• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

have they found anything?

Hi thanks for the welcome, no it's not a windup Google the Apollo transcripts. If you want to hear your spirit guides don't ingest cannola oil flouride or sweetner as the first two bugger your chi. We have 11 underground bases and I would think some would be involed with ET. Cheers Old Bob from down under.
 
Code: 
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Source       | Frequency    | Bandwidth | Tsys   | EIRP   | Detection |
             | Range        |    (Br)   |(Kelvin)|        | Range (R) |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
AM Radio     | 530-1605 kHz |  10   kHz | 68E6   | 100 KW |  0.007 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
FM Radio     |  88-108  MHz | 150   kHz |  430   |   5 MW |    5.4 AU |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV       | 470-806  MHz |   6   MHz |  50  ? |   5 MW |    2.5 AU |
Picture      |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
UHF TV       | 470-806  MHz |   0.1  Hz |  50  ? |   5 MW |    0.3 LY |
Carrier      |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
WSR-88D      |   2.8    GHz |  0.63 MHz |  40    |  32 GW |   0.01 LY |
Weather Radar|              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |  22 TW |    720 LY |
S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |   1 TW |    150 LY |
S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Arecibo      |   2.380  GHz |  0.1   Hz |  40    |   1 GW |      5 LY |
S-Band (CW)  |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------+
Pioneer 10   |   2.295  GHz |  1.0   Hz |  40    | 1.6 kW |    120 AU |
Carrier      |              |           |        |        |           |
-------------+--------------+-----------+--------+--------+-----------
Just redisplayed table above for easier reading, AU = astronomical unit (avg. distance of earth to sun), LY = light year
 
Last edited:
Well..Mr. Drake didn't come up with the 30 billion number...that I pulled from this article on space.com:

30 Billion Earths? New Estimate of Exoplanets in Our Galaxy
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/jupiter_typical_020128.html

It sounds like they are looking for solar systems such as ours by identifying jupiter like planets that function as a "protector" for potential inner planets.

So how many Jupiters are out there orbiting Sun-like stars in the Milky Way Galaxy?

"At least a billion, but probably more like 30 billion," Lineweaver told SPACE.com.

And the math behind that?

"There are about 300 billion stars in our galaxy. About 10 percent (or 30 billion) are roughly Sun-like," he explained. "At least 5 percent (1.5 billion) but possibly as many as 90 percent or 100 percent (about 30 billion) of these have Jupiter-like planets."

These estimates would vary based on exactly what you call Jupiter-like or Sun-like, Lineweaver said.
Click to expand...

What about Earths?

The calculations, which are part of a paper that has been submitted to the journal Astrobiology, don't bear directly on worlds like our own. But with what's known of planet formation, some speculation is possible.

"A reasonable guess is the same number of Earths as Jupiters," Lineweaver said.

That, however, depends heavily on how one defines Earth-like. If one includes rocky planets in general, like Mercury, Venus and Mars, "then they are probably more common than Jupiters," he said. If, however, you mean rocky planets with liquid water at the surface, "then we really can't answer that very well. They may be as common as Jupiters, or they may be much less common."

Alan Boss, an expert in planetary system formation at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the new calculations for Jovian twins seem reasonable. Trying then to estimate the number of Earth-like planets requires "a leap of faith, but one which appears to be plausible," he said.

"As the veil covering the unseen portions of discovery space is lowered in the next decade, I expect we will find that Jupiter-like planets are commonplace," said Boss, who was not involved in the new study. "Whether or not that also means Earth-like planets are common can only be proven by NASA's Kepler mission."

Kepler, recently approved to launch in 2006, will monitor 100,000 stars for telltale dips in light indicating an Earth-sized planet in an Earth-like orbit has crossed in front of the star. While it would not take photographs, Kepler could provide the first census of planets that have the potential to support life.
Click to expand...

Though the article doesn't provide much in the way of actual fact, it is an interesting thought to ponder...the kepler mission they mention toward the end looks promising, maybe then we will have a better picture?
 
The issue of how many earth like planets there are in the galaxy depends on how one defines earth like planet.

If earth like means a planet capable of sustaining complex life the number might be very small.

