Telescope bid to spot alien beams: In 10 Sentences (or Less)Convince Me this Isn't Silly.

John Steinberg wrote:
Here's the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4907308.stm

Yes, I read this:

``Using only present-day terrestrial technology, a bright, tightly
focused light beam, such as a laser, can be 10,000 times as bright as
its parent star for a brief instant. Such a beam could be easily
observed from enormous distances.''

But Jimminy Cricket, what about the FAA equivalent on these alleged
alien worlds?

Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."

lal_truckee wrote:
Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."

John Steinberg:
Okay, maybe it isn't totally silly,

You were right the first time. It /is/ totally silly.

but couldn't we also submit that a supernova was actually a sign
from an ET?

Have the temporal occurrences of SN's been analyzed to determine if
they might be intergalactic "bonfires" used for sending news over long
distances? Or perhaps "One if by land..."

I'm counseling caution. Having spent 25 years in the Foreign Service
trying to build figurative bridges &c, I'm as committed as anyone --
more than most, these days -- to friendly relations with the neighbors.
I believe, however, that we should be /very/ /wary/ of getting too
close to people who say "Hello!" by blowing up stars.

I just deleted an almost brilliant argument against pursuing this kind
of "needle in a haystack" research but then I thought of the war on the
Easter Bunny and decided to just let it go.

I don't follow the news like I should. Have we found a nation of Easter
Bunnies who are sitting on a tub of oil and who are waiting to greet us
as liberators, scattering Improvised Easter Devices (IED's) in the
paths of our soldiers?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

John Steinberg wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:

Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."

Okay, maybe it isn't totally silly, but couldn't we also submit that a
supernova was actually a sign from an ET?

Coherent laser light is easy to detect and identify and not found in
nature (other than a few gas cloud masers, IIRC.)


I just deleted an almost brilliant argument against pursuing this kind
of "needle in a haystack" research but then I thought of the war on the
Easter Bunny and decided to just let it go.

The whole point of the exercise is you can examine ALL of the straws in
the haystack simultaneously for coherent light at very little cost. Not
silly at all.

lal_truckee wrote:
John Steinberg wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."


Okay, maybe it isn't totally silly, but couldn't we also submit that a
supernova was actually a sign from an ET?


Coherent laser light is easy to detect and identify and not found in
nature (other than a few gas cloud masers, IIRC.)


I just deleted an almost brilliant argument against pursuing this kind
of "needle in a haystack" research but then I thought of the war on the
Easter Bunny and decided to just let it go.


The whole point of the exercise is you can examine ALL of the straws in
the haystack simultaneously for coherent light at very little cost. Not
silly at all.


If you read the OSETI paper they are looking for nanosecond pulses
with APD detectors and not measuring the coherence of the photons.
In fact Howard argues for non-coherent detection.

To make nanosecond pulses from an astrophysical source, the emitting
region needs to be smaller than a few light nanoseconds. 0.3 meters or so.
d.

Dan Mckenna wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
John Steinberg wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."


Okay, maybe it isn't totally silly, but couldn't we also submit that a
supernova was actually a sign from an ET?


Coherent laser light is easy to detect and identify and not found in
nature (other than a few gas cloud masers, IIRC.)


I just deleted an almost brilliant argument against pursuing this kind
of "needle in a haystack" research but then I thought of the war on the
Easter Bunny and decided to just let it go.


The whole point of the exercise is you can examine ALL of the straws
in the haystack simultaneously for coherent light at very little cost.
Not silly at all.


If you read the OSETI paper they are looking for nanosecond pulses
with APD detectors and not measuring the coherence of the photons.
In fact Howard argues for non-coherent detection.

To make nanosecond pulses from an astrophysical source, the emitting
region needs to be smaller than a few light nanoseconds. 0.3 meters or so.

Ah, there you go again (cue Reagan) bringing facts into a perfectly good
erroneous argument.

Actually sounds even better; and still involves "ALL of the straws in
the haystack simultaneously."

lal_truckee wrote:
Dan Mckenna wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

John Steinberg wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

Just like our TV and radio shows, the old DEW line radars, and the
deliberate "here we are" tightcast to M13, we've shot off plenty of
bright lasers into the galaxy; look up "Laser Guide Star."



Okay, maybe it isn't totally silly, but couldn't we also submit that a
supernova was actually a sign from an ET?



Coherent laser light is easy to detect and identify and not found in
nature (other than a few gas cloud masers, IIRC.)


I just deleted an almost brilliant argument against pursuing this kind
of "needle in a haystack" research but then I thought of the war on the
Easter Bunny and decided to just let it go.



The whole point of the exercise is you can examine ALL of the straws
in the haystack simultaneously for coherent light at very little
cost. Not silly at all.


If you read the OSETI paper they are looking for nanosecond pulses
with APD detectors and not measuring the coherence of the photons.
In fact Howard argues for non-coherent detection.

To make nanosecond pulses from an astrophysical source, the emitting
region needs to be smaller than a few light nanoseconds. 0.3 meters or
so.


Ah, there you go again (cue Reagan) bringing facts into a perfectly good
erroneous argument.

Actually sounds even better; and still involves "ALL of the straws in
the haystack simultaneously."

Lal,

My theory is that nanosecond pulses come from 0.3 meter objects that are
in FACT Super Luminous Easter Bunnys, SLEBs, when they get to close to a
black hole.

They put all the eggs in one basket as well.

It is time to beam them the truth! However, you know how bunnys multiply
which may account for the so called "dark matter". As always, I fear if
we interfere with natures way, future generations will curse us. So for
now my coherent bunny beamer, CBB, is silent.

Although at night I can hear there tiny doppler shifted cries. I am now
applying for time at Keck to look for bunny spectra. My own research is
confused because the sauce tends to dominate the spectra in the near
infrared.

d.