Talk:Arecibo message

Jumbled Nonsense

The information arranged the first way produces jumbled nonsense, but if arranged the second way it forms an image containing information about Earth and the human race.

Does anyone have an example of what it looks like arranges the second way?

I made a small program to rearrange the image just like that. The resulting image can be seen at Image:Arecibo shifted.png. User:Aadnk 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Even properly decoded. How many humans would be able to understand the message without prople pointing out the details. Even putting aside all the possible other formats it could be decoded into. And looking at the small percentage of humans who could figure it out... how many extraterrestrials would be shaking their head? Naturally making a language free, culture independant message is hard.. but there has to be a better way.. if we get to the point where we send a binary or waveform encoded message that everyone on earth can understand like "duh, of course it means that" then we'd at least be one step closer to having other civilizations understand it as well. But as stands, we need a better message, hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.248.128 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we display the image in the actual article, because I don't think a lot of people would guess that they can see the image by clicking the link. --Henrikb4 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so I put it in. Many people would probably have thought "jumbled nonsense" was an article. Superm401 - Talk 09:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do they honestly expect aliens to understand this?

Even I can barely understand it. Show it to some guy from the midwest, and they won't understand any of it. The only thing that is obvious to me is the shape of a human, but to an alien, that shape is just as meaningless as the rest of the garbled graphics. Malamockq 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Even I"? Nice 86.167.91.214 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, yes, they do expect aliens to understand this. They presume that aliens who get this message and are intelligent enough to investigate, will investigate it, and try anything to understand it. Just what we would do, I guess. But this way, we can only presume they think the same of alien civilisations and messages as we do. - Redmess 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If they can properly decode the message, it means they know binary language, which means they will understand the first row as well. After that it get's a bit silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.123 (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem. First out of all the life out in our galaxy, there has to be life out there. Then out of all that life, there has to be intelligent life (see the pattern, the probability is getting worse). Then out of all intelligent life, they would have to interact with their world in a physical way (if they were intelligent rocks, then their technology wouldn't be physical). Then out of all intelligent life, it has to have technology that's capable of recieving and decoding radio messages. Then out of those, they have to be lucky enough to intercept our radio message. Then out of those, they have to be able to communicate visually (They might not be able to see, let alone be able to communicate by seeing. They might communicate through scent for all we know. If they sent us a "scent" message, would we be able to understand it?). Then finally out of those, they have to somehow figure out that garbled mess these scientists call a message. Take a person from good ol planet Earth, and they fit all these categories except the last. Not even the average person on Earth can understand this message. The chances an alien would understand it (let alone recieve it in the first place), are just about as likely as getting a monkey to recite the Declaration of Independence. Malamockq 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's say we receive a message like this, or with greater complexity, from an alien species. Would we pass it over to some guy from the midwest, or would we distribute it throughout the scientific community/top military minds + consultant scientists (depending on who received the message), who would then do a thorough (hopefully) scientific investigation on it. If we're used to receiving messages like this, then we'd be even better and quicker at deciphering it. Add to that the fact that it's been designed for people who understand maths (most likely the only form of communication we'd have with an alien).

Those idiots wouldn't be able to understand it either, for one it looks absolutely nothing like the things they're trying to show, so good luck reading some kind of alien message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.39.238 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It does assume the ability to receive it - i.e. a radio telescope of sufficient sensitivity pointed in the right direction - but that's unavoidable. If you've got something capable of receiving it, then odds are you'll also have someone scientific enough to decipher it. Scent could never be used for a message through space - it has to be some part of the EM spectrum (or gravity, or particles, or some as-yet-unknown method, but the best we can do atm is the EM spectrum). Mike Peel 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just using the scent thing as an example of a form of communication we would never understand. Aliens could utilize a form of communication that we can't even sense at all. If it's an intelligent cloud like being that communicates mentally, how would we understand a message it delivers? The chances that an intelligent alien that would be so similar to us are utterly remote for the reasons I stated in my last post. This is why some scientists believe communication is probably impossible between two intelligent species. Now, even if aliens were congruent to us that they can recieve the message, and see it, then probability gets worse because then they have to understand it. Who's to say an visual alien reads from right to left? Even I don't read from right to left. Does an alien even understand what right and left are? What if they don't see color? What if their visual resolution is magnified so much that they only see minute details. This message we sent doesn't make that micro pixel in the top left corner very significant. See what I'm getting at? Not even other animals on OUR OWN PLANET see the world the same way we do visually. Does a fly see the same stuff we see with it's compound eyes? How about a chameleon? How about a bat that uses echo location?

