Decoding a SETI "WOW" signal


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Decoding a SETI "WOW" signal

Author Message
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,483,891
RAC: 2,526
Ireland
Message 1097416 - Posted: 15 Apr 2011, 8:54:24 UTC
Last modified: 15 Apr 2011, 9:08:06 UTC

Decoding a SETI "WOW" signal

Ok, pretend for a moment that YOU personally have some computer algorithm that decoded one of the SETI@home work units and you actually found one of those magic "WOW" signals yourself. So you download lots of work units and you get the complete message that was transmitted by ET.

So, pretend its like in the film "Contact" with Jodie Foster. You have the full message, thousands of lines of code. Lets say you find the "Primmer" and you piece together lots and lots of incredibly complex technical and engineering drawings. Wow, now that would be incredible, wouldn't it!!!

So naturally you email the project scientists here at SETI@home to let them know the incredible discovery you made.

Now remember what you found, and what your saying in the email to tell the SETI@home scientists;
Your saying YOU detected extraterrestrials, you decoded the signal, you have the complete set of engineering drawings, but your unable to interpret the drawings by yourself without help because they are so complex. You don't know what the engineering drawings mean? After all, your just an ordinary Joe-soap. Even if you sent the drawings to the SETI scientists, they would most likely say you drew them yourself on your own computer.

What if they did not believe you when you emailed them? Who would you tell? Remember there are so many lunatics out there today, anyone suggesting they found ET and decoded all his engineering drawings won't be believed!! You can't tell the cops, they will arrest you! You can't tell a priest, he will think your anti God. You can't tell your family cos they will dis-own you. Even scientists who work in the field of SETI are so wary of lunatics they don't pay any attention to your rubbish.

How far would you go to try to learn and understand the incredibly complex engineering drawings?

What would you do if this fictitious situation were real?

John.
____________

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1098098 - Posted: 16 Apr 2011, 17:13:37 UTC - in response to Message 1097416.

Right on, let the astronomers interpret potential radio ETI signals.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,483,891
RAC: 2,526
Ireland
Message 1098111 - Posted: 16 Apr 2011, 17:35:08 UTC - in response to Message 1098098.

Right on, let the astronomers interpret potential radio ETI signals.

If you thought you had a way to decode the SETI work units, would you not try find ET yourself?

John.
____________

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1098135 - Posted: 16 Apr 2011, 19:26:02 UTC - in response to Message 1098111.

Correct, astronomy is best interpreted by astronomers, not UFO entusiasts

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13578
Credit: 29,896,662
RAC: 16,297
United States
Message 1098165 - Posted: 16 Apr 2011, 20:41:14 UTC

If your methodology is sound, you'll be able to show and prove to anyone your findings and how you arrived at them.

The rest is just fearful fodder because of not being able to fool everyone into thinking you've found something when you really haven't.

If you make bold claims and can back them, people will listen. If people aren't listening, then they're trying to tell you something, and it isn't that they just don't understand.

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1098191 - Posted: 16 Apr 2011, 22:02:12 UTC - in response to Message 1098165.

There are many people with many claims who also have evidence to back their claims up. But because people won't believe an incredible story such as this, that evidence would go untouched by those who would understand it and maybe even accept it. Just because someone doesn't believe you, doesn't make it untrue. At a time no one believed we could go into space, much less the moon. But we did. Now are the people with the evidence that we could make it "UFO entusiasts" who were crazy?
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13578
Credit: 29,896,662
RAC: 16,297
United States
Message 1098311 - Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 3:57:21 UTC - in response to Message 1098191.

Sorry, but that's not true. Plenty of scientists would be more than willing to hear your story and see your evidence if there's anything to it. People are willing to listen. Sure, the bolder the claim, the more likely it will get brushed off, but if you have proof, people will be forced to listen.

At a time no one believed we could go into space, much less the moon. But we did.


The problem with your "going into space and to the moon" argument goes, is that we actually proved it. We actually went into space and eventually the moon. We have evidence that we've done both. It's not a matter of belief, but a matter of empirical fact.

The argument doesn't even fit the scenario. It would be more like if someone claimed to have gone to the moon in the 1800s and wanted everyone to "believe" him that he actually did it. Fine, show everyone how you did it. Let other people do it. Let people see it for themselves.

