Are the SETI kooks still at it?

I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.

Rich wrote:
I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.



Yes, we are.

Stupot

Rich wrote:
I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.


I'm still processing SETI data on my computers.

Rich wrote:

I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.

http://www.planetary.org/programs/pr..._20060814.html

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/

I smell a TROLL.


"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com...
I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Rich wrote:

I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.


I'm still processing SETI data on my computers.

Odd. So am I . I thought the Boinc link stopped working with some note
regarding "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" about 9 months back.

These new processors sure do smoke this stuff.

Mark F. wrote:

I smell a TROLL.


"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com...

I remember back in the 1990s they were using computers with spare
processing power to analyze signals to look for extraterrestrial life.
I read the Drake Equation and wonder, how do you have a scientific
theory when EVERY term in an equation is an unknown variable?
I hope NASA, etc, never put any money into this rubbish.


I won't call it rubbish any more than I would astronomy and modern
medicine. The first step to prove theory in all or part begins with a
single step. Those who consider taking that first step are free to be
scanned by an actual cat on their next visit to hospital.

Mark F. wrote:
I smell a TROLL.



Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.

Rich wrote:
Mark F. wrote:
I smell a TROLL.



Usually, when someone is trying to prove something to be a
science-based fact, they have something that made them think it was a
possibility. SETI appears to be just a shot in the dark with
absolutely nothing to suggest it has even the remotest possibility of
success. At least most other scientific endevours are testable.

SETI is testable. But it may take a while. ;-)

I don't believe there is anything that would theoretically rule out the
possibility of communicating alien life? Are you saying there is?

I will say that peoples' expectations about how easy SETI will be have
been much too high, along with most estimates about _possible_ numbers
of communicating civilizations.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland
The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/

"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]

SETI is testable. But it may take a while. ;-)

I don't believe there is anything that would theoretically rule out the
possibility of communicating alien life? Are you saying there is?

I will say that peoples' expectations about how easy SETI will be have
been much too high, along with most estimates about _possible_ numbers
of communicating civilizations.

Who was it that said: "The surest sign that there's intelligent life out there
is that it HASN'T tried to contact us".

Seriously, even if one temporarily accepts for the sake of the argument that
there exists intelligent life out there, them inviting us over there or us
inviting them over here, is looking for troule.

The place called Earth is a ********. Anyone intelligent will try at life's
cost to avoid it. I would, if I were located somewhere else.

Things in nature work by analogy. If our civilization is ****, chances are
those other civilizations are ****, too.

Heck, if any benign ET beings ever came here, we would probably try to sell
them their own planet back, claiming that they don't have the proper ownership
papers...

Sorry to disagree, but I believe that this SETI thing is nonsense, either way
you look at it.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
--
Ioannis