This message was designed by humans, with the assumption that aliens are UTTERLY similar to humans except they don't speak our language. And like I said, even then, most humans don't even understand it. Malamockq 13:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of the Arecibo message isn't to be able to communicate with any kind of aliens that might be out there. The point was to put together some sort of message, parts of which might be decipherable by an advanced civilization thousands of light-years away from here/now. As the article explains, the message is nothing more than a 1679-bit number. (Bandwidth limitations make it impractical to send a longer message, and the chances of a longer message being fully received would be reduced.) If the bit sequence is received some day in the future, we should assume that they have some understanding of mathematics, physics and chemistry, or they would not be able to build a radio. Thus we might also assume that they might have experience with the idea of binary digits, rows and columns as these are all fundamental pricinples of math. It's probably also reasonable to assume they could figure out that the top part of the sequence is describing a counting system. They may have much more trouble interpreting the chemistry lesson, but at least they can try! Above all, the receiver of the message would presumably be interested to know someone else is out there.

Chances are an alien species would not have simplistic eyes, ect. If they are technologically advanced to build a radio telescope, then they should be technologically advanced to understand binary, the most simple way of expressing information. It's also highly unlikely they would have evolved with no eyes or compound eyes, ect. As a species gets closer to intelligence, their structure changes to go with it. Note how humans, dolphins, chimps, dogs, cats, ect all have highly developed sight, sound, and communication while flies and chameleons do not. With that aside, an alien civilization isn't going to give this message to a "guy in the midwest" to decode. It would go to top scientists. I'm certain that mathematically inclined graduates from universities on Earth that know binary and the wavelength of the message would eventually decode it. A collective group of people would have a binary singal done in a matter of days.67.11.141.177 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many assumptions. Who's to say they can see at all? They could be intelligent living beings that live in oceans of liquid nitrogen with no eyes at all. All your assumptions are based on how life works on Earth, which is the problem. What if they are silicon based? What if they are extremely intelligent but communicate through telepathy? It's entirely possible. It could be an intelligent plant, or fungus. What then? The message, as I understand it, is not a serious attempt at communicating with aliens, as such it shouldn't be taken as such. Malamockq 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

does anyone have any sort of proof that shows we are not alone in this universe?

If they sent back a message asking what the hell all that stuff means, yes, that would be proof.

No, obviously we don't. But people love to dream, and hope, don't they? - Redmess 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's unlikely, but that doesn't mean we're not gonna try. — Mütze (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

message as binary string

the binary string is too long to fit on one page without scrolling left A LOT more, so I think it should be formatted to fit on one screen without scrolling, and still readable. 70.241.246.53 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply.

I want information on the so-called "reply" but the page was deleted.

Please tell me where I can find relevant information now that Wikipedia isn't listing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.79.218 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Try [Google]. 74.161.38.253 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a War

http://www.pufoin.com/images/arecibo_reply2.jpg

I wanted this too and it's hard to find on the internet. But now I see why. Somebody made a whole page on it complete with references and sources. Then it was just shot down. Deleted. Who cares. Gone, bye.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE FUN OF IT, I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IT!!!!

GO AHEAD. MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE REPLY ALL YOU WANT. IT WAS HOAXERS, IT WAS IDIOTS. SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT BUT DO NOT HIDE THE TRUTH!! THAT CROP FORMATION WAS MADE AND THAT IS THE TRUTH!!!!!!

I will be fully satisfied if that response message is just kept somewhere discretely on the page (say it was probably hoaxers, doesn't matter)

But I tell you what. I've been threatened with being banned just because I want one lousy link somewhere on this page that has everything to do with the arecibo message. And I guess there are forces that wouldn't tolerate that *knowledge* -- just like anything else potentially democratic, wikipedia gets stolen by asshole authoritarian bullshit.

