Banner
    A better than 50/50 chance Kepler-186f has technological life.
    By Hontas Farmer | April 18th 2014 09:46 PM | 30 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    SETI Live's data on Kepler-186's solar system could be revealing evidence of extraterrestrial life. SETI may have seen ET's satellite signals already. Here is the data and my analysis.   From my own expertise and experience in astronomy, specifically classifying signals for SETI Live... I say there is a better than 50/50 chance we have found that we are not alone.

    SETI Live, a program whereby anyone can take part in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence has already pointed it's telescope array at Kepler-186, also known as KIC 8120608.   I have done some digging and found their results. The following image shows the actual data from SETI Live on Kepler-186.  This image is what SEIT Live calls a "waterfall".  
    What are Waterfall Plots?
    A very useful way of sorting out a mixture of signals that come from different sources (ET or RFI) and get into the ATA beam is the "Waterfall" display. Sources can emit many frequencies at once but those frequencies will generally change in the same way with time if from the same source. If they evolve differently with time, they are probably from different sources. The Waterfall display shows a series of snapshots of the frequencies in the beam, taken every 1 second or so and then stacked on top of each other vertically to make an image. The horizontal position represents the frequency, the vertical position, the time of the snapshot and the strength of each frequency is indicated by the brightness. With this, we can see how all the frequencies evolve with time and decide which are related and which are not.
    So, now that you know what you would be seeing here is what the Allen Telescope Array saw from Kepler 186 on April 12th of 2014 at 19:20 UTC.  The frequency is approximately 6430.5 MHz (or 6.4305 GHz).

    SETI Live radio data on Kepler-186f


    Do any of you see a pattern in this noisy data?  Do any of you see what could look like a broadband signal from ET?  

    One of the problem with searching for ET's radio signals is that we often use the same frequencies. The laws of physics dictate the way we use satellite communications.  ET would have to obey those same laws.  As it happens the above data was taken at the C band... often used on Earth for satellite communication.  

    So how can we know weather we are looking at RFI from our own satellites or an ET signal?  

    A signal from Kepler-186f would be very faint.  It would look almost like static.  The difference is there would be a pattern of white streaks.  A few dozen pixels long and slightly on the diagonal.  They would be next to each other indicating a communication band.  IF there is a civilization with a satellite system at least as complicated as our own, there would be many such banded patterns next to each other.  

    I have been looking at SETI Live data on and off for many years now.  I think I know RFI when I see it.  I know random static when I see it.   Looking at the data from Kepler-186f this is what I see. 

    Kepler-186f at 6.4 GHz as seen by the Allen Telescope Array.



    Usually I am the one who gives a sober voice and a calm measured reading to scientific data while the rest of the media has a field day.  That is my niche. There are many caveats to what I am about to claim. This could be confirmation bias. Who wouldn't want to find such a signal set in a known solar system? It could be really weak RFI from Seth Shostak talking to his wife about picking up milk on his Bluetooth. It could be reflected interference from satellites in Earth's orbit.  I could have lost my ever loving mind.  


    Allow me to be bombastic, based on the above data and I will say there is a better than 50/50 chance Kepler-186f has technological life. 
    There is a strong possibility that KEPLER-186f may have intelligent life! Much more study would be needed along many fronts before we could know this one way or the other with real certainty.  I would put the odds at 50/50 or 60/40 in favor of intelligent life using radio.   


    I wish to go on record publicly now as saying that there is a very good chance Kepler-186 has a technological civilization which 500 years ago (when the signals would have left there) was at least as advanced as our own.   I could  be very wrong....but that data is just what I would expect an ET signal to look like.  It would be very noisy and degraded broadband communication as one would see from a network of satellites orbiting a planet. 


    Michio Kaku explains the problems with searching for ET quite well. 



    His mention of ET using a broadband signal is just what I had in mind for the last two or three years or so that I have been doing this.  The signals I see in that background are what a broadband signal would look like.   

