Seti@home pointless?

[Bill Thompson]

Wasn't it determined that radio signals degrade after just a few light years?

[Almo]

Not that I'm aware of... or radio astronomy wouldn't work very well.

[NobbyNobbs]

Wow. Quickest shut down of a thread ever.

[Bill Thompson]

Not that I'm aware of... or radio astronomy wouldn't work very well.

Then it is something else. Isn't this kind of communication highly directional and we could not pick up anything unless the communication was pointed directly at us?

But I still think I am right. As far as radio astronomy is concerned, this is a different kind of thing since we are talking about quality of signal not quantity of signal. Is RF signals reduced to noise after a few light years?

[Bob Blaylock]

Wasn't it determined that radio signals degrade after just a few light years?

Then it is something else. Isn't this kind of communication highly directional and we could not pick up anything unless the communication was pointed directly at us?

But I still think I am right. As far as radio astronomy is concerned, this is a different kind of thing since we are talking about quality of signal not quantity of signal. Is RF signals reduced to noise after a few light years?


If you ask the very same question enough times, in enough different ways, do you think the answer will be different?

[shadron]

If you really think that there is some simple fact about radio wave propagation that would make it impossible to detect after a few light-years of travel, why do you think there would be anyone interested in pursuing it? Granted that The Atheist (among others, of course) doesn't believe that it is worthy of spending any money on, his reasoning (nor the reasoning of any others that I know of) does not include any assumption that it is impossible due to problems in radio wave propagation. Of course, they could all (pro- and con- alike) be wrong, but if they are, then, as pointed out by Almo above, how does that reflect upon radio astronomy as a scientific pursuit?

No, it's not an argument. To fully understand this, look up electro-magnetic radiation propagation, properties of interstellar space for said radio propagation, and then you'll need to study some optimal receiver theory (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979STIN...8018284L for example) in Electrical Engineering and Shannon's Information theory.

Then it is something else. Isn't this kind of communication highly directional and we could not pick up anything unless the communication was pointed directly at us?No, directionality might make it work better, but almost all radio sources that radio astronomy studies are omnidirectional, and thus maximally weak, and they are still studied.

But I still think I am right. As far as radio astronomy is concerned, this is a different kind of thing since we are talking about quality of signal not quantity of signal. Is RF signals reduced to noise after a few light years?Nope, you're wrong. First, what do you mean by quality? Radio astronomers extract considerable information from the signals they receive (spectrum, polarization, all sorts of possible modulation techniques, etc, etc). Granted, they don't often look for, say, phase modulation because that isn't created by any known natural phenomena, but there is no known reason why such modulation should not be detectable over galactic distances if it was there. Radio is radio; if it is carrying information, it will not be the distance that matters but rather the cleverness of the SETI detection methods that may miss it.

Distance alone does not affect the signal-to-noise ratio of a radio signal, most particularly through a vacuum.

Finally, remember that radio is one form of EM radiation; others include light, infrared, ultraviolet. microwave, Xray and gamma rays. All propagate in exactly the same manner. In fact, a SETI civilization could use any one of them to signal us, as well as several other methods. The SETI people investigate radio mainly because it is not much affected by atmosphere.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there is a point in the OP, though. Even with a radio telescope 100 times the sensitivity of Arecibo, we would not be able to detect our own broadband radio and TV leakage beyond our own solar system. Source (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html).

SETI must be searching for a stronger, more directed (narrowband) signal.

BTW, best I can tell, none of this is about SETI@home in particular, right? It's just about SETI with radio telescopy in general. Nothing happens to degrade potential signals between the time they're received at Arecibo and the time they're divvied up and received by home participants, is there?

[Bill Thompson]

If you ask the very same question enough times, in enough different ways, do you think the answer will be different?

What? It was answered by people who have not thought it out and/or people who do not even know.

A response is not an answer. The response was not correct. The response was from people who are merely hopeful and not a scientist who knows this stuff.

Radio signals are a spectrum of light. Light is made of photons. While I have been looking on the web reading what others have said it has become clear that unless ET intentionally directs a powerful beam directly at us, we would not be able to distinguish a signal from them.

This is true for several reasons.

Here is one reason. Like I said, light is made of photon. As a signal goes out from its source traveling along the surface area of a sphere, how many photon are spread out along this surface area? (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ). Let me put this in perspective. People who like to believe that we have sent signals into space already that ET can hear and understand like to use 50 light years as an example and say that a star 50 light years away from us will have been picking up radio signals from us. Well, what they would have been listening to would be a degraded signal undistinguishable from the background radiation of space left over from the big bang because the photons from a 50 year old radio signal would be dispersed evenly on the surface area of a sphere the size of 31415.9 square light years. (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ) There is no way that an episode of "I Love Lucy" or the Olympics in Germany before World War II could be watched and enjoyed on a star system 50 light years away because the signal travels along a medium that would be too fragmented by the time it reached them.

Here is another reason. 50 light years is a long distance. Any radio signal traveling that distance would be subjected to the whatever is already in that area. I can think of several things that would influence the quality and integrity of a radio signal. The most influential would be the background radio noise left over from the Big Bang. a faint radio signal would merge with and be indistinguishable from such noise over time.

The Radio Telescope argument does not hold water. Radio Telescopes pick up signals from powerful objects like a star. Radio transmissions do not compare.

[BonkingBear]

Radio signals are a spectrum of light. Light is made of photons. While I have been looking on the web reading what others have said it has become clear that unless ET intentionally directs a powerful beam directly at us, we would not be able to distinguish a signal from them.

This is true for several reasons.

Here is one reason. Like I said, light is made of photon. As a signal goes out from its source traveling along the surface area of a sphere, how many photon are spread out along this surface area? (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ). Let me put this in perspective. People who like to believe that we have sent signals into space already that ET can hear and understand like to use 50 light years as an example and say that a star 50 light years away from us will have been picking up radio signals from us. Well, what they would have been listening to would be a degraded signal undistinguishable from the background radiation of space left over from the big bang because the photons from a 50 year old radio signal would be dispersed evenly on the surface area of a sphere the size of 31415.9 square light years. (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ) There is no way that an episode of "I Love Lucy" or the Olympics in Germany before World War II could be watched and enjoyed on a star system 50 light years away because the signal travels along a medium that would be too fragmented by the time it reached them.

Here is another reason. 50 light years is a long distance. Any radio signal traveling that distance would be subjected to the whatever is already in that area. I can think of several things that would influence the quality and integrity of a radio signal. The most influential would be the background radio noise left over from the Big Bang. a faint radio signal would merge with and be indistinguishable from such noise over time.

