SETI

So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there. To me it's all or nothing. Space
should be flooded
with intelligent signals. I suppose in one way this is a comforting
thought. If it turned out
that the receivers on earth were singing with signals, I'd be quite freaked
at the
implications.

If life out there has avoided contacting us, that may be our best evidence
that they are intelligent!

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"Toma" wrote in message
news:3VWxb.203826$jy.166866@clgrps13...
So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there. To me it's all or nothing.
Space
should be flooded
with intelligent signals. I suppose in one way this is a comforting
thought. If it turned out
that the receivers on earth were singing with signals, I'd be quite
freaked
at the
implications.

"Toma" wrote in message
news:3VWxb.203826$jy.166866@clgrps13...
So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there. To me it's all or nothing.
Space
should be flooded
with intelligent signals. I suppose in one way this is a comforting
thought. If it turned out
that the receivers on earth were singing with signals, I'd be quite
freaked
at the
implications.
I think there are a number of problems. The first is to get a real
understanding of 'scale'. The old analogy with the number of stars in the
universe, being comparable with all the sand on all the beaches in the world
(which may be out by a few orders of magnitude, but doesn't really 'matter'
in terms of the comparision), can be used here. We are on one grain of sand
on a beach. Our own radio signals, have reached perhaps the diameter of a
small plate on the beach, and at their limits will be getting harder and
harder to detect. Given the size of the beach as a whole, and the limits on
detection, unless there are several thousand races on just the one beach
(galaxy), all currently with the technology to send signals out into space,
and doing so, the odds are that we won't see them at all. It is also worth
noticing, that we are actually sending fewer and fewer detectable signals
out into space outselves. More and more of our communications, uses
relatively low power signals, or signals that are accurately beamed...
This is also, I suspect the 'resolution' of the Fermi paradox. We have no
idea yet, of how to survive for more than a relatively few years after
starting radio communication. Just how hard it is, to build a stable
society, using resources that can last, then get out into space, build
machines that can go to other solar systems, make them able to reproduce
(Von Neumann machines), and make them able to do this over the timescales
needed to go to even a few other solar systems, is difficult to really
estimate. I suspect that there are other intelligent races in our galaxy,
but probably relatively few (under a dozen at any time). That even the ones
who have in the past built systems able to spread over some of the Galaxy,
will have probably had those systems fail with time, and leave relatively
few signs today. This then combines with the point, that for these systems
to be here today (assuming normal movement through space at a relatively
slow rate), from any distance away, they would need to have been started
millions of years ago. It may well be that in general conditions on most
planets in a galaxy, do not reach the state to allow the development of
intelligent life, till a certain point in galactic 'evolution'. Though then
races might well have grown up millenia ago (perhaps the corresponding to
the dinosaurs on Earth), there still has not been time for such systems to
reach everywhere in this galaxy. I suspect that if I was desiging such
system, I might build them to go and look towards the centre of the galaxy
first, rather than out on a relatively minor spiral arm, again reducing the
chances of there being detectable signs here today.
To me, intelligent life is a 'long shot', very much more unlikely than
winning a massive lottery. However the sheer scale of the universe, makes it
allmost certain that there are other intelligent species out there, but this
same scale makes it relatively unlikely, that there are any 'in range'. That
having been said, if we allow for relics from 'past visits', the possibility
that there may be some artefact from a race, somewher in the solar system
(no, not 'faces' on Mars...), does have a higher probability. I am thinking
more of signs on an asteroid, of a robot rebuilding/refuelling itself, than
any 'deliberate' remains.

Best Wishes

I'm up to 5000, and just got belittled by a friend for bothering. Here is
the answer I gave him.....

