Talk:BLC1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with motion of Proxima b
HEL edited the article to state that the Doppler shift is not consistent with the motion of Proxima b. There are two citations on the sentence. Both make weak claims that Doppler shift may be consistent with the motion of one of Proxima's planets. HEL, are you able to provide some citation(s) to support your edit that the Doppler shift is *inconsistent* with the motion of Proxima b. This is a key issue and needs more than a mere cite tag. Robert Brockway (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The SA article claims the Doppler shift is reverse to what might be expected from a source on Proxima b. I've editing the article to downplay the claim. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Copernican principles "Rules out" BLC1 as technological
Why is the rather unscientific conclusion from the Siraj, Loeb paper taken here as a headline only? The Copernican principle can only give a statistic, but it can't rule out anything. That's like saying something can't happen just because it is more than x standard deviations from the mean. Random chance does not mean that nearby stars are supposed to be devoid of anything just because we exist. That seems like a strange interpretation of the Copernican principle?

Perhaps the quote should be revised and it should state the probability that is calculated by Siraj, Loeb (10^-8), but refrain from attaching a judgement to it which Siraj and Loeb are doing (and which they debatably shouldn't, I don't think they get to decide what kind of probability rules in/rules out something). Especially the final line of the abstract cited here also shows that the Siraj, Loeb are biased, as just because the majority of Fast Radio Bursts are natural, is not a ground to make a strong excluding statement about a single individual observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.218.88 (talk • contribs)

- I am also a bit uncertain about the inclusion of this line for similar reasons. The source says that it is a priori that a very small chance is the same as ruled out, which seams very bold. I would personally suggest removing it, or just including the authors argument a little more completely to allow the reader to decide, perhaps : "In February 2021, a new study proposed that as the chances of a radio-transmitting civilization of emerging on the Sun's closest stellar neighbour to be ∼10−8, and as such Copernican principle ruled out BLC1 as a technological radio signal from the Alpha Centauri System." Dauwenkust (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't rule it out, in my opinion. It just makes it as unlikely as any other similar star system.  There are plenty of star systems that have about the same probability.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of self-published source
At first I thought this was vandalism, but further research shows it is the author that continues to add it to this article. It’s a self-published essay that doesn’t meet the standard for reliable sources. IP has previously been blocked for doing this on other pages and has been repeatedly warned. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)