Here's an article that represents a pessimistic view:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01o.html

The gist of it is that the life sustaining earth like planet needs to be in a solar system with a sun similar to ours and in a nearly circular orbit about the same distance the earth is from the sun.

It also needs to be in a galaxy habitable zone and here's where stuff takes a very pessimistic turn. The solar system can't be too close to the center (brain frying radiation and too many comets) and it can't be too far away (not enough heavier elements) and it can't be in the galaxy arms (similar problems to being too close to the galactic center) and it can't be in an orbit around the galactic center that causes it to transition into the arms.

So if this guy is right don't be looking for that message from E.T. any time soon. We might be the only sentient life in our galaxy and most probably the only sentient life within range of any kind of advanced civilization transmitters.
 
To be earhlike in the truest sense of the word they would also need a moon of adequate density and distance in order to stabilize their axis rotation angle. Otherwise they will have a chaos of weather and seasons as these planets wobble erratically. In fact, rotational instability due to lack of a stabilizing moon is one hypothesis put forth in an attempt to explain the factors leading Mars' present condition.
 
Not forgetting for a moment all the coincidences that produced life here.
I think bacterial life is even greater than Drakes equation. But animal life, let alone intelligent animals like us are a rarity not a common occurrence.
 
ambnp said:
Not forgetting for a moment all the coincidences that produced life here.
I think bacterial life is even greater than Drakes equation. But animal life, let alone intelligent animals like us are a rarity not a common occurrence.
Click to expand...

In this vein, yesterday I was looking about on google video and happened across a channel 4 documentary series I hadn't seen for awhile...it was the "What we still don't know.." series, particularly the "are we alone" segment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7086762533420568365

In the video some folks make the case that life is not a coincidental/chance occurrence but something that was inevitable through chemistry given the vastness of space, and the timescales involved.

Anyway...they make and interesting case...
 
thesyntaxera said:
In this vein, yesterday I was looking about on google video and happened across a channel 4 documentary series I hadn't seen for awhile...it was the "What we still don't know.." series, particularly the "are we alone" segment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7086762533420568365

In the video some folks make the case that life is not a coincidental/chance occurrence but something that was inevitable through chemistry given the vastness of space, and the timescales involved.

Anyway...they make and interesting case...
Click to expand...
Martin Rees is a world wide treasure. Listen to his speech on astronomy on the same site, the man is a genius.
The are we alone segment makes a lot of sense also. After all, look up at the sky, the process of molecular self-assembly is common place in our universe.
The countless stars and galaxies which arose spontaneously by a process of self-assembly is proof of that. So life has to be possible in countless worlds. Even intelligent life. But earth life-like planets must still be very rare. There may be thousands in our galaxy alone, but where do you look in such a vast cosmos? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack the size of Texas.
 
davefoc said:
...

Notice that a one terawatt signal transmitted from a Arecibo sized antenna is required to reach a range of 150 light years.

So you not only have to envision an advanced civilization. You have to envision an advanced civilization that decides to construct a vastly powerful transmitter, a massive antenna and the desire to use them to engage in what is likely to be only one way communication with a fellow advanced civilizaton.

Seems like a long shot to me.
Click to expand...

I wanted to revisit this because I assumed something that was wrong when I made my original post.

The transmit power that is listed in the table is EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power). This value takes into account the gain of the antenna. For a transmitting antenna this is the ratio of power transmitted in a particular direction to the power that would have been transmitted if the antenna had radiated omnidirectionally. A spot light could be seen to have gain in the same way.

I did a calculation based on the formulas they supplied to see how powerful a transmitter would need to be with an Arecibo sized antenna to achieve the one terawatt output they listed assuming a 2ghz signal. According to my possibly incorrect calculations the hypothetical extraterrestrial sentient being only needs a 250KW transmitter and attach it to an Arecibo sized (305 meters) antenna and aim it at earth and his signal should be detectable with the Earth's Arecibo antenna when the earth's Arecibo's antenna is pointed at him and receiving on the right frequency.

Of course, even with the much reduced transmitter power required we're still expecting a lot from our extraterrestrial radio building alien. He needs to not only build his giant antenna but he has to aim it and only very limited aiming either for receive or transmit is possible with the Arecibo antennae on earth since it is built into the ground. Overall still a big long shot to detect a signal from as far away as 150 LY's I think.
 