Just because someone doesn't believe you, doesn't make it untrue.


Science isn't simply about somebody "believing" you through faith. Science is about observation, repetition, and critical thought. Don't worry about people "believing" you. Give them all the evidence you have and let them sort through it for themselves.

Your statement is very true, but also very off the point. Sure, just because someone doesn't believe you, doesn't make it untrue. You have to show them that it's true. They will be forced to see it for what it is, or they will see you for the fabricator you are, or they will show you the errors in your methodology.

What if we took this approach to all of mankind's knowledge? How would we have start learning if we only wanted people to believe us but not to show and teach each other what we've discovered and learned? And how would we build on those discoveries with more knowledge and more discoveries? That's the intellectual foundation mankind is built upon.

With ideas, only the truth survives. Anything else is discarded until proven. Yes, even scientists have theories that they are working on, and may work on for their entire lives, that may never see the light of peer-review. It may take decades of work and many devoted scientists to discover, test and share. Even scientists have to prove their ideas, and not all of them are simply "believed" just because there's a claim.



If you believe UFO claims now are like Dark Matter claims in the 1920s (for the record, they weren't even a theory back then, I'm just using this to illustrate the current claim of "no one will listen"), then you must work diligently at it and you must share your findings if you truly believe in them, so that the ideas can take flight until we finally learn the truth of it - if there's any truth at all.

(The reason why alien spacecraft claims seem to go unresearched is because they actually are, and the evidence is always lacking, circumstantial, inaccurate, or just plain fraudulent. The same goes for stories of ghosts, out of body experiences and other paranormal phenomenon. We research them and we find truthful explanations that people don't want to admit to. They want to believe in what their minds have fooled them into thinking instead of listening to reason and logic).


To wit, I leave you with links to Penn and Teller's episodes from their hit show "Bullshit" on "Talking to the Dead" and "Alien Abductions", each episode showing what research has actually found on each subject:

Talking to the Dead part 1
Talking to the Dead part 2
Talking to the Dead part 3

Alien Abductions part 1
Alien Abductions part 2
Alien Abductions part 3
Alien Abductions part 4

(Notice: Coarse language is often used on the show)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,483,891
RAC: 2,526
Ireland
Message 1098449 - Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 16:30:01 UTC - in response to Message 1098311.
Last modified: 17 Apr 2011, 16:39:44 UTC


Science isn't simply about somebody "believing" you through faith. Science is about observation, repetition, and critical thought. Don't worry about people "believing" you. Give them all the evidence you have and let them sort through it for themselves.

OzzFan,
You speak in a very knowledgeable way, i listen very carefully to the things you say. Sometimes i read your responses several times.

OzzFan its interesting that you mention the word "faith" when talking about science. Because even though scientists never like to use the word faith, they still MUST have faith that when they carry out research, they must trust the scientific work done by others. For instance, one gravitational research scientist must "trust" and have "faith" that Newton and Einstein's formula's are 100% correct. If Newton and Einstein's formula's are wrong, then all NEW research based on those formula's will be wrong!

So funny as it might be, scientists must trust and have faith in the work done by others in the past.

Now another thing to add to that is that scientists, no matter how reputable and qualified they are, they are human and they do make mistakes. And another thing, scientists also tell lies just like any other person. They tell lies and make up results just to finish a paper and get it published. This happens far more frequently than you think! And peer review does not alway weed it out. If i'm peer reviewing another scientists paper, i will tend to simply have faith and trust that he did all the work. Thats how bad science ends up in mainstream science text books. Bad science does slip through the net.

OzzFan i personally believe that hugh sections of todays mainstream science are based on assumptions and bad science. Putting it simply, far too many scientists just simply "trust" the work done by others and base their research on science that was never 100% proven. OzzFan i know this for a fact! Why?? Because i have found tonnes of stuff that is just bad science and i'm about to publish this in the coming months. One of those errors is to do with gravity research, and the error is colossal.

John.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13578
Credit: 29,896,662
RAC: 16,297
United States
Message 1098504 - Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 19:27:00 UTC - in response to Message 1098449.

OzzFan its interesting that you mention the word "faith" when talking about science. Because even though scientists never like to use the word faith, they still MUST have faith that when they carry out research, they must trust the scientific work done by others. For instance, one gravitational research scientist must "trust" and have "faith" that Newton and Einstein's formula's are 100% correct. If Newton and Einstein's formula's are wrong, then all NEW research based on those formula's will be wrong!


There's a difference between blind faith and well-placed faith.

So funny as it might be, scientists must trust and have faith in the work done by others in the past.


True. And through constantly testing our own theories, we can tell when assumptions were made and when those assumptions were incorrect.

Now another thing to add to that is that scientists, no matter how reputable and qualified they are, they are human and they do make mistakes. And another thing, scientists also tell lies just like any other person. They tell lies and make up results just to finish a paper and get it published. This happens far more frequently than you think! And peer review does not alway weed it out. If i'm peer reviewing another scientists paper, i will tend to simply have faith and trust that he did all the work. Thats how bad science ends up in mainstream science text books. Bad science does slip through the net.


All very true about scientists taking shortcuts - but the truth always comes out. Where one scientist takes shortcuts, another one who is building upon that knowledge will test that previous scientist's theories and find the mistakes. It does a scientist no good to assume that all data given is accurate.

It doesn't even take a scientist to know this. When I start a new job, I don't just assume through faith or trust that what people are telling me is accurate. I test their knowledge and theories and I correct what I see wrong. I prove it to them with my findings. If I made a mistake in my findings, they will surely let me know. That's how things work.

Bad science does happen. But it is usually discovered quickly by all the other scientists in the field. There isn't an exclusive club of scientist who all believe each other simply due to "faith" and "trust". Take a look at the cloning biologist in Japan who committed suicide after it was found that his claims were false and he manipulated years of data.

Do you think that if Dr. Eric Korpela suddenly announced that he found proof of aliens, that somehow the world would listen to him and faithfully trust his findings just because he's a scientist? It doesn't work that way. Lots of other scientists would be checking his work and verifying that he didn't fabricate or make mistakes.

The whole world wants answers, and we have an astounding thirst for truth. If no one believes you because you can't back it up, then it's probably not true.

OzzFan i personally believe that hugh sections of todays mainstream science are based on assumptions and bad science. Putting it simply, far too many scientists just simply "trust" the work done by others and base their research on science that was never 100% proven. OzzFan i know this for a fact! Why?? Because i have found tonnes of stuff that is just bad science and i'm about to publish this in the coming months. One of those errors is to do with gravity research, and the error is colossal.

John.


You're free to believe what you want. I'm sure the entire scientific community looks forward to reviewing your work.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,483,891
RAC: 2,526
Ireland
Message 1098555 - Posted: 17 Apr 2011, 23:03:51 UTC
Last modified: 17 Apr 2011, 23:13:09 UTC

You see OzzFan,
I will give you another example of blind faith in modern science;

Evolution!!!

Now don't jump the gun here!!! Open your mind and don't simply quote something you heard someone else saying or something you were taught in school!

Fact; Charles Darwin's theory of HUMAN evolution is still just a theory. If your a genuinely scientifically minded person, then you will have to concede that we DON'T have a full concise record of human skulls leading from 2 million years ago to present day. We have partial fragments of a few species of very different monkey's and variations of Neanderthal man. We do not have a complete record leading to the modern human brain. But!!! Any good scientist will kind of "make room" to allow the theory to work. In other words, we have "faith" that as time goes on, we will build a better picture of evolution.

Also, we have absolutely no proof yet of how life can actually spontaneously start by itself in the primordial earth situation. So that is also an assumption and most scientists are happy to ASSUME on BLIND FAITH that we will work out the biology of single cell RNA life eventually.

Now thats a lot of blind faith and trust, and assuming we will eventually find the scientific evidence! And in science class in schools, evolution is now being taught as 100% fact! What if it turns out to be wrong?

How long should we wait for the bio scientists to find exactly how life gets started by itself in primordial goo? Should we keep going on blind faith for 50 years? 500 years? 5,000 years? After that, it starts to sound like religion.