"
Why Seti? Why not. If you decide to look in a canyon to see if there are
people you might take a quick look around to see if any one is flashing a
mirror at you before setting up the radio scanner. Since we're a few years
away from being able to do a search for communications based on quantam
entanglement or some other FTL technology, let's look for the flashing
mirrors while we're waiting. "

--

Bill Carey
MS Messenger - RedEyes2
ICQ - 19370799
XBox Live - RedEyes

"Toma" wrote in message
news:3VWxb.203826$jy.166866@clgrps13...
So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there. To me it's all or nothing.
Space
should be flooded
with intelligent signals. I suppose in one way this is a comforting
thought. If it turned out
that the receivers on earth were singing with signals, I'd be quite
freaked
at the
implications.

Toma wrote:

So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there. To me it's all or nothing. Space
should be flooded
with intelligent signals. I suppose in one way this is a comforting
thought. If it turned out
that the receivers on earth were singing with signals, I'd be quite freaked
at the
implications.

Me too--and the reason: processing SETI data is an excellent contribution
to science. It is still a contribution, even if the data collection never
shows up any life generated signals... not because there isn't life out
there, but because the search might show that there is not life transmitting
close by!

Bill Carey:
I'm up to 5000, and just got belittled by a friend for bothering. Here is
the answer I gave him.....

"Why Seti? Why not. [sic] If you decide to look in a canyon to see if there are
people you might take a quick look around to see if any one is flashing a
mirror at you before setting up the radio scanner. Since we're a few years
away from being able to do a search for communications based on quantam
entanglement or some other FTL technology, let's look for the flashing
mirrors while we're waiting."

I'll bet that that lucid explanation really set him straight,
especially the non sequitur about the radio scanner.

Wh not? SETI is silly enough to border on the pseudo-scienctific.
Pseudo-science is practiced by people who won't accept the truth about
The Way Things Are. The pseudo-scientists want different, more
romanticized, solutions, and they are continually having to invent
reasons why their postulates don't work -- just as SETI devotees have
devised a list of reasons why we haven't heard from anyone yet.

Don't hold your breath until you detect the LGM, especially via an FTL
dispatch.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there.

Hi:

Well, that's it, then. Call Berkeley and tell 'em to shut down. How did you
arrive at this conclusion?! ;-)

Why should it be "all or nothing"? And have you considered that we haven't
erected any mega transmitters ourselves? Leakage from our RF comms is limited
in range, and is lessening all the time.

The question of whether there is intelligent life in the universe other than us
(assuming ;-)) is far from being settled. Even the question whether there is
_abundant_ intelligent life in the galaxy is far from settled.

Buck up, stiff upper lip and all that, and keep downloading work units! ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Wh not? SETI is silly enough to border on the pseudo-scienctific.
Pseudo-science is practiced by people who won't accept the truth about
The Way Things Are.

Hi Davoud:

Well, I'm glad _someone_ has the inside track on the Way Things Are. In what
way did you obtain this epiphany?


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"Rod Mollise" wrote in message
...
So far I have completed 1000 files for seti. I don't know why I do it
inspite of the
the fact that there is nothing out there.

Hi:

Well, that's it, then. Call Berkeley and tell 'em to shut down. How did
you
arrive at this conclusion?! ;-)

Why should it be "all or nothing"? And have you considered that we haven't
erected any mega transmitters ourselves? Leakage from our RF comms is
limited
in range, and is lessening all the time.

The question of whether there is intelligent life in the universe other
than us
(assuming ;-)) is far from being settled. Even the question whether there
is
_abundant_ intelligent life in the galaxy is far from settled.

Buck up, stiff upper lip and all that, and keep downloading work units!
;-)
Yes.
Though I posted in a sense very 'negatively', regarding the chance of
actually detecting anything, it is rather like a castaway on a desert
island. If he/she, stops actually looking, then he/she, should not be
suprised if they never see a ship. Though the chances are very low, it'd be
fantastic to be proven wrong, and find that there is another race 'in
range'. :-)

Best Wishes

If he/she, stops actually looking, then he/she, should not be
suprised if they never see a ship.

HI Roger:

And THAT is the bottom line. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html