The Radio Telescope argument does not hold water. Radio Telescopes pick up signals from powerful objects like a star. Radio transmissions do not compare.

Yes this is correct. The only signal we are likely to 'read' would be a very tightly focused beam aimed directly at us from a very very powerful transmit ion source and then very unlikely to be further away that 100 ly

[Safe-Keeper]

I watched a documentary on how fast the remains of human civilization would disappear if we all vanished in an instant, and one of the things they mentioned was that radio signals dissipate pretty fast. Of course, I don't know their sources, and TV documentaries have been going downhill lately.

[shadron]

What? It was answered by people who have not thought it out and/or people who do not even know.

A response is not an answer. The response was not correct. The response was from people who are merely hopeful and not a scientist who knows this stuff.

Radio signals are a spectrum of light. Light is made of photons. While I have been looking on the web reading what others have said it has become clear that unless ET intentionally directs a powerful beam directly at us, we would not be able to distinguish a signal from them.

This is true for several reasons.

Here is one reason. Like I said, light is made of photon. As a signal goes out from its source traveling along the surface area of a sphere, how many photon are spread out along this surface area? (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ). Let me put this in perspective. People who like to believe that we have sent signals into space already that ET can hear and understand like to use 50 light years as an example and say that a star 50 light years away from us will have been picking up radio signals from us. Well, what they would have been listening to would be a degraded signal undistinguishable from the background radiation of space left over from the big bang because the photons from a 50 year old radio signal would be dispersed evenly on the surface area of a sphere the size of 31415.9 square light years. (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 pi r 2 ) There is no way that an episode of "I Love Lucy" or the Olympics in Germany before World War II could be watched and enjoyed on a star system 50 light years away because the signal travels along a medium that would be too fragmented by the time it reached them.

Here is another reason. 50 light years is a long distance. Any radio signal traveling that distance would be subjected to the whatever is already in that area. I can think of several things that would influence the quality and integrity of a radio signal. The most influential would be the background radio noise left over from the Big Bang. a faint radio signal would merge with and be indistinguishable from such noise over time.

The Radio Telescope argument does not hold water. Radio Telescopes pick up signals from powerful objects like a star. Radio transmissions do not compare.

So your arguments are based solely on omnidirectional dispersement of the signal across a spherical surface, and the resulting signal-to-noise ratio. You say that radio astronomy arguments fail because they are looking at stars, not radio transmitters.

Suppose a directional signal is sent by an ET that has the directional brightness within a band of radio frequencies equivalent to that of a star. Is that impossible? Will it be impossible to our civilization within, say, another 5000 years of development (providing we don't get overwhelmed by the evangelists)?

Perhaps there is some limit on technology which we don't have an inkling about, and we'll hit a power ceiling in the next hundred years, so we may have only the 100 LY radius sphere mentioned by BonkingBear above. How many possibilities does that leave? Something in the rough area of 10000 stars, according to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_stars_within_50_light_years_from_earth. Is that enough to justify SETI? For a more complete justification, see http://www.bigear.org/vol1no1/kraus1.htm.

[BonkingBear]

10000 stars is probably not enough to justify SETI if it was tax payers money....but as its privately funded does it really matter. Personally I am pleased they are doing this work.....you just never know....we could be real lucky and there is another communicating intelligence somewhere on one of what may be some 50,000 planets. Even a negative result will tell us something.

[jasonpatterson]

If you consider that anyone out there intentionally beaming narrow band signals toward other stars would be at least as technologically advanced as we are and that we are currently developing systems to detect planets on which life is likely, then their similar technology would narrow down the range of planets to which the ET's must beam a signal. In other words, though we have tens or hundreds of thousands of stars to listen to, they might be able to narrow their broadcasts to mere hundreds (or fewer, assuming further advances in detection technology.)

I honestly don't expect SETI to find anything, but I can't say it's pointless. I really hope I'm wrong...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Even a negative result will tell us something.
Not much. Don't forget the transit time. If we don't get a signal when we point a telescope at a certain position, it only tells us that nobody sent a directed signal to us at the appropriate time in our past to be reaching us now.

Everything is so spread out in space and time, that even if there are a great number of technological civilizations in our galaxy, we may never know about them.

[Bill Thompson]

Yes this is correct. The only signal we are likely to 'read' would be a very tightly focused beam aimed directly at us from a very very powerful transmit ion source and then very unlikely to be further away that 100 ly

Then SETI @ Home is a huge waist of effort. No intelligence would ever pick us out of the billions to be important or worth any time or effort.

It is self evident. Our species was too stupid to know SETI @ Home was a waist of time.

[erlando]

Then SETI @ Home is a huge waist of effort. No intelligence would ever pick us out of the billions to be important or worth any time or effort.

Nonsense! You're assuming that any intelligence making an effort being heard knows who it's sending to! That's woo territory.

The most "likely" scenario is that an alien intelligence would have detected Earth among other planets as a likely place for life (as we are currently trying to do with other starsystems). It would be plausible that efforts would be made to send radio signals Earths way.

Note to self: When insinuating stupidity in others at least make an effort to spell correctly...

[BonkingBear]

Not much. Don't forget the transit time. If we don't get a signal when we point a telescope at a certain position, it only tells us that nobody sent a directed signal to us at the appropriate time in our past to be reaching us now.

Everything is so spread out in space and time, that even if there are a great number of technological civilizations in our galaxy, we may never know about them.

I don't disagree - the problem is that despite all that we are discovering at the moment it only shows us how little we really know about the evolution of the galaxy and life in general.:)

[ZeeZero]

I'm sort of in the SETI is futile, but not necessarily pointless, category. I'm leaning more to the terrestrial radio sources will be too dispersed to be detectable, side of the fence. But I would rather see money wasted on SETI that gives people some interesting hope and prospects for the future instead of governments wasting money on faith based initiatives or other BS policies that push us back in time.
It's like the first lunar landing. Mostly a pointless endeaver, but it excited the imagination and pushed the limits of what's possible.

[Lonewulf]

A Bill Thompson thread on SETI!

This exact subject got him banned from the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum, just to warn you guys. He's that obstinate.

[Checkmite]

I do believe SETI@Home is pointless, but it has nothing to do with how valid SETI itself is as a project.

[The Atheist]

SETI.

Wow

[JoeTheJuggler]

I do believe SETI@Home is pointless, but it has nothing to do with how valid SETI itself is as a project.

I think this thread is mistitled. Based on the OP and what he's had to say since, his complaint or comment is about SETI using radio telescopy in general, and has nothing to do with the SETI@home project.

[Bill Thompson]

Nonsense! You're assuming that any intelligence making an effort being heard knows who it's sending to! That's woo territory.