Last edited:
Talk of exotic communications frequencies (or even methods) discounts the idea that ETI wants to be found. If it did, it might be reasonable to search the Water Hole:

The Water Hole
 
Simple life on Earth seems to have emerged quite quickly, whereas it took nearly 3 billion years for multi cellular organisms to come on the scene. This disparity of timescales suggests that there may be severe barriers to the emergence of any complex life. Intelligence could therefore be exceedingly rare even if simple life were widespread. Certainly our own emergence was the outcome of time and chance. What would have happened if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out? Evolution may have followed a completely different path. The chain that led to mammalian evolution that led to us may have been foreclosed. We can't say whether any other species would have taken our role.
Some scientists claim that even in a complex biosphere, the emergence of intelligent life was a fluke. I will stick to my hypothesis that intelligent life out there is exceedingly rare.
That's not to say we are alone. Just one of perhaps a thousand other intelligent lifeforms in the cosmos. Only because of the trillions of other galaxies out there.
 
Last edited:
The answer to the specific question of dinosaur extinction may well be that (had the rock not hit) a technical civilisation could have existed by 60MY ago. The ornithomimids show a very high brain / body mass ratio.

Your general point is correct though. The Drake - type calculations concentrate on space and tend to ignore time. The probability of two civilisations evolving near enough to one another in both space and time to allow even lightspeed communication is not great.
My own suspicion is like yours. Simple life in some form may be relatively abundant, but intelligence may be extremely rare, with the combination of two intelligences as near neighbours in spacetime simply being vanishingly improbable.
 
Last edited:
Some of the useful aspects of SETI:

Definition and refinement of requirements for such a search - this will help with the organization of other low probability, high-payoff searches, such as for earth-bound asteroids.

Improved listening gear (they've made several advances into miniaturizing and organizing radio gear, how to handle interference, multiple channel recording, etc).

On-the-side discoveries - several "false alarms" have turned out to be interesting discoveries in their own rights. Can we put pulsars in this category, or were they too early?

Developments in distributed computing - all the PCs running protein folding have outrun all other computer projects in terms of computer power used, developed on the SETI model.

It is the classic small effort expended to reach a low probability goal, with a relatively large payoff if it happens. Besides, how else are we to resolve Fermi's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)?
 
Last edited:
S.Sam Is probably right. Both Fermi and Drake fail to take s/time in their calculations.
There could have been and gone hundreds of civilizations before our own. Seeing that our sun is a second generation star and and seeing that all the first generation stars consisted of mostly hydrogen and no carbon until the first supernovas spewed the elements for planet building into the cosmos billions of years ago. Even if life started much earlier on some galaxy far, far away, it would be from at least a second generation star, never a first. That could mean that given the flukes required for intelligence, we may well be one of the first to arrive or there may be some civilizations out there just thousands of years older or younger. Either way, we may never have contact with another civilization.
 
Intelligence: A Rare Cosmic Commodity

Now, the idea that SETI will be fruitless (at least with regards to ETI), resonates with me and my feelings of how the universe is unfolding. I have a story in mind about continuing to search for (but never finding) ETI, even if humans had colonies on other planets.

However... these are just feelings, and I'm making no claim to data...

Is Watson simply pulling the 10% figure out of his posterior?

Without reading his actual article, I don't know...
 
The seti search is the functional equivalent of dipping your toe into the Pacific Ocean for about .000001 of a nanosecond while hoping a dolphin touch it. And that might be an overstatement.
 
Er, the Drake equation does factor in time. That's why the final term of it is the time a civilisation can be expected to endure.
 
jammonius said:
The seti search is the functional equivalent of dipping your toe into the Pacific Ocean for about .000001 of a nanosecond while hoping a dolphin touch it. And that might be an overstatement.
Click to expand...
Another good example would be a homeopathy medicine.
Diluted down to one billionth part of a teaspoon of water.
Not that I don't believe there's life out there, there's bound to be life somewhere considering the size of our galaxy let alone the universe.
So far things look a little bleak to say the least, in our vicinity anyway.
But it's still worth every cent that's spent, because we are an inquiring creatures that have to know one way or the other. Life may be in abundance out there, but it may be only bacterial type. Intelligence may be rarer than hens teeth. All the more reason to protect our environment and the health of planet Earth. :eye-poppi
 
I don't if if they ever wil or won't find intelligent or non-intelligent ET life. One thing I do know for sure however, if they ever do find life, whatever its form might chance to be, it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.
 
