The First Sign Of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth?
Posted 07 January 2021 - 05:39 AM
Examining this and other intriguing questions at the start of 2021.
The Parkes Telescope in Australia heard something odd in 2019. Unfortunately, the signal, if it was one, has not been repeated. (John Sarkissian)
As we begin a new year, it seems appropriate to think about big topics. And what could be bigger than asking what observations might count as evidence of intelligent alien beings?
The question is triggered by Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb’s forthcoming book Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth, as well as the last big science story of 2020, about a mysterious radio astronomy observation known as Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1, the first candidate for an artificial extraterrestrial signal found by the Breakthrough Listen project, the most thorough SETI search ever undertaken.
Let’s start with BLC1, first reported by The Guardian and later picked up by Scientific American and other publications. The detected radio signal had a frequency of about 982 MHz and varied slightly in frequency, which makes it less likely to be a “false positive” emanating from Earth’s surface. It was detected during 30 hours of observation with the Parkes Observatory in Australia in April and May 2019. But it hasn’t been heard again. The signal apparently was coming from the direction of Proxima Centauri, the closest star system to our own. That system has one known exoplanet, but it is likely not habitable due to strong solar flares emitted from the host star.
It’s possible that the signal originated from a greater distance, behind Proxima Centauri. Or, much more mundane, it may have come from one of our own satellites that happened to be passing in front of Proxima Centauri at the time. BLC1 reminds me of the famous Wow! signal of the 1970s that also stirred up a lot of excitement and sparked many different hypotheses. Unfortunately, if a signal like Wow! or BLC1 is never repeated, there’s not much you can do to figure out its source.
Avi Loeb was one of the first scientists to speculate that 'Oumuamua, the first object seen to enter our Solar System from interstellar space, might be an extraterrestrial spacecraft. He pointed to the object’s unusual shape and noted that it was “shiny,” with a motion indicating that something other than simple gravitation might be propelling it. It will be interesting to see if his book offers additional arguments that the object might be artificial rather than an asteroid. Unfortunately, as with the radio signals, any follow-up studies are not likely to provide further insights, because ʻOumuamua is too far away now.
There’s a similar problem with studying Fast Radio Bursts (FRB), which some scientists have suggested may be artificial in nature. Personally, I think they are much more likely to have a natural origin, maybe similar to pulsars. Either way, because they appear to originate from outside our galaxy, further investigations are hampered by their great distance.
Then there’s the UFO phenomenon—or rather, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), a term that has less baggage and sounds more neutral. I’m the first to admit that scientists are often a bit arrogant and too quick to dismiss eyewitness reports of lay people or even the military. The main problem for us scientists—when considering the less than 10 percent of these observations that are truly puzzling—is that the scientific method relies heavily on repeatable experiments. And that doesn’t work well for UAPs. Still, I think we need to investigate these observations, or some of them at least, as they may lead to new insights about still unknown natural and atmospheric phenomena. That’s true no matter where one stands on the view that a fraction of them might be extraterrestrial spacecraft.
That brings us to the claims that certain structures on other planets or moons in our Solar System are artificial, or are fossils of higher life forms. I receive a lot of these, but I don’t find them convincing at all. As a trained geologist, I have seen a lot of strange rock structures that resemble animals or artificial constructions.
Having said that, there is one such case that still puzzles me—One object in that image does not look like a rock to me, although mission scientists interpreted it as a boulder. The object is highly reflective, which in places such as Earth or Ceres would not be unexpected. But there is no reason why there should be salt—at least not this amount—on an asteroid such as Eros. The object is rectangular, and again, rocks shaped like that are not uncommon on Earth, mostly because of weathering processes. Basalt columns on our own planet also have very distinct geometric features that from some viewpoints could appear rectangular. But neither kind of rock would be expected on a small, airless asteroid.
The main problem, as often happens, is that no higher resolution images are available. And what looks like an artificial shape at low resolution could turn out to be an oddly shaped boulder at higher resolution after all. What we need, then, is for somebody to fund a cubesat mission to Eros that can return better pictures. Any takers?
Posted 07 January 2021 - 01:25 PM
Herse a slightly better view.
"Ghosts are not conscious entities, but emotional energy recorded in matter"
Sir Oliver Lodge
Posted 07 January 2021 - 03:36 PM
Posted 13 January 2021 - 11:42 AM
Posted 14 January 2021 - 07:25 PM
Posted 15 January 2021 - 03:19 AM
No, I am not sure.
I reckon you are right earthly
Posted 15 January 2021 - 06:02 AM
The problem I have, as mentioned by kevinscan, is that it just does not look like a natural formation. There are literally hundreds of NEAR captured images, that cover pretty much every aspect of the asteroids surface, available to view on the web taken over the probe's 3-year mission (see https://nssdc.gsfc.n.../near_eros.html and http://near.jhuapl.e...od/archive.html as example sites). They clearly show multiple boulders and unusual formations on the surface, but nothing even close to the anomaly in the original post's picture.
Out of all the images that i have looked at (and there has been a few!), there is another thing that becomes apparent. There are dozens of images taken all over the asteroid's surface, especially where an object of interest is noted and further images have been recorded, and in some instances, fly-by movies of the areas in question have been recorded. Apart from this one. This is THE only image captured in 3-years of fly-bys, and orbiting, by NEAR of the anomaly and gets a 'rock formation' notation by NASA. Now, I am no conspiracy theorist by any means, but if it was just a rock formation, why are there no further images of it as there are for other formations noted by NASA and NEAR was tasked at taking further images of them at various altitudes and in some instances, in high definition?
As stated in a previous post, I am not really into the UFO or alien sighting side of the paranormal. However, as a naturally inquisitive (or nosey - lol) person, I find this really fascinating. It just does not 'fit' and I find it really hard, looking at this image, to see any rock formation, let alone a boulder. The rectangular section of the anomaly appears to consist of two seperate rectangular parts. Also, it should be noted that by looking at the shadow cast by the object, with the light source presumed to be in the NNE quadrant (approximately 400mils (20 degrees) referenced to the image's virtual 'North' and speculated by looking at ALL shadows presented in all the images) behind the object, the 'cylindrical' protrusion appears to be rising up, and away from the main 'body', and does not appear to make contact with the surface as the large rectangular section does:
Now, I'm not specifically saying this is something 'alien' - it could very well be some space junk caught upon the asteroid during near Earth flights for example - a perfectly logical explanation, but it IS very odd and unfortunately, I do not think we will ever get to see a high resolution image of what it actually is any time soon, if at all.