You see i'm just making the point that Hugh sections of science do depend on stuff that has not been proven yet! I don't care which is right or which is wrong. I don't care if i evolved from simple life or if an invisible God put me here. I just want to know which is right. And so far, neither science nor religion has given us a 100% correct answer? This is why i'm so driven to find the answer to this question myself!

John.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13578
Credit: 29,896,662
RAC: 16,297
United States
Message 1098594 - Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 3:13:45 UTC - in response to Message 1098555.

Wow. You're lack of understanding of science and the entire scientific process is astounding.

Everything in science is just a theory. Gravity. Evolution. All of it. We call them theories because at any moment newfound information could change what we think. Some of your claims intend to do this. And yes, if your facts are sound, they will be incorporated into science.

But none of it is on "blind faith". Blind faith would mean that we never test it and never argue with it. Scientists are constantly re-checking their facts to ensure that our data is as accurate as our current knowledge will allow.

The assumptions made about the origins of life on Earth aren't made randomly and out of the blue. They are the most sound, logical reasons that make the most sense based upon the evidence we've found to date.

None of the assumptions made are not done with trying to force any future evidence into fitting with what we've found in the past. Lots of ground-breaking new evidence comes into play all the time, displacing what was previously assumed to be true.

And in science class in schools, evolution is now being taught as 100% fact! What if it turns out to be wrong?


It's all part of the process. We teach what we know to be fact at the time. I guarantee you what is being taught today isn't what was being taught 30 years ago, or 50 years ago. As knowledge changes, we teach our future generations what we currently know.

At one point, the Plate Tectonics theory was being incorrectly taught. It was once taught that the continents moved over the surface of the Earth, floating above water. We now know that the plates go deeper than the continents themselves, and that the oceans are on top of the plates moving around.

There's always room for new information in science. And the adults that keep up with the findings will learn just as much as the kids do when they're taught it. But it needs to pass peer-review and the ideologies need to be tested, and will be continually tested.

How long should we wait for the bio scientists to find exactly how life gets started by itself in primordial goo? Should we keep going on blind faith for 50 years? 500 years? 5,000 years? After that, it starts to sound like religion.


However long it takes to check and re-check our facts. You know, this is the age of Information, and we've made more strides in human understanding in the past 50 years than the entire history of our planet!

Not all of it will be proven true. New finding will change the way we understand our surroundings. None of it is based upon blind faith at all. All of it needs to be tested, checked, and tested again and again. In fact, the process never stops.

You see i'm just making the point that Hugh sections of science do depend on stuff that has not been proven yet! I don't care which is right or which is wrong. I don't care if i evolved from simple life or if an invisible God put me here. I just want to know which is right. And so far, neither science nor religion has given us a 100% correct answer? This is why i'm so driven to find the answer to this question myself!


Yes, and when one portion is found to be wrong, all scientists re-check their facts if any of their findings were previously based upon any incorrect assumptions.

We're all just trying to find the truth. But there's a difference between unfounded beliefs and wild claims that are not proven, and basing one's assumptions off of sound theories.

Matt Giwer
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 00
Posts: 841
Credit: 990,879
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1099969 - Posted: 23 Apr 2011, 15:22:15 UTC - in response to Message 1098555.

A theory is an explanation for facts.

Just a theory is just an explanation for facts.

The formal concept of proof is limited to math and logic. It applies to nothing else.

____________
Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,483,891
RAC: 2,526
Ireland
Message 1100072 - Posted: 23 Apr 2011, 19:33:40 UTC - in response to Message 1099969.
Last modified: 23 Apr 2011, 19:38:05 UTC

A theory is an explanation for facts.

Just a theory is just an explanation for facts.

The formal concept of proof is limited to math and logic. It applies to nothing else.

Matt,
You seem to be following what's going on in Jerusalem very closely. I read some stuff on your website a few months ago. Maybe your roots are in Israel or something. Whats the story in Israel Matt? Is there any feeling in the people of Israel that Jesus or someone like that is coming back soon? Any idea what the general consensus is in Jerusalem on the "Second coming" or the "End times" that are described in the book of Revelation? The whole middle east is in uprising from Tunisia to Syria and all the countries in the middle. Are we in "End times" Matt?

Thanks Matt,
John.
____________

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Decoding a SETI "WOW" signal

Copyright © 2014 University of California