGB one.
EverythingsJustATheory
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
Mars never reaches a balmy 70 degrees. Wiki states the temperature at most reaches 23 F.

Life on Mars, if it exists at all (which is very unlikely) would not be able to survive on the surface due to the ionizing solar wind. No organic material can survive such lethal redation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2012
That is you. Do you have ANY reason to think that complex molecules can form without being based on atoms that have 4 valences?

Yes. The new field superatoms allows conglomerates of atoms to act as if they had 4 (or any other number of) valence electrons.
http://en.wikiped...uperatom

Now I'd be the first to admit that carbon is the most likely candidate for being the basis for life. but I'd not wager that it is the ONLY one before we haven't actually looked anywhere.

True but we know chemistry works.

Under different conditions (pressures, temperatures, presenco of other chemicals) chemistry has a way of producing a plethora of results/phases of matter. Not sure we can already exclude everthing but 'Earth norm' for the reagions that could possibly sustain a self replicating mechanism able to mutate. (Or I'm rather pretty sure that there are other possible sets of circumstances)
EverythingsJustATheory
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2012
I also see that FH and his sockpuppets are still rating me ONES no matter what I say.


The rating is indicative of the comments. I mostly just read comments because my knowledge of astrophysics is laymen at best, though it does intrigue me. However, you like so many others on this site have wasted everyones' time with off-topic rants that do not provoke intelligent discussions. There's the aether people, neutron repulsion, and now intelligent life on Mars trolls that deflect the conversion away from progressive commentary.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2012
I see that Ethelred has made up his mind that there is nothing alive on Mars. . .end of story.
I am just going on the evidence. You don't have any.

I see that Ethelred has made up his mind that there is nothing alive on Mars. . .end of story.
And nothing in them was evidence of life. YOU however are still pretending the that a RED filter wasn't used.

The original images were black and white
That is why they used MULTIPLE filters for the color shots. They ALWAYS work that way.

Did I ever tell you I worked in photo labs for decades and my brother's ex wife worked at JPL. Well, now you know. I understand photography, you don't.

and there many instances of manipulation of the images to block artifacts, et al, from public view.
I am waiting for you back up that nonsense.

YOU are the one using filtered photos only and don't even understand that you are doing it.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2012
RGB has nothing to do with it because,
Yes it does. Using only the red means everything that is not red or white will be darker than you would expect.

as I said, the raw images were already processed by NASA and they did what they wanted with the images.
Actually you didn't. But now you have told the lie.

ONES no matter what I say
You say so much that is completely deranged.

Bloody hell, this site is full of cranks. The robots in The Silver Eggheads would be ecstatic. But only with the Cranking not the word wuze.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2012
The new field superatoms allows conglomerates of atoms to act as if they had 4 (or any other number of) valence electrons.
Those are very large and hard to make. And there aren't any there with 4 valences. Even if there were a cluster of sodium atoms are not going to be an adequate replacement for carbon or silicon.

The stuff is interesting not useful chemically. I can see where it might be useful in quantum computing IF the clusters can be kept in a stable state.

but I'd not wager that it is the ONLY one before we haven't actually looked anywhere.
I would, IF they bet excluded silicon as I said silicon has some potential but it would have be in highly unusual environments. Unusual to the point of being as likely as a world with a fluorine atmosphere as you would likely need fluorine.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2012
chemistry has a way of producing a plethora of results/phases of matter.
There has to some stability for any form of life to develop it has to fit the environment. That can't happen if the environment keeps destroying the chemicals of life. And no I don't think life on Earth started near mid ocean ridges for that very reason.

Not sure we can already exclude everthing but 'Earth norm'
I am not doing that. I simply saying it is bound to be rare and any form based on something other than carbon is going to be MUCH rarer assuming it is possible at all. Silicon has those serious energy issues and anything else is exceedingly rare.

Gas giants seem to churn too much. Otherwise I would think there might be a way.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2012
It took billions of years for life on Earth to amount to a hill of beans. Life at the microscopic level might exist on thousands or even millions of worlds in our galaxy. Larger more complex life clearly required a long time to evolve and simply isn't going to happen with the vast majority stellar systems.

Too much heat. Frozen. Ejected by passing stars. Got started and the sun left the Main Sequence because it was much more massive than ours. Ming wanted to play with it. Didn't put out enough UV because its a red dwarf. Got started and then the orbit shifted too close. Got started and the orbit shifted out. The Vogons converted it into a parking lot. Froze and stayed that way. Not enough trace elements. Blasted by a gamma ray burst. Hit by a planet that was destabilized by brown dwarf. The iron nucleus grew too large and collapsed. A luminous blue giant went bang within 500 light years. Life was getting interesting and a Berserker sterilized it.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2012
And no I don't think life on Earth started near mid ocean ridges for that very reason.
Why not? Right at a smoker it may be true that the chemicals aren't stable. But at a certain distance the conditions are quite stable (if the intensity of the smoker doesn't vary too much over some time)

Gas giants seem to churn too much. Otherwise I would think there might be a way

There are other conditions which prevail under high pressure (e.g. near the liquid centers of gas giants). While temperatures are high in that region pressure alone could keep some compounds stable. It's just too soon to rule out life there. "Churning" is not opposed to the notion of life (quite the contrary)

We don't even know what forms life can take. As noted: Extrapolation from one data point is impossible. Information theory indicates that all you can say with such limited data is: "Yes. That one datapoint is possible" (i.e. We can exclude the notion that "no life exists anywhere")
But that's it.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Why not? Right at a smoker it may be true that the chemicals aren't stable. But at a certain distance the conditions are quite stable (if the intensity of the smoker doesn't vary too much over some time)
The water moves around a lot. Apparently most is cycled through the hot vents. I find the cycling in tidal pools to be a more likely way to get the iterative chemistry that life seems to need.

While temperatures are high in that region pressure alone could keep some compounds stable.
Its not the specific regions its the turbulence. Up and down the air column, high temperatures and low, high pressures and low, with nothing solid to stop the flow. Sooner or later it will all be cooked or frozen. Titan has a much better chance. At the moment I think it is the best candidate for life, the moons of Jupiter next but it would have to under the ice and that means no solar power to drive the chemistry.>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Maybe the tidal heating could be enough. The catch is that we have yet to see anything that hints of life changing those worlds and life transformed the Earth.

While temperatures are high in that region pressure alone could keep some compounds stable.
Cycling isn't opposed if the cycle limits are not too extreme. Churning is something else. Turbulent. Perhaps that word did not express my objections clearly enough. The paragraph above should have made them more clear.

As noted: Extrapolation from one data point is impossible.
Again, we have more than one data point. We have LOTS of negative data so we know a lot of conditions where life has never gotten a purchase.

But that's it.
No. We can say:

Too close to a Sun is right out. Mercury.

To much atmosphere too close is right out. Venus.

Too little mass to hold an atmosphere is right out, at least in the long term. Mars.

Rocks in a vacuum don't have much in the way of interesting chemistry. Asteroids.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Great big hot balls of gas don't seem to have life. The atmosphere seems unaffected by life. Jupiter.

Great big cold balls of gas don't seem to have life. The atmospheres seems unaffected by life. Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Same goes for most of the moons. Only Ganymede, Io, and Titan are possible candidates for life. None of those would be life as we know it but they are still candidates. IF they turn out to have life then the odds for other solar systems goes up BUT they sure aren't producing a technological species at this moment in time.

So, no we do not have just one point. We only have one positive point but that is in no way just one point.

I don't like all that negative data either but not liking it doesn't make it go away.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2012
We have LOTS of negative data so we know a lot of conditions where life has never gotten a purchase.

We do?
As far as I know we can't even be sure that deep down in Moon rock no organisms exit. We haven't looked anywhere but on Earth - and pretty much everywhere we look here life has found a way.

Too close to a Sun is right out. Mercury.

Only on the surface. We have found archaeobacteria kilometers deep down in rock that subsist on energy from radioactive decay. No reason why such organisms could not exist on Mercury. Same goes for any other planet.
Surface dwelling isn't the only possibility for life. Atmosphere does also not seem to be a prerequisite as there are plenty of aquatic species on Earth that never need to go above the surface.

It is also not clear which of these organisms came first: surface, aquatic or deep down ones (i.e. whether life moved up or down on this planet)

It seems that anywhere where there is energy life could potentialy exist.
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2012
Jeez. The Testosterone saturated postings must be turn-off to any female who wanted to become a scientist.
Guys, take the pill.