The most "likely" scenario is that an alien intelligence would have detected Earth among other planets as a likely place for life (as we are currently trying to do with other starsystems). It would be plausible that efforts would be made to send radio signals Earths way.

Note to self: When insinuating stupidity in others at least make an effort to spell correctly...

Would they? Do you think we could detect something like our solar system elsewhere? We have four huge giant outer planets each with some huge moons. If they could detect the four small inner planets, could they detect that one or two were in the so-called "sweet spot". I think the orbits of the outer planets would overrun the detectability of the inner planets or their placement and ETI would move on.

Of course there must be other reasons as well. As Fermi said, "where are they?".

I think SETI@Home is (or was) an exercise in self-admiration. The participants assumed that Earth and her inhabitants would be somehow naturally appealing to ETI and they would eagerly want to contact us. They miss the fact that the human species (by our own definition of mediocrity) is not an intelligent species. I am reminded of the fact that IBM had non-disclosure agreements in the early days of Microsoft that were so strict that IBM would not sign them. In other words, if another company presented IBM with such documentation to sign, they would refuse. Likewise, WE would not be interested in contacting a civilization as stupid as us. It is like the old adage, "I would not join a country club that would have me as a member". Just having a planet in the sweet spot (the proper distance away from the sun) would not be enough. ETI would first likely look for some other signs of worthy intelligence and, let's face it, we don't have it.

[Bill Thompson]

I do believe SETI@Home is pointless, but it has nothing to do with how valid SETI itself is as a project.

Yes. I have heard that they are thinking of moving on to lasers or light or something other than the SETI@Home project. I feel that the whole project was started to show off a possible technology using millions of home computers connected together on some joint project. And since now they have moved on to include other number crunching works, I think I am right.

I think this thread is mistitled. Based on the OP and what he's had to say since, his complaint or comment is about SETI using radio telescopy in general, and has nothing to do with the SETI@home project.

They are connected or at least they were.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bill Thompson, I think you're still using "SETI@home" erroneously. The SETI@home project is merely a way of dividing up the data to be crunched so that it can be done on otherwise idle CPUs all over the world rather than at a central place.

It sounds like your beef is with SETI's emphasis on radio telescopy rather than something about the SETI@home project.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course there must be other reasons as well. As Fermi said, "where are they?".

This argument depends on a number of assumptions, few of which are reasonable.

As you yourself pointed out, we wouldn't be able to detect our own presence even from the distance of the nearest stars without a narrowband beam sent long enough ago to reach us at the right moment, much less across galactic distances. Our civilization is nowhere near being able to leave ubiquitous evidence of our existence throughout the galaxy.

ETA: So by the same logic, one would conclude that we don't exist since such evidence of us (as self-replicating probes) isn't ubiquitous in the galaxy.

For a full refutation of the assumptions made in this argument, see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527).

[Bill Thompson]

I watched a documentary on how fast the remains of human civilization would disappear if we all vanished in an instant, and one of the things they mentioned was that radio signals dissipate pretty fast. Of course, I don't know their sources, and TV documentaries have been going downhill lately.

AH-HA!! That was where I heard that information! Thanks for jarring my memory.

[Wowbagger]

I think what Bill Thompson is referring to is the Inverse Square Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law). But, it doesn't apply to focused beams, and makes little difference when radio signals eminate from around the entire body of the object.

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are connected or at least they were.
But you have no beef with the distributed grid computing approach to data analysis (which is what SETI@home is). Your beef is with SETI.

SETI@home could be discontinued, and the complaint you have about SETI would still exist. To clarify, surely you're not talking about signals degrading somewhere between Arecibo (and wherever they go to be divided into work packets) and my home computer, are you?

[AWPrime]

My position is that SETI is completely useless, but that doesn't mean that they need to stop. I allow other people to do stupid useless stuff all the time.


The only way that a SETI effort could be useful is if we invented a form of FTL communications and thus can possibly overhear alien communications.

[Bill Thompson]

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html

"It should be apparent then from these results that the detection of AM
radio, FM radio, or TV pictures much beyond the orbit of Pluto will be
extremely difficult even for an Arecibo-like 305 meter diameter radio
telescope! Even a 3000 meter diameter radio telescope could not
detect the "I Love Lucy" TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01
Light-Years!"
Radio Astronomy, John D. Kraus, 2nd edition, Cygnus-Quasar
Books, 1986, P.O. Box 85, Powell, Ohio, 43065.

Radio Astronomy, J. L. Steinberg, J. Lequeux, McGraw-Hill
Electronic Science Series, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc,
1963.

Project Cyclops, ISBN 0-9650707-0-0, Reprinted 1996, by the
SETI League and SETI Institute.

Extraterrestrial Civilizations, Problems of Interstellar
Communication, S. A. Kaplan, editor, 1971, NASA TT F-631
(TT 70-50081), page 88.
Also, there are reasons why ETI would NOT target us with a direct
transmission. Our solar system was formed from the debris of an
exploded star that was much bigger than our sun. The complex and
heavy materials necessary to produce life as well as a protective
magnetic field like our Earth has was because of the denser material
from the star that our solar system came from. Our star system is not
in the middle of the GHZ. So we are both our of the range where ETI
would expect to see life and we are orbiting a non-impressive star.

About the GHZ:
http://www.thelivingcosmos.com/ExtrasolarPlanetsandLife/HabitablePlanets_12May06.html

And, by the way, it seems to me that as science and knowledge progress, these habital zones are shrinking (not expanding like we hope). If you can get your hands on this article, it is very good. It shows that there is not as much hope as finding ETI as we think:

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=C94598AF-2B35-221B-674229153009236A
Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe; by Guillermo Gonzalez, Donald Brownlee and Peter D. Ward; 8 Page(s)

So there are lots of factors that add up to them not signaling us directly.
#1) We are not in an ideal place in the galaxy. #2) Our star is a small and
less than ideal sun. #3) There may not be as many ETI's as we would like
to believe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html

Note that I linked to this very page in Post #7 of this thread.

Do you get that the thread is mistitled yet? None of this has to do with SETI@home, does it?

Your complaint against SETI is that it is extremely unlikely to detect anything other than a narrow beam signal sent to us at an appropriate time in the past to be "audible" just exactly when we "listen" to that spot in our sky. That's a legitimate complaint, but it has nothing to do with the distributed processing project that is SETI@home.

My reply to your actual complaint is that it costs very little to do this sort of thing. Arecibo is not being re-directed from other work. Instead, SETI is just piggybacked onto whatever other research the telescope is doing. As someone else mentioned, the expenses are paid by private money, so I have no problem with it at all. (And, there is a vanishingly small but non-zero chance that they just might hit the lottery and find the needle in the cosmic haystack, if I might mix metaphors!)

