7 ms·
The paper is much more conservative than the article about it. They're saying that the close relationship between the signal and the human-made second, plus th
by dfryer 11y ago
The paper is much more conservative than the article about it. They're saying that the close relationship between the signal and the human-made second, plus the fact that most of these signals were observed at one particular telescope, suggests strongly that it's a local, human source.
"Paper doesn't rule out aliens" isn't a particularly strong statement. I've read many papers that don't rule out aliens, dragons OR unicorns.
- lotsofmangos 11y agoIs always a good idea to not rule out aliens, just in case. Especially aliens with elaborate senses of humour. It might explain a lot.
- dchichkov 11y agoThe paper starts with: "Eleven FRBs have been detected so far, nine with the Parkes and one at the Arecibo telescope." That arithmetic is wrong. Tongue-in-the-cheek - April's fool? edit: it actually seems more like a genuine typo in a pre-print. The list further in the article contains 10 FRBs from Parkes. edit 2: linked to the abstract. http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245 http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245
- cpeterso 11y agoThe eleventh could have been detected somewhere else.
- Sniffnoy 11y agoA note -- if you're linking to arXiv, it's better to link to the abstract (http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245 http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245) rather than directly to the PDF. From the abstract, one can easily click through to the PDF; not so the reverse. And the abstract allows one to do things like see different versions of the paper, search for other things by the same authors, etc.