Why is there SETI?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dinosaur, Aug 23, 2005.

  1. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I answered it as best as I could with the estimation we could reach a singularity. Where science as we call it today would fit into that picture I haven't a clue. Certainly when I search 'science' under the definition of singularity all I see is Science Fiction. So it's unclear wether the singularity is possible or not or remains theory/sci-fi.

    Either way I find it difficult to place a limit on knowledge.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    So has anyone tried scanning methods that would take in large numbers of stars at the same time?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    MetaKron: SETI's new Allen telescope Array will have the ability to do that when it's completed:-

    The Allen Telescope Array will offer SETI scientists access to the telescope 24 hours per day, seven days a week and permit the search of many different target stars simultaneously. As a result, the Allen Telescope Array will speed up SETI targeted searching by a factor of at least 100.

    Even though I think radio astronomy is an unlikely source for finding ET, I find it comforting that they will at least finally have the facilities to do their job properly.
     
  8. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    (To Dwayne)

    I mean scanning for radio signals using a wide enough focus to take in many stars instead of select candidates. As I said earlier, if the odds are one in a million, scanning one at a time is a very nearly iron-clad guarantee that we will not find even one. That's like thirty seconds per candidate for a year to scan a million.

    Also, if someone scanned Earth, they wouldn't find much of anything near the "watering hole" frequencies. Look at the frequencies that were in use by 1970. There were million watt transmitters by then. We can't even tune into those frequencies using a radio telescope. There's too much earthly clutter. There could well be 100 to 200 MHz signals out there that can be received with relatively insensitive equipment. If there were a beacon out there that we could receive on 100 MHz, would we even know it? If all we had to do was stretch a longwire antenna on the far side of the moon to pick up such a signal, would we know it right now?

    I'm one of those people who refuses to overlook the obvious.
     
  9. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  10. Okeydoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    If it is ever proved that the infamous 'WOW' Signal picked up in 1977 was indeed a strong radio signal from deep space (and right now, no one still can't prove that it wasn't), then if it were, the ET's who sent it, used radio signals......So much for the advanced form of ETI communication.

    Okeydoke
     
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The most likely way to find another civilization with what we have is to look for powerful commercial transmissions like our radio and TV stations. Somebody somewhere will be in that in-between period where they still use those frequencies, modulation methods, and that spectrum. A lot of this is dictated by simple physics. Electronics comes in certain sizes and shapes because of different physical limitations. Thus there will be transmissions in the 100-200 MHz range on a planet that is in a similar stage of development. They will be modulated by the impression of an analog signal in either AM or FM mode. Audio and TV signals will be easy to distinguish and TV signals of any raster scan form will be easy to decode. It's when they start using data compression that their signals will be undecipherable. Trying to find ways to decode those signals will make a lot of programmers permanently crazy.

    Pulsars already exist as natural radio beacons. Any interstellar navigation system will be able to use those. Measured precisely, their periods pretty much identify them. Then they can be used as reference points to pinpoint a position in space. Map enough pulsars, we can navigate anywhere.
     
  12. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    We have some artful dodgers postng here.

    Dwayne: No comments on my post relating to your ideas about stars influencing chemical reactions on Earth? No comments about my pointing out some information about atomic numbers, atomic weights, and decay of calcium to potassium?

    You made some far out statements which I claim are erroneous, but do not seem willing to defend them.

    [b}KennyJC:[/b] Perhaps you do not know what exponetial growth means. Perhaps English is your second language and we are not communicating.

    I did not see an answer to the question I posted a while back.
    You do not seem to have answered the above question.

    We obviously do not know all that can be known about the laws of physics, so there will be an increase in our knowledge. There seem to be the following three logical possibilities for the growth of our knowledge.
    • Exponential, which I consider to be impossible.

    • Asymptotic to some upper bound, which I consider very likely.

    • Linear or some other rate between the above two possibilities with no upper bound.
    If you know the meaning of expontial and asymptotic, it should not be difficult to understand the above and pick one of the three mutually exclusive possibilities, or at least give your best guess.
     
  13. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  14. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  15. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I think I do understand english as "singularity" means that technology grows at an exponential rate. Wether that applies to the laws of physics as we currently understand them, I already said I don't know, and I would laugh if you professed to know any better.

    And that would be my BEST GUESS as we have pretty much reached where we are exponentially... will it go on that way? I don't know, but I haven't labelled it as impossible as you have. So I don't know is the answer.

    Here is a nice picture to illustrate "The Singularity"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
  17. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Dwayne, thank you for your earlier reply. Why are you talking nonsense. You seem like a pleasant person, but you are spewing forth a welter of disjointed 'facts'. Alternatively you have just been very ineffective at expressing yourself. Here are a couple of examples.
    Wrong. The chemistry of a solar system is determined by the basic 'laws' of chemistry (which are primarily concerned with the interaction of electron orbitals) applied to the selection of elements left at varying distances from the star. The latter is determined in part by gravity (though the interaction of the particles, pebbles, planetesimals and planets, with each other is more important than the effect of the star), but more significantly by temperature. Gravity has almost bugger all to do with it.
    The influence of Alpha Centauri on on the stability of silica or water is non-existent. If you are, as you appear to be, claiming otherwise, please provide a single item of evidence to support such a bizzare claim. The stability of these compounds, as for all other compounds, is dependent upon the temperature and pressure of their locale.
    .
    You are simply winding us up, right? You want to see how outrageous and silly you can make your statement, then hook someone in like me to argue the case. Well, it worked and you can mark that one up on your score sheet. On the other hand, if you are even remotely serious then you need either an education, a half bottle of tequila, or professional counselling. On the plus side you don't seem to be a creationist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  20. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    @DwayneD.L.Rabon

    So…



    You <b>do</b> realise what you are saying is meaningless.
    Don’t you?

    Even, if we assume that you are correct, then unless you can make some useful predictions or tests for you theory that can challenge current ideas that describes the universe then it will be considered <i>fiction</i>.

    I suggest you do those calculations you describe.
     
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    DwayneD.L.Rabon: Where do you get these crazy ideas? How do you arrive at the numbers you quote?

    Are you serious? About a year ago, we had a double talk expert who teased a few of us. Is this a different type of joke?
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Dwayne, thank you for your clarification. It was the most convincing argument in favour of eugenics I have yet read.
     
  23. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    locked
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005

Share This Page