Zie de bronnen die ik citeerde, ook het zoeken van buitenaardsleven gaat systematisch....En dit met allergrootste zekerheid een "vals" signaalMaartenV schreef:Als het een natuurlijk fenomeen zou zijn, wat zou het dan kunnen zijn? Wat maakt dat men denkt in de richting van een artificieel signaal?
We believe a signal when
It is persistent. It appears at the same spot in the sky in multiple observations.
It only comes from one spot in the sky.
If we reobserve the target, the signal is still there.
Things that add to believability
Its frequency/period/delay does not correspond to known interference.
Its Doppler Drift rate indicates that it is exactly frequency stable in the frame of the center of mass of the solar system
Its properties (bandwidth, chirp rate, encoding) indicate intelligent origin.
Unfortunately the observing method used by the Russian team does not permit many of these things to be determine. 1. The signal was not persistent. 2. The signal was gone when the target was reobserved. 3. The signal frequency/period/delay cannot be determined. 4. The signal Doppler drift rate is unknown. 5. Many sources of interference, including satellites, are present in the observing band.
Natuurlijke bronnen kunnen zijn:
Because the receivers used were making broad band measurements, there's really nothing about this "signal" that would distinguish it from a natural radio transient (stellar flare, active galactic nucleus, microlensing of a background source, etc.) There's also nothing that could distinguish it from a satellite passing through the telescope field of view. All in all, it's relatively uninteresting from a SETI standpoint.