So go on home. Remain stupid. Remember that there's nothing interesting to see in the world. It's all a hoax. Shut up and continue to get dumbed down by your schools. Just fine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiaguerrilla (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of an "encyclopedia"? Even though the reply was a hoax, it's still something that happened in response to the message, so why isn't any reference to it being made in the relevant article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.155 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should be, if it has been described in reliable, independent sources. So far, though, the only source I've seen doesn't appear to have met that criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A photograph of a this crop circle [1] exists and it has been mentioned at [2] which is the relevant place to propose noting it in that Wikipedia article. Ranting abuse of Wikipedia and schools obtains nothing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this article should discuss the famous "response". Tempshill (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should, even if it was a hoax.. or not, it happened.. you can't just banned something because it hasn't been scientifically proven. I mean.. God? Ghosts? there's plenty of links and articles about this all around Wikipedia. Cut the Assholeness.--189.156.247.12 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the responses given here, noone wants to ban something because it isn't scientifically proven. As have been stated several times above these things aren't being added because they have not be described in reliable, independent sources. Please simply find such a source, and present it here, then it could be added. I suggest reading what "reliable, independent sources" means, from that link, before you do so. Chris M. (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

after about a year I come back to this discussion. My attitude was very aggressive and baseless, though it was frustrating to see that the arecibo reply could not somehow be linked to the arecibo message, also that someone had created the page long ago and it was deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/MBisanz_2 Too bad I couldn't be very adult about it. I do think that something in our world methodically destroys our ability to inform ourselves and prevents humane effort. But whining doesn't fix it. I'll try to earn back some sort of stature and contribute something worthwhile if I get the opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiaguerrilla (talk • contribs) 02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrealistic as radio communication

The so-called message is obviously unrealistic as an attempt at radio communication. It was transmitted only once which presupposes that a remote alien receiver is set up and waiting to demodulate and store something unexpected. In addition to that improbability, it makes no engineering sense to deliver a BFSK stream like this without a prefix for aquisition. (It would have been sensible to start with 23 alternating bits. The same pattern could have been used as an end marker.) It is not correct to say that the length of the message is limited by bandwidth. It is limited only by the time allocated, quoted as 1679 seconds. As an occupant of this planet I am unimpressed by the vanity of transmitting such nonsense on my behalf. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of presumptions in the message (following the problem of it being successfully received); wavelengths are specified in mm, an unknown unit. Format conventions are altered freely (and seemingly carelessly). Much of the construction of the message presumes an Earth-like chemistry for life. The drawings are atrocious. The various items overlap confusingly. Graft | talk 06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My quote mining finds implicit assumptions that the message could establish alien contact:

• Cornell News: "humanity['s]...first and only deliberate radio message to extraterrestrials"
• SETI Institute: "prime numbers...may help the aliens decode the message"

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Graft: there is no "unknown unit" of mm. The size values take the wavelength of the signal as one unit.

73 rows by 23 columns

I'm confused about how the receiving beings are supposed to know that this is the intended arrangement. Was there any data sent to tell them that? Equazcion (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing even tells aliens that the message is a raster scan. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The hypothesis is that a scientifically-literate creature, given a message whose length is the product of two primes, even without otherwise human expectations, would eventually try setting it out as a grid of 73x23 and 23x73, and would recognize structure in one of those arrangements. The message itself is supposed to carry the data needed to decipher it. Gimmetrow 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The message can only be graphed in a 23x73 or 73x23 arrangement, because the number of bits is 1679. Therefore, the aliens have a 1-in-2 shot of getting it right, and even so, they'd probably try both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.12.237 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a 1 in 3 chance - you can also write it out as a 1679 bit number (1679 x 1) and just look at it as radio data. 86.167.91.214 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

Great work on the article guys, I remember reading it over a year ago and was totally baffled, but the illustrations and the binary really helped this time, anyone ever considered pushing for GA with this one. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the 25th anniversary of Earth's first (and only) attempt to phone E.T.

Uh, excuse me? There were plenty of other messages, the Soviet MIR message for one. This source is bogus. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia displays the title of sources in the reference section: Arecibo message#References. The article text doesn't repeat the claim that it's the only attempt. The source is used for other things. By the way, the source itself has a footnote saying it wasn't the only attempt: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/Arecibo.message.ws.html#footnote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't when I checked it. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)