    None of this is withstanding what I said earlier about how Kepler-186f is most likely much colder than Earth.  There is no reason that technological life could not develop on a very cold planet.  To life which is evolved for such a planet our world is what would seem strange. 

    How to test this hypothesis.

    This situation shows the reason we need to restart work on the terrestrial Planet finder (both versions coroagraph and interferometer).  If we had the TPF right now we could find out just what the deal was with Kepler-186f.

    Only a device like the TPF could practically test the hypothesis that Kepler-186f has technological life in a very rigorous way.   Listening in on radio has many question marks.  Seeing the spectrum of the planet and finding methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and soot, from technological life would close the case to a 70-80 percent chance.  

    One more thing to consider.  If there are ET's living on Kepler-186f they look at Earth and see us at about 500 years ago.  They see Earth at about the same time that Pocahontas was alive. So unless they have something like the terrestrial planet finder they have no idea we are here, and intelligent.

    Updated 4/24/2014 3:05 AM CDST to add a illustration which hi lites my points about what it would take to say we've found ET technological life with anything like 90 or 100 percent certainty. 




    To look for a signal so strong that it would've been beamed at us intentionally is not a good way to proceed.  Instead we should look for three kinds of evidence, which by themselves would not be proof enough, but when taken together are a powerful argument that a planet must have technological life.  Like a stool needs all three legs for support and stability, this conclusion needs at least the three types of evidence in the triangle.   A Earth mass planet in the habitable zone, possible communication as indicated by non-random appearing radio, IR, or optical signals, and spectroscopic data indicating a life friendly atmosphere with trace elements technology would introduce.  

    Any one of those three types of proof could be explained away by a naturalistic explanation.  Spectral analysis of 186f, or any other planets atmosphere showing carbon, soot, water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, and trace radioactive elements could mean two things.  Either a civilization like ours has been belching out carbon oxides and testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere...or there is very active volcanism.   If we have that spectra data, and a HZ planet, and possible communications, the odds we would see all of those by chance are astronomical...less than 1%.  Then and only then could we say we have likely found the home of another technologically intelligent species. 


    At best what we have on 186f now gives us a two legged stool.  A two legged stool cannot stand, but we should try to find that third leg. 

    Comments

    Michael Martinez
    I don't know anything about analyzing this kind of data but if you reverse the colors on your first image all sorts of short parallel streaks show up.  How long does a streak have to be before it means something?  Can the intensity vary along the course of the streak?  What does it take to confirm your hypothesis (besides the TPF)?  Surely it can't be as simple as asking people what they see.  If I stare at all that stuff long enough I can almost see Von Neumann's "Game of Life" matrix.  I doubt that is a helpful observation.
    Hfarmer
    I don't know anything about analyzing this kind of data but if you reverse the colors on your first image all sorts of short parallel streaks show up.  How long does a streak have to be before it means something?


    A signal will be a definite pattern which will go across the whole length of the waterfall plot.  Earth based RFI will look like a strong signal.  It will be intense and bright.  



    ET's signals will be very weak.  A few dozen pixels then black, a few more pixels then black.   There will be a band of these next to each other along a narrow slice of the waterfall plot.   It is the pattern of streaks that are a few pixes here and there long next to each other is what you should look for.    As I say above, if ET has a network of satellites, as we do, then there will be more than one such possible signal.   Only an ET civilization with a network of satellites in geosynchronous orbit and such could put out a signal we could reasonably expect to find. 


    http://www.setilive.org/#/about/gallery



    Can the intensity vary along the course of the streak?  What does it take to confirm your hypothesis (besides the TPF)?  Surely it can't be as simple as asking people what they see. 


    Yes the intensity should vary a little bit.  The signal should be weak if it's the real deal. 


    If other people see these streaks then that would be a minimal sanity check.  That would mean we should really earnestly investigate more.  


    The next step would be to have other telescope array's scan this particular solar system and see what they find.  