[technoextreme]

I think what Bill Thompson is referring to is the Inverse Square Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law). But, it doesn't apply to focused beams, and makes little difference when radio signals eminate from around the entire body of the object.
Focused beams have their own problem. If you take a laser pointer and shine it towards the moon by the time it hits the moon your beam is ten kilometers wide all because you focused it.

[BonkingBear]

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html


So there are lots of factors that add up to them not signaling us directly.
#1) We are not in an ideal place in the galaxy. #2) Our star is a small and
less than ideal sun. #3) There may not be as many ETI's as we would like
to believe.

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 ?

[JoeTheJuggler]

So there are lots of factors that add up to them not signaling us directly.
#1) We are not in an ideal place in the galaxy. #2) Our star is a small and
less than ideal sun. #3) There may not be as many ETI's as we would like
to believe.

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.

At any rate, you left out the one valid reason for why we're not likely to get a signal from an ETI: everything is spread apart by unimaginably vast stretches of space and time.

[Bill Thompson]

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.

At any rate, you left out the one valid reason for why we're not likely to get a signal from an ETI: everything is spread apart by unimaginably vast stretches of space and time.

Which is why other galaxies should be omitted when talking about this stuff as well.

I wish I could put Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe online but there are probably copyright issues. If anyone disagrees with me, I would like to point them to this Scientific American article.

I knew Earth was the most dense planet in the solar system but I did not know that its density was also unique among stars (are you SURE about this? Can you tell me your sources?). The more I hear and learn the more I think we are rare and getting signals from space will be improbable.

Update: Arazona.edu has posted the the article here: http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/etlife/SciAm01.pdf (http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/etlife/SciAm01.pdf)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is why other galaxies should be omitted when talking about this stuff as well.

Nowhere did I mention other galaxies.

Are you denying that there are vast stretches of space and time to consider even within our galaxy?

Do you know what percentage of the volume of our galaxy we have explored in any meaningful way?

[LarianLeQuella]

Jebus Cristo on a cracker... Not again...

I will say that I view SETI@Home as a longshot, but since it's all privately funded, SETI@Home (and SETI) are worth it on the off chance that something is sent here. 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.

As I contend over and over again; we humans seem to lack a great deal of imagination when it comes to even considering how and under what conditions any alien type of life could start. Furthermore, we seem to be incredibly human/earth centric in all our thinking. I am betting that evolution will surprise us a great deal (and even freak a lot of us out!).

[thesyntaxera]

My position is that SETI is completely useless, but that doesn't mean that they need to stop. I allow other people to do stupid useless stuff all the time.


The only way that a SETI effort could be useful is if we invented a form of FTL communications and thus can possibly overhear alien communications.

Come on now. It makes for a great screen saver. One that helps sort through all the signals which ultimately helps them toward their goals.

I am curious to know how the search for life in the galaxy could be stupid or useless.

To me it seems to be the utmost of importance, regardless of the apparent futility of the efforts being conducted. Imagine what changes a truly positive result would create.

[AWPrime]

Come on now. It makes for a great screen saver. One that helps sort through all the signals which ultimately helps them toward their goals.

I am curious to know how the search for life in the galaxy could be stupid or useless.I don't think that they even have a chance. Its their method that is retarded not the goal.

[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? :eek: 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? :eek: 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. :rolleyes: 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.
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l266/Soylachula/Yoda.jpg
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. :rolleyes: 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.

[Lonewulf]

The ones that sent probes to Mars, and investigated it for life, and are still doing so through soil extracts.

[LarianLeQuella]

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.


Of course you don't know what I am getting at, when it seems your starting point is wholly and fully wrong.... Our sun is a 3rd generation (or late 2nd) (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/) Population I (http://everything2.com/title/Population%2520I%2520star) star. And the planets coalece separately from the sun (http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/learn/science/starandplanetformation). Both your statements are wildly innacuare to say the least.

Looks like you need to learn at least a few basics on planetary formation theories... Not to mention stellar formation...

[shadron]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l266/Soylachula/Yoda.jpg
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.

Read I did, Mr Thompson. I am a member of the Viking flight team, a team that is admittedly becoming rather sparse. While I was not a scientist on the biology experiment, I was intimately involved in testing it and the rest of the instruments on Viking, and I've followed the life on Mars debate quite closely.

Current theory is that Mars may have had everything that Earth had by way of a suitable climate for developing life. Unfortunately, the magnetic field was eventually lost, leading to loss of atmosphere, and subsequent essential death of the planet. That is not to say, however, that microbes could not still be living there now. After all, Earth lived through from one to three sessions of "snowball Earth" after life initially developed to unicellular stage, and it still managed to pull through.

Radiation is a force to be respected on Mars, there is no doubt. The solar wind was chiefly responsible for stripping away the atmosphere after the magnetic field failed. UV has nothing to stop it from raining onto the surface, and there is little doubt that it has pretty much sterilized the top few millimeters of the surface where it falls, particularly in the equatorial regions. Yet, UV is just UV, and it cannot penetrate through a millimeter of dust particles. Moreover, UV rained down upon the Earth's surface for millions of years before the atmosphere could muster its ozone shield; life developed in the oceans and could not conquer the land until it was so, but having sone so, stripping away the ozone shield would hardly eradicate it completely now. In the polar regions it does not penetrate into the depths of craters. Likewise, the solar wind doesn't penetrate; it is mainly atomic nuclei, and even the most energetic alpha particles are stopped by a sheet of paper. Cosmic rays are harder to work with, but they are rarer by far, and Earth has just as much to fear from them as Mars does; more, in fact, as they tend to create showers of energetic particles in our atmosphere.

Edit: Forgot about solar storms and CMEs, which are threats because of high energy protons and xrays. While these do penetrate further than normal wind particles and UV, they still don't penetrate effectively beyond a 10 cm through typical Mars dust. Depth is still a sovereign remedy. Also, Mars atmosphere, while thin, is still there and is somewhat effective in shielding from both of these radiation sources.

It is a fact that the proposed Mars Science Lab will go there to determine whether microbial life has existed on Mars:

Mars Science Laboratory is a rover that will assess whether Mars ever was, or is still today, an environment able to support microbial life. In other words, its mission is to determine the planet's "habitability."http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/

[shadron]

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.

Please cite me a cite on that. I'd like to know what exactly you mean by "our's isn't like that" and "Typically would not have planets that harbor life". That seems pretty speculative for the state of the art to me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Read I did, Mr Thompson. I am a member of the Viking flight team, a team that is admittedly becoming rather sparse.
Don't worry, the amount of hair on your head is of no concern! ;)

[erlando]

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.

Didn't Phoenix confirm the presence of water on Mars (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080731.html)?

[shadron]

Don't worry, the amount of hair on your head is of no concern! ;)

Damn, that's good to hear!

[shadron]

Didn't Phoenix confirm the presence of water on Mars (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080731.html)?

Yes indeedy it did. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter detected huge areas of hydrogen rich deposits in the polar areas, that were believed to be water. Phoenix verified the existence of ice at its landing site, and by implication indicated that the deposits seen from the MRO were indeed water ice, at least to a very large fraction. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14143-phoenix-lander-uncovers-ice-on-mars.html

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/

One report summarizing the suspected history of Mars:
http://helio.estec.esa.nl/intermarsnet/redreport/m3redascii.html

[JoeTheJuggler]

Didn't I see images of changes in geological features that were strong evidence of liquid water as well?

I'm thinking of these sort of mudslide looking things on the side of a canyon wall. They weren't there at one point in recent time, and then they were there later (by comparing photos), and something about them made it unlikely that they happened with dry soil/regolith. Someone with more knowledge know what I'm talking about?

And of course, some of the methane plumes are accompanied by water vapor.

[shadron]

Didn't I see images of changes in geological features that were strong evidence of liquid water as well?

I'm thinking of these sort of mudslide looking things on the side of a canyon wall. They weren't there at one point in recent time, and then they were there later (by comparing photos), and something about them made it unlikely that they happened with dry soil/regolith. Someone with more knowledge know what I'm talking about?

And of course, some of the methane plumes are accompanied by water vapor.

Yes, they have, of course, the ancient canon system that, in all its detail, is very hard to explain without invoking water. Then there is recent (between photos) pictures of slumping within crater walls, apparently caused by water sublimating away the underlaying support, perhaps even turning liquid briefly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, they have, of course, the ancient canon system that, in all its detail, is very hard to explain without invoking water. Then there is recent (between photos) pictures of slumping within crater walls, apparently caused by water sublimating away the underlaying support, perhaps even turning liquid briefly.

I thought I'd read something about stronger evidence of contemporary liquid water, but the "slumping" must've been what I was thinking of. Maybe I just read one of those over-stated popular press versions of this story.

Yes, I knew the evidence of liquid water on the surface in the past was already pretty conclusive.

[shadron]

Two excellent presentations about the search for life on Mars: NOVA: Is There Life on Mars? is an overview from Viking through Phoenix:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mars/program.html

and the second is specifically focused on the Phoenix project: Mars - The Quest for Life:

qVZCHaShWWY

The final segment shows the two photos of the "ice cubes" sublimating in the trench at 7:53:

vMSBVcJNyzY

For the latter, and a great many more science programs on the BBC, History channel, Discovery channel and other places (including Sagan's Cosmos) the hat's off to Zuke696. His playlist section (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Zuke696&view=playlists ) is nothing short of a video library of science. Subscribe to his channel, and you'll get all these on the fly.

[Bill Thompson]

So you know better than NASA scientists.

I can only assume from your very brief post that you figure that since we are exploring Mars, NASA scientists think there is or was life there.

It is not like that at all. In fact almost the opposite is true. NASA scientist, being scientists, are obligated to think critically and scientifically. They are explorers. They are exploring. They are trying to learn. And as history has shown, we often do not know what we do not know. We have no idea what we will find or learn.

And being scientists, they are sceptical and they do not subject themselves to believing something on hopes and dreams like undergrad sci-fi fans who tout "I am sure there is life on Mars"

I have spoken face to face with NASA scientsts. I was lucky when the AAAS had a meeting down the street from where I worked once and I had lengthy discussions with several NASA scientists. They expressed excitement about exporing Mars because we will have no idea what we might find. None expressed excitement about finding possible life there. And they all doubted it. I know this is unlike what we would like to believe. But it is the truth.

The ones that sent probes to Mars, and investigated it for life, and are still doing so through soil extracts.

Nope.

[erlando]

*snip*

You're not making any sense...

[Bill Thompson]

You're not making any sense...
Am so.

I have to suppose and guess what you mean and what part you are not clear of.

So I am guessing that it does not make sense to you because it is not what you would like to hear or believe. But NOONE at NASA whose job it is to plan, work on and work with these missions to Mars thinks there is or was life there. It is the common joe who assumes that is what they are looking for. It isn't. It is just science and discovery. That does not mean that if they do not find life, then it is a waste of time.

We look at the physics at play on another world to better understand our own. It is as simple as that.

[shadron]

I can only assume from your very brief post that you figure that since we are exploring Mars, NASA scientists think there is or was life there.

It is not like that at all. In fact almost the opposite is true. NASA scientist, being scientists, are obligated to think critically and scientifically. They are explorers. They are exploring. They are trying to learn. And as history has shown, we often do not know what we do not know. We have no idea what we will find or learn.

I'm so happy to learn that we have such a noble and honest knight to come to the defense of our and their scientific purity. So, I guess, they are guilty of lying then, if they're advocating something they don't really think there is a possibility of seeing any signs of. I've pointed out to you the locations on their website where they mention a quest for life. I would think that might just be political BS put on by their PR department (on your word) if it were not the real names of NASA scientists at the bottom of the pages labeled as content managers.

As much as you may desire that they don't go looking for something that has a fairly good possibility of being true, in the name of some sort of queen-sized idea of scientific purity, then you need to take off the blinders. There is nothing wrong with, no skeptical attitude that demands, that a scientist might think that life may be present on Mars; life is one of those physical facts, the determination of which will enlighten the study of biology whether they find it or not. They will, of course, draw conclusions as the evidence warrants. How in the world do you think they can plan missions and create experiments if they believe that they must inevitably be failures?

And being scientists, they are sceptical and they do not subject themselves to believing something on hopes and dreams like undergrad sci-fi fans who tout "I am sure there is life on Mars"And you are equivalently sure there isn't, and NASA had better agree with you, eh? Otherwise they're not being skeptical? They're being undergrad sci-fi fans? You sir, need to deflate the ego just a mite. Ye gods, you make it sound like some sort of viral infection.

I have spoken face to face with NASA scientsts. I was lucky when the AAAS had a meeting down the street from where I worked once and I had lengthy discussions with several NASA scientists. They expressed excitement about exporing Mars because we will have no idea what we might find. None expressed excitement about finding possible life there. And they all doubted it. There was a time, after the negative results from Viking in 1976 seemed to kill the idea that there was life on Mars, that there was a lot of gloom (no other word for it) on the subject. I wouldn't be surprised to find that your experience came from that time. At that time we had no data on Mars' natural history. Today, thanks to the plethora of explorative robots on and around Mars, that negative outlook has been miigated by the fair chance that life at one time did exist on Mars, and that remnants of it may still exist. No certainties, for sure, but scienists don't have to proceed from an assumption of total lifelessness as you imagine.

Get a grip. No one expects to find Barsoom in a cavern under the North Martian Pole, sucking on that ice cube buried there. But they may find some microbes, and if they do, than that will extend biology's whole realm by a factor of two overnight. That thought does excite scientists, biologists and cosmologists in particular; even Spock (http://www.griffithobs.org/pnimoy.html) is looking forward to the discovery.

I know this is unlike what we would like to believe. But it is the truth.Some skeptical attitude, fella. :rolleyes:

[Bill Thompson]

There are a couple movies that come to mind. One, I think, was called Mission To Mars with Val Kilmer and there was another one with Tim Robbins.

Both of these are the view that the main stream public would enjoy and possibly expect and hope for. And they are both flying bovine feces.

Finding some sort of chemical reaction that is pre-pre-pre life is more likely and more helpful than finding any sort of life or clue of previous life.

Looking at the goings on on another planet could lead to real earthly benefits like curing cancer or something like that. Unlocking the many mysteries of what makes us who we are would happen on the atomic and subatomic level rather than the hog wash of popular science fiction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the problem is that when Bill's talking about "mainstream" point of view or what "we would like to believe" he is apparently not talking about anything like scientific consensus. Instead, he's talking about popular opinion (you know, as in that majority of people who believe some version of creationism explains biology better than evolution?).

I say, let's just forget that position since no one here seems to be advocating it.

I think most of us hold the position expressed by the Carl Sagan quote I offered above (see post number 49 of this thread).

There's no reason to suppose that anything magical or exceptional happened on Earth. The laws of physics and chemistry operate the same everywhere. So it would be surprising if in the vastness of the universe complex life and intelligence only happened here. At the same time, we've explored very very very little of even our own galaxy, and we have no evidence at all of life elsewhere.

By the way, I recommend reading the chapter in Darling's Life Everywhere that refutes the arguments made in the Rare Earth Theory (and points out the connection to creationism and a religious agenda).

He also makes some good arguments that complex life might be very common, and it might be relatively similar to life here. However, again, we simply don't know.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Both of these are the view that the main stream public would enjoy and possibly expect and hope for. And they are both flying bovine feces.

And the majority of the "main stream public" also believe in creationism. This is the same "main stream public" that is unlikely to be able to identify neighboring countries on a map or do very basic math or give the name of the current U.S. Attorney General. So what? That is not the position of mainstream science, and not the position of anyone here.

You're arguing against a straw man.

[Bill Thompson]

All this talk about Mars really does not have anything directly to do with SETI and/or SETI @ Home.

And if you want to get specific it really has to do with how you define "life". I mean, I can remember when the Viking lander touched down and Carl Sagan was being interviewed along with Ray Bradbury (by the way, I met Ray Bradbury at a book signing in Santa Barbara once) and the reporter asked him how he felt about the event. He asked Ray Bradbury how he felt about having written so many books about life on Mars and how now all those stories would soon be outdated and if Bradbury was sad that we did not find life there.

Here is the cool part. He said that, on the contrary, now there really IS life there and that the Viking probe is an extension of humanity. It is like our eyes and arm and feet are now extended to another world. I thought that is pretty cool.

So it is how you view "life". It also depends on who you listen too. To get the real answer, you should go to the most educated person you can find and not just the science fiction fans.

I mean, if you really want to get down to specifics, there was once life on mars, but that is not the same as live evolving on mars.

And we know from the greatest and most educated and most intelligently gifted man who ever lived that there was life on Mars -- I mean biological life -- back in the 1840's. All you have to do is ask The Church for some of his recordings on the matter. But L. Ron Hubbard said that the outpost of the Golorkians was abandoned and since then, there has been little interest in Mars and Earth, for that matter.

So it is basically how you define life. I mean, we are basically apes if it weren't for our thetans placed there by Lord Xenu.

Ok, let's see if anyone has anything to say before they read this disclaimer. I am joking in the last 4 paragraphs here.

[Bill Thompson]

Of course you don't know what I am getting at, when it seems your starting point is wholly and fully wrong.... Our sun is a 3rd generation (or late 2nd) (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/) Population I (http://everything2.com/title/Population%2520I%2520star) star. And the planets coalece separately from the sun (http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/learn/science/starandplanetformation). Both your statements are wildly innacuare to say the least.

Looks like you need to learn at least a few basics on planetary formation theories... Not to mention stellar formation...

THen the BBC special on The Planet's are wildly innacurate. Funny, they had the best and most respected scientists. They really put their name on the line. Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino. You can understand if I go with what they say rather than your comment. I mean, I think your opinion is about worth as much as it cost for you to make this post. Which is nothing.

Unless my memory is wrong. But I am fairly sure I both remember and heard them correctly. I was very engrossed in the program.

What is more, a simple google search backs me up http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=where+did+the+sun+come+from&aq=0&oq=where+did+the+sun+come


And the majority of the "main stream public" also believe in creationism. This is the same "main stream public" that is unlikely to be able to identify neighboring countries on a map or do very basic math or give the name of the current U.S. Attorney General. So what? That is not the position of mainstream science, and not the position of anyone here.

You're arguing against a straw man.

What argument is that? What argument am I making that is straw man?

I don't understand. I am merely telling you what I have gathered from the people that I have talked to whose job it is to study these things.

And, as it has turned out, it is not at all what almost everyone else would like to think it is. I mean, sure there are a lot of creationists who have missed the boat. But I think that most everyone else has missed the boat too and they think the universe is teeming and pulsing with abundant life. And I mean, yes, life like we know it. And this is why SETI @ Home was so popular. Everyone seemed to be absolutely sure that we would get a radio signal from ETI in a few short years.

Actually, now that I have thought about it, I think it is you who are making and argument that is strawman. You are saying that since there are so many people who believe in creationism, then everything I have to say must be false. That is illogical. If that is not technically a strawman argument, it is clearly some sort of logical fallacy.

What science and scientists REALLY say is not what we intrepret them as saying and believing. Sure, they want the public to have hope that ET and ETI is out there, but the masses would not be as excited as finding a microbe. And, oddly enough, finding an extraterrestrial living microbe would be a HUGE deal and much more likely than finding a more evolved life form.

Here is a list of some very popular, common, and actually accepted beliefs that, if you ask any real scientist, you will find are actually myths.

The most common one is this. Myth: Because life exists in every corner on the surface of the earth. The Universe must be filled with life.

That idea is not logical. We seem to think the Universe and "the world" as being one and the same or simular. As I have shown in the Scientific American paper, The Universe is not life friendly. The Universe is, in fact life hostile. And it is life hostile to the EXTREME.

Myth: If you look at all the stars in the Universe it is absurd and ridiculous and actually somewhat arrogant and stupid to think that we could be the only planet with life on it.

The funny thing to me is that this is a simple misreading of what all those stars really mean to us.

It is the multitude of stars in the Universe that we have to thank for life existing at all. The existence of life is, at the core, a numbers game. It is all a matter of statistics. There had to be this multitude of billions of billions in order for the odds to be in favor of life coming into existence. If there were just a few hundred of stars in the galaxy and just a few hundred of galaxies, there would probably be no life in the Universe.

Mathematics, is in the core of physics and physics is in the core of everything. Probability and statistics play a role in Nature on earth. It also plays a role in the Universe. But not in the way most people think.

Here is another myth: The Drake Equation proves that there are many hundreds or even thousands of civilizations like ours in our galaxy.

The funny thing about astronomers is that they are often poor and unknowledgeable biologists. Astronomers like to blur and gloss over the minutia that they are unsure of and jump to some conclusions regarding biology. Every biologists I have spoken too admits that there are many mysteries in the development of life on Earth on the mocrobial level and although most of us would like to think we have worked out how live sprang from mud, there are a lot of missing steps along the way (and no, I am not talking about reptilian or mammalian evolution here). And since there seems to me a lot of hurdles that were crossed just by sheer dumb luck, we can add lots of fractions to the Drake Equation to make it work out that it is unlikely for life to EVER had evolved in the Milky Way and our very existence is the result of a set of astronomical improbabilities and unimaginably good luck.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here is another popular myth: Nature is good and Nature loves life. This is absurd to me to the extreme! Nature is good?!?!? Since when? When has Nature been our friend? Everyone seems to buy into this. "Natural" is a selling point on boxes of breakfast food boxes and they fly off the counter at the store. How funny!! Nature is not life's friend. Nature is not mankinds friend. Nature is our enemy. We owe our existance and survival to having evolved a brain to fight Nature. We battle insects for food. We battle germs and bacteria daily. This is the very reason why there is an "evil" and a invisible "devil" in our cultures to explain why millions of us are wiped out every once in a while. Anyway this is another reason why we think there must be a lot of live out there: Because, we think, it is only "Natural". If Nature would have its way, it is not illogical to assume, there would not be much life out there.

[Lonewulf]

Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino.Yeah, ad hominems aren't going to get you very far here.

[Myriad]

The arguments in this thread are beginning to become personalized. Please do not continue in that course. Remember Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[LarianLeQuella]

THen the BBC special on The Planet's are wildly innacurate. Funny, they had the best and most respected scientists. They really put their name on the line. Which is more than I can say for you, LarianLeQuella, Elf Wino. You can understand if I go with what they say rather than your comment. I mean, I think your opinion is about worth as much as it cost for you to make this post. Which is nothing.

Unless my memory is wrong. But I am fairly sure I both remember and heard them correctly. I was very engrossed in the program.

What is more, a simple google search backs me up http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=where+did+the+sun+come+from&aq=0&oq=where+did+the+sun+come



Actually, the BBC program supported the idea that the planets coalese out of material that surrounds the central stellar body. I think that you may be fundamentally misunderstanding the program. I was arguing that our sun didn't make the earth. Our sun is late 2nd or 3rd generation, meaning that there is plenty of stuff aside from H and He to make stuff with. Which again all your links point to, so I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say... You really aren't making any sense. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view or understanding on how planets are formed around stars.

Your google search again supports our arguments more than yours... Unless you want to go with the creatonist link I saw in there.

My Real name is Jan Stephan Lundquist. I have a link to my personal web page if you wish to follow it (which explains my "nom de plume" even). Is being unpleasant a natural state for you? It sure seems like it.

[shadron]

All this talk about Mars really does not have anything directly to do with SETI and/or SETI @ Home.

OK, fine. You don't want to argue about Mars further, even though it was you who dragged Mars into the conversation back in post #52. OK, then, charge on.

And if you want to get specific it really has to do with how you define "life". I mean, I can remember when the Viking lander touched down and Carl Sagan was being interviewed along with Ray Bradbury (by the way, I met Ray Bradbury at a book signing in Santa Barbara once) and the reporter asked him how he felt about the event. He asked Ray Bradbury how he felt about having written so many books about life on Mars and how now all those stories would soon be outdated and if Bradbury was sad that we did not find life there.Oops! Wait - I thought we were going back to the OP. What is this...one last tail lash at the opposition before abandoning the argument? Sheesh.

OK, so, you agree with what I said the scientific assessment was post-Viking. And Ray Bradbury, a science fiction writer renowned for his series featuring a civilization on Mars, The Martian Chronicals, tells you:

Here is the cool part. He said that, on the contrary, now there really IS life there and that the Viking probe is an extension of humanity. It is like our eyes and arm and feet are now extended to another world. I thought that is pretty cool.Oh, it is. It's way cool, and in a metaphoric way of speaking, it was exactly correct. Life was now there. However, that is no excuse to simply quit thinking at that point.

That's some argument you've come up with. Viking didn't find anything, RB told me to buck up, life was there now, and you therefore decide that he's right and there is no possibility of life having ever developed on Mars. You can't see the gap in the logic there?

So it is how you view "life". It also depends on who you listen too. To get the real answer, you should go to the most educated person you can find and not just the science fiction fans.OK, so we can go with Ray's metaphorical, let's-feel-good-about-this observation, and dismiss life on Mars as a possibility, and you classify those who feel that way as true scientists while those who want a second look, after some of the basic planetological assumptions have changed, as "science fiction fans". I hope you don't mind if I look just a bit askance at your logic.

I mean, if you really want to get down to specifics, there was once life on mars, but that is not the same as live evolving on mars.

And we know from the greatest and most educated and most intelligently gifted man who ever lived that there was life on Mars -- I mean biological life -- back in the 1840's. All you have to do is ask The Church for some of his recordings on the matter. But L. Ron Hubbard said that the outpost of the Golorkians was abandoned and since then, there has been little interest in Mars and Earth, for that matter.Oh, jesus. Spoon off into the cosmos much? So, we're back in the realm of metaphor again, and this time life is defined as "The Church"'s view or that of L. Ron Hubbard. Get a grip, man. Lots of people manned Mars with beings to make an interesting story; that doesn't mean that that must therefore be the only life ever possible on the planet.

And who is this "The Church" who I have to go ask for recordings from?