Radrook said:
I don't if if they ever wil or won't find intelligent or non-intelligent ET life. One thing I do know for sure however, if they ever do find life, whatever its form might chance to be, it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.
Click to expand...
Please don't tell us that if life is found out there ''god did it''
All it it needs is one in a trillion chance and still be possible considering the almost infinite size of the cosmos and almost infinite number of galaxies out there. :eye-poppi
 
ambnp said:
Please don't tell us that if life is found out there ''god did it''
All it it needs is one in a trillion chance and still be possible considering the almost infinite size of the cosmos and almost infinite number of galaxies out there. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

So happy accidents become happier the more material you provide. I don't buy that.

BTW

Astronomers have never claimed that the universe is infinite.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
it won't be there due to an infinite sequence of happy accidents.
Click to expand...

I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D
 
Radrook said:
So happy accidents become happier the more material you provide. I don't buy that.

BTW

Astronomers have never claimed that the universe is infinite.
Click to expand...
And neither do I.
I said almost infinite.
There are billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and there are billions of galaxies out there. The possibilities are endless
therefore almost infinite.
 
Jimbo07 said:
I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D
Click to expand...
The more than 90% of life that has become extinct throughout earth's history is testimony to that.
 
ambnp said:
The more than 90% of life that has become extinct throughout earth's history is testimony to that.
Click to expand...

You're a 1D10T! Nothing became extinct. Satan put those bones there to test our faith. Plus, oil has an abiological origin.

I pray for you! :mad:



















;)
 
Jimbo07 said:
You're a 1D10T! Nothing became extinct. Satan put those bones there to test our faith. Plus, oil has an abiological origin.

I pray for you!
Click to expand...
You mean I can still be saved from damnation by your prayers? Thank you, thank you. I will buy you a beer if we ever meet.:p



















;)[/QUOTE]
 
ambnp said:
You mean I can still be saved from damnation by your prayers? Thank you, thank you. I will buy you a beer if we ever meet.:p
Click to expand...

No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:
 
Jimbo07 said:
No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:
Click to expand...
Except that Seti may one day find that needle in a haystack.
The search for ''God'' is doomed to failure from the start.
Something that doesn't exist will never be found.
I would believe the actress before any pastor any time. Unless the pastor is discussing non religious matters. :p
 
Jimbo07 said:
No, no, no. It's all more complicated. See, I pray that God will help you see the error of your own ways. Then it is up to you to open your heart to our saviour so that, through your own actions, He can save you from damnation. I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but a pinch in time is worth two in the bush!

Plus, the search for SETI is exactly the same as the search for God. If you don't believe my pastor, then you should believe the actress dressed as a scientist I saw in a movie!

...

Seriously, I'd love that beer!

:alc:
Click to expand...

Here's salt on the tail of your hops. Back to the mine!

The difference between SETI and God is the difference in shelling out ten dollars for a sweepstakes ticket and lending the same amount to your uncle to assist him in his research. In fact, that analogy applies in several ways.
 
Jimbo07 said:
I fully agree!

i) The universe has a finite lifespan, so barring a "bouncing" universe, the idea of an infinite sequence of events is almost impossible...

ii) Not all of the accidents will have been happy!

:D
Click to expand...

True-but sufficiently numerically happy to get the job done while the unhappy ones not so drastically unhappy as to prevent the happy ones from mimicking a guiding mind.
 
Jimbo07 said:
a mind made of scrambled eggs, maybe...
Click to expand...

All I hear scientists say is how wonderfully complex nature is and marvelling at the way organisms are put together. You probably do the same until someone mentions ID. Then you panic and shift into the heckling and jeckling mode. It's that type of self-contradiction which seriously weakens your case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom