5 ms·
So if being a byproduct of comets is ruled out, and we take it for granted that the signal is of extra-terrestrial origin (which apparently has been pretty much
by allemagne 11y ago
So if being a byproduct of comets is ruled out, and we take it for granted that the signal is of extra-terrestrial origin (which apparently has been pretty much accepted), then we don't have an explanation for the origin under our current understanding of the cosmos? Is this a correct understanding? How exciting.
- alsertia 11y ago>Is this a correct understanding? No. That is a five-year-old's understanding of how science works. HN's readership quality has definitely declined if every phenomenon without an obvious explanation is immediately attributed to "aliens" or "beyond our understanding of the cosmos."
- michaelcampbell 11y agoNowhere did he mention "aliens".
- throweway 11y agoI think E.T. refers to alien. If he means from outside of Earth generally ... well that is tautological. So I assume he means aliens.
- scrollaway 11y agoHow is it tautological? Signals like that can be terrestrial in nature. In fact, recent story: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/05/microwave-parkes-observatory http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/05/microwave-par...
- throweway 11y agoYeah but i dont think he was saying no comet implies no microwave oven. Oh i dont know what the ancestor meant maybe we should ask him or her or it.
- maaku 11y agoExtra terrestrial is a astronomical term of art that means "not of Earth." E.g. not a satellite. His usage was correct, your interpretation was not.