    However, nothing less than the TPF could close the case.  Either we could analyse the spectrum and find the right gasses in the right proportions to indicate a technological civilization or we would not.  


    If I stare at all that stuff long enough I can almost see Von Neumann's "Game of Life" matrix.  I doubt that is a helpful observation.


    Funny, but a real, plausible, ET signal is not going to be strong and clear and obvious in one observation.  The point of SETI live is to identify planets which should be examined more closely.  Kepler 186f is one that really needs at least that. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    What is the signal strength at the frequency of interest? You only point out that the intensity of the mark is the signal strength, but you don't say what that strength is. At about 490 ly the radio leakage would have to be much stronger than ours to stand above background noise.

    Hfarmer

    What is the signal strength at the frequency of interest?

    I can't provide you with that number. The data is not provided to me in a format which would allow me to give you that number. The screen shot you see, the first one, before I hilited it (as is what is done on the SETI live website) is the information as I saw it.

    If I had the data myself I would want to characterize the amplitude of the regions which look like they are simply noise to me vs those which look like a possible signal and see if there is a difference. I would want to simulate some random noise, then apply a noise filtering algorithm and see what survives. I would love to have access to the RAW data, not just the waterfall plot and be able to do some more numerical analysis of my own. SETI Live, does not provide that. I suppose if we all asked nicely they could give those of us interested in such things access to that data.*

    Figure this, unless I am missing something, which is quite possible... it would be easier for me to give you those sort of numbers on some region of the PLANCK data. It's openly accessible. see http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/planck.html

    * Edited to add: I'm certain if that was as simple as I make it sound SETI wouldn't have SETI live and would just have a bank of computers to do that. I suppose the innate pattern recognition ability of human brains, especially if two brains agree is more powerful. We have only been evolving it for as long as there have been mammals, and mammal like synapsids..about 250-300 million years give or take.

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    "A better than 50/50 chance Kepler-186f has technological life."

    Those are fighting words.

    "Do any of you see a pattern in this noisy data? Do any of you see what could look like a broadband signal from ET?"

    Basically what you want us to do is a manual Hough Transform on the pixel data. That is Probably Not a Good Idea.

    Has the data been corrected for relative speeds of the planetary systems and planets - and also satellites?

    What does the SETI@Home (running since '98 or so) say to this? Has that star been covered in the targeted search at the given frequency range? Maybe they even threw it through the pulse detector (Astropulse).

    "It would be very noisy and degraded broadband communication as one would see from a network of satellites orbiting a planet."

    What probably would stand out best is military radar scanning the skies.

    Hfarmer
    "A better than 50/50 chance Kepler-186f has technological life." Those are fighting words. "Do any of you see a pattern in this noisy data? Do any of you see what could look like a broadband signal from ET?" Basically what you want us to do is a manual Hough Transform on the pixel data. That is Probably Not a Good Idea.
    Nope. I am asking you to use your eyeballs and your brain to see if you recognize a pattern. SETI Live is all about harnessing the pattern recognition ability of the most intelligent Neural networks we know of, Human brains. After having looked at many such patterns one can train ones self to recognize all manner of RFI VS noise without pattern. When I see a pattern that does not look like any RFI I have seen in many years of doing this, I mark it up as shown above. I have never seen so many possible ET's in one place...let alone from a place which we know has a very likely habitable, Earth sized planet.
    Has the data been corrected for relative speeds of the planetary systems and planets - and also satellites?
    The data shown above, the "waterfall plot" is exactly as SETI live gives it to us. I do not think they "correct" for the speeds (because we could not know what speed to correct for since a communications system could be engineered to work at any frequency even those which do not correspond to any known spectral pattern for any known compound). On the subject of speeds....assume for a moment that each of those is a signal from the planet up to a satellite, or space-station of theirs. If we can observe those signals better we can figure out their level of space faring technology (as it was 500 years ago...they could have nuked themselves by now). Guessing that they are using something like our C band communications we could figure out the orbital periods of their satellites, perhaps a range of masses (small sputniks or large space habitats. Something to consider: based on our own communications signals an alien observing us could figure out our level of technology from 50-100 light years away.
    What does the SETI@Home (running since '98 or so) say to this? Has that star been covered in the targeted search at the given frequency range? Maybe they even threw it through the pulse detector (Astropulse). "It would be very noisy and degraded broadband communication as one would see from a network of satellites orbiting a planet."
    Yes it has been covered. The data I have show you is from SETI. Fresh off the Allen Telescope Array.
    What probably would stand out best is military radar scanning the skies.
    Probably...looking for the people on the other side to send over their ICBM's. Hopefully if we ever to visit a extrasolar planet with life, we find it's intelligent and not as self destructive as we are.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    What power would the transmissions have to be, 500 light years away, to produce this magnitude signal here?

    Hfarmer
    The simple answer is IF these are signals they would be from something like a satellite ground station or a radar system such as the ones we use to give ballistic missile early warning. 


    I do not have access to the data it would take to give that a technical answer.  I would need something like a .fits file which gives the intensity of each dot to even be able to calculate it.  

    To put it qualitatively it is like trying to see a light house from 10000 miles away. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    1. OMG can you please change "weather" to "whether"? Don't mean to be that nitpicky guy but I do worry someone could call your cred into question over that mistake and that would be a damn shame. (Sorry, I'm an editor.)

    2. Is anyone else reporting similar interpretations?

    Could you please provide the raw data or give instructions on where to find it?

    Hfarmer
    Sorry I did not answer you sooner.  The place to find the raw data is on the SETI live website.  You would have to sign up for it. 
    Then, because they do not simply call these stars Kepler-### to find Kepler 186 among the Kepler targets you would need to sort and classify a certain amount of data to find Kepler-186 by it's KIC number (KIC 8120608) which is how they are listed on the SETI live website. That is also how they are listed when you are classifying them.  As far as I can tell which you are shown is random so you would just need to sort through a large number of sources to get to the  waterfall image directly.  



    As far as where to download the RAW 100% unprocessed, even into a fits file or waterfall image of any kind, fresh off the telescope array, data .... you should write SETI about that.  Some of us have Matlab and would like to try a few things with the data ourselves...

    All of that said the top screen cap is the data exactly as I saw it pixel per pixel. Exactly as SETI live would show it to you.   Just right click and say open in new tab/new window.




    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    OK...

    So unless they have something like the terrestrial planet finder they have no idea we are here, and intelligent.

    Why would this be true? TPF - or any other technology we know - would use EM radiation (radio, light, microwaves, etc) and it all travels the same speed. If you looked at Earth from 500 light years away it's 1514 - no artificial light, no radio emissions, a population a very small fraction of what it is today, cities MUCH smaller than they are today. TPF would only be able to image continents at 50 light years - at 500 light years you *MIGHT* be able to figure out that the planet *HAD* continents, but not what they really looked like, and no indication of life intelligent or otherwise.

    Sorry - no documentation. The Wikipedia site is the best I can do on short notice and almost all the links that page has are 404. But notice the furthest planet on the Wiki page? 29 light years. 500 isn't a little bit harder, it's several orders of magnitude harder.

    Follow me on Twitter @VAXHeadroom

    Hfarmer
    So unless they have something like the terrestrial planet finder they have no idea we are here, and intelligent. Why would this be true? TPF - or any other technology we know - would use EM radiation (radio, light, microwaves, etc) and it all travels the same speed. If you looked at Earth from 500 light years away it's 1514 - no artificial light, no radio emissions, a population a very small fraction of what it is today, cities MUCH smaller than they are today. TPF would only be able to image continents at 50 light years - at 500 light years you *MIGHT* be able to figure out that the planet *HAD* continents, but not what they really looked like, and no indication of life intelligent or otherwise.
    The answer is spectral analysis. TPF would in most cases have not imaged continents and such. If anyone was thinking that TPF (now cancelled) would've produced an "image" of any real resolution then they were misled. A simulated image of what the TPF-C would've seen is here. What it would've produced is at best a dot of light. By analyzing the spectrum of that dot of light we can tell the chemical composition of the planets atmosphere. Different elements and molecules have different spectral signatures. By looking at the ratio's of various gasses we could constrain the likelihood that they had technology. If they looked at us 500 years ago, assuming they had something like TPF and only as good as TPF...not better... they would've seen a spectrum for a planet with at best a pre-industrial civilization on it. By that time we were already burning a great deal of wood and coal altering the atmosphere's chemistry. They probably would not be able to rule out wildfires. After a time of observing they would either have to conclude that on our planet, 500 years ago, either there was a great deal of controlled burning, or a great deal of natural wildfires.
    Sorry - no documentation. The Wikipedia site is the best I can do on short notice and almost all the links that page has are 404. But notice the furthest planet on the Wiki page? 29 light years. 500 isn't a little bit harder, it's several orders of magnitude harder. Follow me on Twitter @VAXHeadroom
    Which wiki page are you referring to?
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    I don't buy it. The human visual system is so hypersensitive to certain patterns (particularly lines) that people will routinely see them in pure random noise. Only a purely quantitative analysis can do the job here.

    Hfarmer
    1.) That is true if the human visual system is untrained. SETI's big problem is all the RFI we produce here on Earth. Most of what SETI live sees is just random noise or RFI which is bright and clear and obvious looking. It also looks like what an ET signal would look like if it were really really close. This point leads to... 
    2.) Computers are only good at finding things if they know exactly what to look for. SETI has been using just the kind of analysis you are thinking of for decades and the computers would alert them every time some communication satellite moved by.

      As SETI explains it. 
    Computer algorithms however don't work very well when there are also strong signals coming from earthbound and orbiting signal sources. Humans use radio signals a lot to communicate with each other (e.g. with satellites and WiFi) and to make matters worse, non-radio electronics (e.g. digital cameras and computers) produce unintentional radio signals as a byproduct of their normal operation. This means that while trying to listen for faint radio signals from space the telescope will also pick up a lot of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) here on Earth. One of the hardest parts of hunting for signals from space is separating what might be an ET signal from the earth-based RFI sources. We think that human eyes, and our amazing brains, should be better than a computer at finding interesting signals in the noise.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Hfarmer
    A REPLY TO SETH SHOSTAK's Article At Huffington post.
    Rather than write a whole new article at this time I will repost my reply at Huffington post here.  
    Kepler 186f: Is It Inhabited?


    There he argues that it would take a basically Arecibo sized 100 MW transmitter pointed right at Earth to see any signal. 


    I beg to differ with Dr. Shostak.  


    The one point I differ on in this composition is the need for a football field sized 100 MW football field sized dish (something like Areicibo) pointed at Earth to get "any signal at all".  

    If he's holding out for a purposely  beamed copy of the "encyclopedia Galactica" then sure it's as clear as he says it is.  That isn't there.  Personally I think we should be looking for something much MUCH fainter.  Like the signals we would send into space to our own communications satellites, and for something similar to our own military radar (i.e. the PAVE PAWS system or BMEWs Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radars.)   We could easily see things like that with the ATA those are high powered trasmistters beaming microwaves into space.  They're no Arecibo but we could still detect something like that.  (If we really can't we should scrap the ATA).

    I wrote up my own analysis from actually putting my eyes on the data as part of the SETI Live project. 

    (You're looking at it so I leave out this link)

    If we will only take a direct high fidelity message as one line of proof we are going to miss a great deal.  We should be open to instead of receiving a purpose beamed treatise on Quantum Gravity and how to end hunger... receiving the aliens version of the Ally mcBeal  or the playboy channel. 

    That's what I had at Huffpo if they approve the comment.   Here is what I would add regarding the kind of radars we have pointed into space to look for a missile attack.  

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/raffylingdales/aboutus/equipment.cfm


    The SSPAR was built by Raytheon and consists of a 3-sided truncated pyramid about 120 feet (40m) high. Each face is approximately 84 feet (28m) in diameter and contains an array of 2,560 transmit/receive modules, each with a circularly polarised ‘Pawsey Stub’ antenna. Each antenna has a power output of 340 watts and this gives an overall mean power output from the 3 faces of approximately 2.5 Mega Watts.
    That's not 100 but it's not chopped liver.  And there are six of those operating under NATO control  (Clear AFB Alaska, Beal California, Cape Cod Massachusetts, Alert Canada, Thule Norway, and RAF Fylingdales. Not even counting comparable Russian and Chinese X Band radars. It adds up to 15 MW of very unnatural looking signal beamed into space.   The other thing we can do is analyze any remotely possible signal to see if it has any information content.  One scientist has figured out how to do this even if we don't know the content of the message. 

    The key is not the intensity of the signal, the key is whether it appears natural or not, even if it is unclear and weak.  Any credible signal from space won't look like it came from a 100 MW antenna pointed at Earth. I would be more skeptical if it did.  

    So ends my reply to Dr. Shostack. 

    The below is a simple version of my argument geared for the general public and hopefully funny. 

    Any credible signal from Earth won't look like a broadcast of Single Female lawyer or vice versa. 



    We would not be able to watch their TV. Yet that cartoon points out a few interesting aspects of this problem.

    The fact is that radio observations alone will NEVER EVER EVER be able to "prove" by themselves that whatever signals we see came from intelligent life.  We need to check out this planet in the visible and infrared.  We need to examine it's spectrum for an atmosphere that can support life, and then for the pollutants that tell tale of technology.   If we don't have telescopes planned which could we need to scrap those telescopes and build some that can.  

    We should finish the JWST and then think about how we can ever get a pale dot image of Kepler 186f.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    rholley
    Judging by its high global warming potential, nitrogen trifluoride must have quite a strong infrared absorption spectrum.  I wonder if it could be detected in Earth’s atmosphere?

    If so, beings from another planet might guess that ours is home to life-forms capable of making plasma-screen TVs.  Though whether they would count that as intelligent life is another matter.
     
     Doh!
     
     
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Hfarmer
     Especially if they ever see most of what we put on TV.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    So, why cant i find other interpretations like yours?

    Im really excited about that possibility. Why SETI did not make an annoucement on that?

    It should be on CNN.. the speculation about it is wonderfull thing to watch on the news!

    Hfarmer
    So, why cant i find other interpretations like yours?

    Like many simple sounding questions the answer is often complicated.  

    The short short answer is that my interpretation is my headline and my overall interpretation does not conflict in any way with the main thrust of SETI's position. I say there is a better than 50/50 chance which is not by any means a certainty.  They would only say they have something if they had a 90 to 95% confidence level.

    Flip a slightly unfair coin... one that comes up heads 51 or maybe 55% of the time ...then add a margin of error of 25%... that's the odds of 186f being inhabited based on what data there is and my interpretation of it.  All I say is this planet bears much MUCH more examination via radio, infrared, visible etc.  What SETI has said on it does not contradict that.  For them to say (or for me to say) "we have certainly seen a signal from another planet"  they would want (and I would agree with) a 90-95% level of  confidence.  

    Understand the difference? 

    Here's the long answer

    Let me break it down for you, here is what Shostak says with all needed context.

    quoted verbatim from their press release:

    But the fact that we've not yet picked up radio noise from this sibling world is hardly discouraging. To begin with, Kepler 186f is nearly 500 light-years away, which is a fair piece, even for astronomers. To detect radio signals with the Allen Array would require aliens wielding a transmitter of at least 100 million watts, mounted on an antenna the size of a football field. They'd also have to train the antenna in our direction.

    But of course, they don't know about Homo sapiens, so their incentive to beam signals our way is probably small.

    That's a question of incentive. But a larger concern is this: Even if Kepler 186f has been thrumming with life for billions of years, does it also host creatures who can build a radio transmitter? After all, aliens could have swung their eavesdropping equipment in our direction for more than 4 billion years without picking up a thing, even though Earth has had critters on it for nearly all that time. Only in the last 70 years or so have we been bubbling high-frequency, high-powered radio waves skyward -- mostly as leakage from our radar, TV and FM radio.

    Indeed, that simple observation suggests that if you want a decent chance of finding the extraterrestrials, you need to examine a lot of planets similar to Kepler 186f.

    (Quoted Verbatim)

    Let's look at this a little closer and really parse what was said. (That's what science blogs are for.)
    He said: 
    But the fact that we've not yet picked up radio noise from this sibling world is hardly discouraging.
    Given what I have shown above, which is that the Allen Telescope Array only scanned that target on the 12th of this month I'd bet he does not know if the ATA has scanned that area or not.  You see as Senior Astronomer of SETI day to day matters like just where the ATA points at aren't what he deals with.  He's big picture, not details. That's the nature of being a boss. 

    Let me explain how science is really done. A senior astronomer like Seth Shostak  does not look at the day to day data gathered by the ATA.  He manages the big picture. A large number of other people sit between him and the data.  So the signal I'm talking about in this blog my have never ever been personally examined by him. 
    If another SETI live volunteer makes similar classifications on that waterfall plot then that's more than a coincidence and at that point it gets looked at in a more systematic way.  To make sure it's not a fluke or a really really really degraded Earth based signal from someone's microwave oven.  Hence I ask (do you see what I see you too can go look at 186f and many other planets for yourself). 

    Seth Shostak said:

    To detect radio signals with the Allen Array would require aliens wielding a transmitter of at least 100 million watts, mounted on an antenna the size of a football field. They'd also have to train the antenna in our direction.

    This I can only assume is his singular, well respected, opinion.   Since in fact SETI has pointed the Allen Array at Kepler 186.  As the screen cap in my article shows on April 12th 2014.  So his word ain't gospel. 

    If what he said above wasn't just an opinion based on his preference for what kind of ET signal he would like to see... then why would SETI ever bother pointing the Allen Array at Kepler-186f or any other Kepler target?  Which they do...in fact they make a special point of showing us data from Kepler-targets which have known planets.

    The data on Kepler-186f was archived and kept for SETI live volunteers to look at. Therefore whoever works at SETI and decides where to point the Allen Array has more confidence in it, and/or a more open mind about what kind of signal can constitute proof than Dr. Shostak.  

    According to SETI Live us volunteers are the most likely the very first humans to look at this data depending on when we are looking.  Depending on when I log on, we are looking at data coming right off the array with brief pauses for the dishes to rotate to the next target.  

    I'm sure more than one of us has to find something interesting and likely not just noise for it to be kicked up the ladder.  I have the forum to discuss what I see in that plot, and the qualification in astrophysics enough and experience looking at these plots enough to state, in my judgement.... there is something going on there that bears further looking at. That is all I have said in this posting. 

    What's more is according to the press release...they are looking at 186f and many other possible homes for life hoping to find, what is in my humble opinion, a "too good to be true signal".   A signal which would allow them to exclude the null hypothesis with a 99% level of confidence.  We should settle for what is described in the next quote.

    Seth Shostak said:
    Only in the last 70 years or so have we been bubbling high-frequency, high-powered radio waves skyward -- mostly as leakage from our radar, TV and FM radio.

    This is the type of thing I think is just barely visible in that waterfall plot.  A very degraded signal...not quite regularly spaced but like there are several beams in a frequency band we use for satellites but an ET could use for anything from satellites and deep space communications to radar.   

    With all respect, we should forget about ever seeing a purpose beamed "too good to be true signal".   It is so improbable...we should be happy with a little bit of non-random super weak unimpressive looking signal.  Then we should look in that direction with other instruments. Even if we need to invent them specially for the purpose to confirm with fully independent lines of evidence. 


    If I am correct, then between Kepler just barely seeing a planet in the habitable zone, and the ATA seeing, just barely (if at all) a possible ET signal from that direction that is a pretty darn good indication of where to look again, and again, and again.    Taken together two independent lines of evidence add up to something significant.  


    Now if only we could get the spectral analysis of that planets atmosphere....
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Whether this one or the next one, they are out there. Good Luck!! Where is "Star Gate" when we really need one??

    Hfarmer
    If such a thing would've ever existed the program would've fallen to budget cuts and the goa'uld would've gained 6 billion slaves. Proof: a telescope which would've had a chance in heck of giving us some light from this planet was cancelled.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Hontas you are probably right. In the 1960s I was dismayed when it came to light that more people watched a new episode of the Beverly Hillbillys that watched the newest Mercury Launch. And people think there is intelligent life on our planet, what a joke!!

    rholley
    a telescope which would've had a chance in heck of giving us some light from this planet was cancelled.
    Which telescope-that-never-was?

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Hfarmer
    The terrestrial planet finder.  It was going to be two telescopes.  TPF-C which was planned for this year and has been cancelled.  C means coronagraph it would have produced a small dot like image at best.  
    There was also TPF-I an interferometer which was slated for 20-20 which would have been able to see in situations that TPF-C could not. 

    According to a SETI press relase they assert that neither could have seen this planet at all.  My counter argument for that is the Hubble Telescope, the rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity", pretty much every other successful robotic mission...  Once built we have found new and creative ways to use these devices beyond their design specs.  So I have trouble accepting that if TPF was actually up and running 1/2 of the mission scientist on it wouldn't be trying to think of a way... perhaps long exposures and lots of creative computing... to extract Kepler 186f's spectrum from it. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Hfarmer
    So because I did not toe the line that various transgender activist wanted regarding a certain theory on Wikipedia discredits me?  

    Recently some rather compelling evidence in support of Blanchard's theory has come to light.  
    Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study  In which they took note of Blanchard's theory and selected only Homosexual sometimes put "androphillic" (based on self report and self definition) male to female transsexuals. They found...
    We found a robust difference between transsexuals and controls affecting both the anterior and posterior lobe of the left cerebellum (229 voxels), an effect that is independent from the biological gender. Such a difference in the cerebellar region has not been documented in the literature.
    Which the Transgender community would trupet to the heavens as proof of the idea of a nuerological "brain sex"....but for the fact that it would simultaneously support a theory that they hate.
    Remember folks, activist don't  care about science, they don't care about facts they just care about their pro LGBT, anti LGBT, Pro big business, anti big business, pro vaccination, anti vaccination, pro GMO, anti GMO agenda's.  They will smear people to make their points.  

    I wear the fact that someone wanted to attack me that way as a badge of honor, and a medal of scientific valor. 

    I've been attacked before for saying that CERN was WRONG about FLT neutrino's, I've been called a moron because clearly SUSY particles would come flying out of the LHC as soon as it was switched on, etc etc.  I have not been wrong yet (mainly because like my 50/50 statement in this article...I know how to precisely hedge my bets.) 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Michael Martinez
    A hate campaign on the Internet.  Yeah, that will surely sway debate on a scientific website.
    I find your results very interesting and compelling, Hontas. (Like most everyone else LOL) I'll be observing the data for patterns as well. Moving forward, don't be discouraged and use the balanced approach, as many respondents have suggested. I'll be following these matters closely....

    Hfarmer
    Thanks.  Like I've said umpteen times I never said this was anything like certain.  Only that as many eyes as possible should look in as many different ways as possible. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <span> <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.