Seti@home pointless?

[JoeTheJuggler]

What strange ideas! It sounds like you're making a case for the Rare Earth Theory but using the exact opposite arguments they use. They say everything about the Earth is required for an intelligent civilization--that the Earth is in the optimum spot in the galaxy and that the Earth is exceptionally massive, more massive than 95% of stars.

D'oh! I meant to say that the Rare Earthers contend that our sun is more massive than 95% of stars. The exact opposite of Bill's argument, but going for the same conclusion.

 

[BonkingBear]

I don't think that they even have a chance. Its their method that is retarded not the goal.

In what way is it retarded ?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In our history, whe have only sent FIVE signals worth anything in relation to communicating outside our solar system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI And even then I'm not sure how impressive those signals really are.

A question I haven't seen answered about Active SETI: how long a duration have these messages been? If we sent something out for a matter of a few minutes, then a potential recipient would either have to be monitoring the entire sky all the time (something I believe is beyond our capabilities) or happen to be "listening" to the exact right spot in the sky at the exact right moment.

I can think of a lot of reasons why no ETI civilization would want to send out a long-term (more or less permanent) narrowband signal at possible life-sustaining planets. For one, just because something is technologically doesn't mean they'd (or "we'd") do it. There are doubtless economic reasons not to do it. I've also heard reluctance to do so based on fears that we might be alerting a powerful enemy of our presence. (I don't put much stock in the latter, but I could see it holding some political clout.)

So even if other ETI send out narrowband signals at us now and then, we're still not likely to catch them.

 

[AWPrime]

In what way is it retarded ?

It has a very limited range and even then it relies on advance alien races, somehow already knowing where we are and then beaming an extremely powerful radio signal at the right time towards us.

And using radio signals to communicate between star systems is like using bottled letters to communicate across the atlantic ocean.
Any race capable of interstellar travel wouldn't resort to radio signals, they likely use a courier system or have a form of FTL communication. And unless we have one of those two things, it would be retarded to try and communicate. Even then we must ask the question: do we really want to communicate with aliens?


If other people want to waste their time, with self-stimulation, let them.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I don't think that they even have a chance. Its their method that is retarded not the goal.

Well, that begs the question of what they should be doing instead?

 

[AWPrime]

Well, that begs the question of what they should be doing instead?

Should they be doing anything?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

A question I haven't seen answered about Active SETI: how long a duration have these messages been?

Arecibo message was 1679 seconds... All the rest don't seem to have a lot of documentation available, but I doubt that they were too long. This is a field that we just don't have a lot of experience with yet. Heck, we're still just trying to figure it out as far as receiving goes, let alone transmitting. There was the beacon idea mentioned on that wiki link.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That's wrong! 1) We are in a good place within our galaxy - a very stable region

2) Our Sun is an average size with sufficient stability to give life time to develop - at least 5 billion years - bigger stars ldo not live longer enough for life (as we know it to develop)

3) Hmm...how many do we like to believe ?

1) According to the Scientific American article I posted, we seem to be on the edge of the zone or at least close to it. "A very stable region" is a matter of opinion. Your saying I am wrong is just an opinion.

2) but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough. And ETI would assume we are not the fluke we are in that another star made our solar system. So ETI would assume that we lack the complex mix of minerals to support life and heavy metals to provide our magnetic shield from radiation.

3) According to science fiction and fantasy, we would like to believe just about every planet should support life. THe reality is that just about every planet does not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1) According to the Scientific American article I posted, we seem to be on the edge of the zone or at least close to it. "A very stable region" is a matter of opinion. Your saying I am wrong is just an opinion.

See Darling's Life Everywhere for a rebuttal to all these "stability" arguments.

2) but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough.

I don't think the current model of the formation of the solar system has the Earth coming out of the sun. What's not big enough, the sun or the Earth?

3) According to science fiction and fantasy, we would like to believe just about every planet should support life. THe reality is that just about every planet does not.

That's just silly. Science fiction and fantasy is not an accurate reflection of how many ETI we'd "like to believe" exists". I believe the default position is that we don't know. Anyone who asserts a claim to knowledge (as the Rare Earth Theory does) has the burden of making a case for that claim.

My point of view is accurately described by this bit written by Carl Sagan:

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

This is from his introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal, edited by Joe Nickell et al.

 

[BonkingBear]

1) According to the Scientific American article I posted, we seem to be on the edge of the zone or at least close to it. "A very stable region" is a matter of opinion. Your saying I am wrong is just an opinion.

2) but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough. And ETI would assume we are not the fluke we are in that another star made our solar system. So ETI would assume that we lack the complex mix of minerals to support life and heavy metals to provide our magnetic shield from radiation.

3) According to science fiction and fantasy, we would like to believe just about every planet should support life. THe reality is that just about every planet does not.

1) Yes it is just my opinion but you are still wrong.
2) Where on earth have you read such nonsense?
3) So is it the SF answer, your reality answer or somewhere in the middle?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

1) According to the Scientific American article I posted, we seem to be on the edge of the zone or at least close to it. "A very stable region" is a matter of opinion. Your saying I am wrong is just an opinion.

Perhaps only for earthlike life on an earthlike planet that supports specifically our type of life. We are too humancentric in our thinking and really don't know the answer under what conditions life CAN develop. We have ONE datapoint, that's it! Using just ONE datapoint, would you ever present a scientific answer? You can make conjectures, but that's the best they will be.

2) but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough.

WTF are you talking about? Even Wiki makes more sense than that statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

3) According to science fiction and fantasy, we would like to believe just about every planet should support life. THe reality is that just about every planet does not.

What bearing does this have on reality? And exactly how many planets do we know about, and how many do we have a definitive answer for? Of the eight planets in our solar system, the only planet we have an absolute answer for is one (ours) and that says yes to life. True, the evidence is against other planets (and moons and dwarf planets) having life, but we can't say for certian. Erupoa and Mars are (somewhat) possible enclaves for life (as well as a few other way out examples). The rest of the 300+ we've found are subject to our selection bias of only being able to detect big planets close to stars. We have very little idea what other type of solar systems are out there. I like the Sagan quote Joe has.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Perhaps only for earthlike life on an earthlike planet that supports specifically our type of life. We are too humancentric in our thinking and really don't know the answer under what conditions life CAN develop. We have ONE datapoint, that's it! Using just ONE datapoint, would you ever present a scientific answer? You can make conjectures, but that's the best they will be.

The reality is the exact opposite of that statement. We have lots of datapoints. We now know more about Mars than we know about our oceans.

WTF are you talking about? Even Wiki makes more sense than that statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System



What bearing does this have on reality? And exactly how many planets do we know about, and how many do we have a definitive answer for? Of the eight planets in our solar system, the only planet we have an absolute answer for is one (ours) and that says yes to life. True, the evidence is against other planets (and moons and dwarf planets) having life, but we can't say for certian. Erupoa and Mars are (somewhat) possible enclaves for life (as well as a few other way out examples). The rest of the 300+ we've found are subject to our selection bias of only being able to detect big planets close to stars. We have very little idea what other type of solar systems are out there. I like the Sagan quote Joe has.

Our solar system was made from the debris of another star. That is WTF that means.

Mars does not have life and we have known this since the Viking probe landed there in the 1970's because there is no magentic shield. The panet is too heavily radiated for life to get a foot hold. We have known that for decades and we choose to look the other way and fund more projects just to feed our excitement and blind hope.

 

[Bill Thompson]

1) Yes it is just my opinion but you are still wrong.
2) Where on earth have you read such nonsense?
3) So is it the SF answer, your reality answer or somewhere in the middle?

From the BBC special "The Planets"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Our solar system was made from the debris of another star. That is WTF that means.

So? I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

All of us know that our sun is not a first-generation star. How does that argue that ETI doesn't exist elsewhere?

As I keep pointing out to amb on the other thread, the same amount of time has elapsed elsewhere in the universe as has elapsed here.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

The reality is the exact opposite of that statement. We have lots of datapoints. We now know more about Mars than we know about our oceans.

That's debatable at best... Our entire solar system is still only one datapoint, and we don't have a lot of information about anything outside the earth, despite the probes we've sent.

Our solar system was made from the debris of another star. That is WTF that means.

Still the way you said it, "but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough." doesn't say that at all. It sounds like you are saying that a sun spits out planets or something. Yes, our sun isn't big enough to go nova, but that has exactly no bearing on the question at hand. I'm going to have to invoke STRAWMAN here.

Mars does not have life and we have known this since the Viking probe landed there in the 1970's because there is no magentic shield. The panet is too heavily radiated for life to get a foot hold. We have known that for decades and we choose to look the other way and fund more projects just to feed our excitement and blind hope.

Again, debatable. We have found algea that thrives in conditions more hostile than Mars. You speak in ceartanity, when the question is far from answered even here in our own solar system.

Besides, it isn't so much about THIS solar system, but other solar systems, and to be honest we don't know crap yet. If you make an authoritative statement, then you are just as guilty of being full of crap as well. We just don't know! Is it so hard for people to say, "Gee, we don't know, but let's do some stuff to figure out more stuff."

 

[shadron]

Mars does not have life and we have known this since the Viking probe landed there in the 1970's because there is no magentic shield. The panet is too heavily radiated for life to get a foot hold. We have known that for decades and we choose to look the other way and fund more projects just to feed our excitement and blind hope.

I'm pretty sure the scientific interpretation of Viking is that Mars had no active life within 20' of he two spots on Mars surveyed, within 3" of the surface, which spots were chosen for mission success reasons, not for finding traces of life reasons. Had we "known that for decades", then it is unlikely we would have sent the probes that we have sent since then with the experiments that they carry, and plan to in the future. There is, at this point, every reason to believe that theoretically life very well could have existed at one point in time on Mars, and given the tenacity it has shown here on Earth, that remnants of that life could still be eeking out a living. No proof yet, but we're certainly sending probes to investigate exactly that possibility.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I'm pretty sure the scientific interpretation of Viking is that Mars had no active life within 20' of he two spots on Mars surveyed, within 3" of the surface, which spots were chosen for mission success reasons, not for finding traces of life reasons. Had we "known that for decades", then it is unlikely we would have sent the probes that we have sent since then with the experiments that they carry, and plan to in the future. There is, at this point, every reason to believe that theoretically life very well could have existed at one point in time on Mars, and given the tenacity it has shown here on Earth, that remnants of that life could still be eeking out a living. No proof yet, but we're certainly sending probes to investigate exactly that possibility.

Radiation scrambles the delicate interplay necessary to get life started. Mars has no magnetic shield to prevent the suns radiation from destroying the microbial life. Thinking that life could have existed at some point in time is thinking that there could have been water there and then ignoring the fact that there still could not have been any shield from the radiation.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That's debatable at best... Our entire solar system is still only one datapoint, and we don't have a lot of information about anything outside the earth, despite the probes we've sent.

that is both a lie and wishful thinking

Still the way you said it, "but our sun did not make the earth. It couldn't. It is not big enough." doesn't say that at all. It sounds like you are saying that a sun spits out planets or something. Yes, our sun isn't big enough to go nova, but that has exactly no bearing on the question at hand. I'm going to have to invoke STRAWMAN here.

I don't know what you are getting at.

Most star systems have planets that were born from the star they orbit. Ours isn't like that and so ETI would not focus on us. Typically, a star like ours would not have planets that harbor life.

 

[Lonewulf]

So you know better than NASA scientists.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So you know better than NASA scientists.

Like whom? I quote them often.