So it is basically how you define life. I mean, we are basically apes if it weren't for our thetans placed there by Lord Xenu.In the first place, your logic is full of holes and your conclusion doesn't follow. Your attempt to smear people who feel different from you as noobs and ignoramuses, or possibly as heretics, is noted.

Ok, let's see if anyone has anything to say before they read this disclaimer. I am joking in the last 4 paragraphs here.Well, you sure did take me in. I expected you to argue, not to flop on the floor and expose your belly, giggling. You decided that you can joke your way out of being wrong about the possibility of life on Mars, or that you can kill the argument because it's not going well? What sort of skeptic are you?

You started it, you finish it. You're acting like a troll.

[shadron]

Here is a list of some very popular, common, and actually accepted beliefs that, if you ask any real scientist, you will find are actually myths.

The most common one is this. Myth: Because life exists in every corner on the surface of the earth. The Universe must be filled with life.

That idea is not logical. We seem to think the Universe and "the world" as being one and the same or simular. As I have shown in the Scientific American paper, The Universe is not life friendly. The Universe is, in fact life hostile. And it is life hostile to the EXTREME.

Myth: If you look at all the stars in the Universe it is absurd and ridiculous and actually somewhat arrogant and stupid to think that we could be the only planet with life on it.

The funny thing to me is that this is a simple misreading of what all those stars really mean to us.

It is the multitude of stars in the Universe that we have to thank for life existing at all. The existence of life is, at the core, a numbers game. It is all a matter of statistics. There had to be this multitude of billions of billions in order for the odds to be in favor of life coming into existence. If there were just a few hundred of stars in the galaxy and just a few hundred of galaxies, there would probably be no life in the Universe.

Mathematics, is in the core of physics and physics is in the core of everything. Probability and statistics play a role in Nature on earth. It also plays a role in the Universe. But not in the way most people think.

Here is another myth: The Drake Equation proves that there are many hundreds or even thousands of civilizations like ours in our galaxy.

The funny thing about astronomers is that they are often poor and unknowledgeable biologists. Astronomers like to blur and gloss over the minutia that they are unsure of and jump to some conclusions regarding biology. Every biologists I have spoken too admits that there are many mysteries in the development of life on Earth on the mocrobial level and although most of us would like to think we have worked out how live sprang from mud, there are a lot of missing steps along the way (and no, I am not talking about reptilian or mammalian evolution here). And since there seems to me a lot of hurdles that were crossed just by sheer dumb luck, we can add lots of fractions to the Drake Equation to make it work out that it is unlikely for life to EVER had evolved in the Milky Way and our very existence is the result of a set of astronomical improbabilities and unimaginably good luck.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here is another popular myth: Nature is good and Nature loves life. This is absurd to me to the extreme! Nature is good?!?!? Since when? When has Nature been our friend? Everyone seems to buy into this. "Natural" is a selling point on boxes of breakfast food boxes and they fly off the counter at the store. How funny!! Nature is not life's friend. Nature is not mankinds friend. Nature is our enemy. We owe our existance and survival to having evolved a brain to fight Nature. We battle insects for food. We battle germs and bacteria daily. This is the very reason why there is an "evil" and a invisible "devil" in our cultures to explain why millions of us are wiped out every once in a while. Anyway this is another reason why we think there must be a lot of live out there: Because, we think, it is only "Natural". If Nature would have its way, it is not illogical to assume, there would not be much life out there.

Interesting series of stuff you have there, Bill. Unfortunately, it's not relevant, not because the logic you display while discussing them is flawed, but rather because I (and Larian and Joe, AFAIK) have not invoked them as arguments against your thesis. Rather, your profound lack of logic, fallacies of appeal to your "Real Scientist", and assumption of your own idenification of yourself as he suffices quite nicely.

[Bill Thompson]

Yeah, ad hominems aren't going to get you very far here.

No, that is his alias here. Check your facts. Under his alias he has "Elf Wino". You are amusing, "Lone Wolf". My point is simply this. Going with what a known scientists who does his work for a living and uses his real name is more logical than going with a contrary idea on a web forum where people are free to posts wims under aliases and are not held accountable.

But, besides...

OK, Jan Stephan Lundquist, I will reexamine this one part of the many many many things that point to the conculsion that it seems we are pretty lonely on the Universe.

Moving on to another idea...

It is interesting that Creationism has found its way into this discussion thread.

it is also interesting I am getting messages on a social network web site from a woman with a lot of religious faith.

My response applies here.

About believing in SETI: If you "believe" something is true just because you desperately want to believe it is true and will ignore any idea or evidence contrary to your belief; and if you "know" something is true just because you "know in your heart" it is true, then you are no different than a Creationist and you need to stop and have a lot of soul searching and personal examination.

I was a huge supporter of SETI@Home before I learned of Enrico Fermi's observation and found that he really made sense. I mean, I am with you, in thinking that it would be very cool if ETI was near by. But I think you need to force yourself to reconsider that, given all the evidence, it is much more likely that the nearest ETI like us is too far away.

Let me suggest this to shadron. If I was to say that you merely want to take apart what I have to say only because you want to doubt it, would I be lying? I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking. My idea was this: I wanted to know something. Would you be motivate only to attack my post without reading it first? Clearly the answer is "yes".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was a huge supporter of SETI@Home before I learned of Enrico Fermi's observation and found that he really made sense. I mean, I am with you, in thinking that it would be very cool if ETI was near by. But I think you need to force yourself to reconsider that, given all the evidence, it is much more likely that the nearest ETI like us is too far away.

You're all over the place now. I thought you were arguing some form of the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Now, it sounds like you've changed to the position that ETIs are just not likely to be very close together. As pointed out, Arecibo could receive a targeted, narrow signal from as much as a thousand or so light years' distance. Surely SETI (using radio telescopy) is a much more efficient option than any other method we have to detect ETIs.
ETA: Though I caution against carrying any conclusions beyond the limited scope of SETI. That we haven't found anything doesn't prove much of anything.

And Fermi's Paradox doesn't support this position. According to that argument, if an ETI existed, it would necessarily be much older than us (for some reason) and it would necessarily have sent out self-replicating probes that would now be ubiquitous in the galaxy. Since they're not here, they don't exist. (That is, the approach of Fermi's Paradox makes the distances inconsequential.)

At any rate, I gave a pretty thorough debunking of that approach on the other thread on a similar topic. My arguments are numbered for your convenience. Any one of these is sufficient to debunk the "if they're not here, they don't exist" argument.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527

[Lonewulf]

No, that is his alias here. Check your facts. Under his alias he has "Elf Wino". You are amusing, "Lone Wolf". My point is simply this. Going with what a known scientists who does his work for a living and uses his real name is more logical than going with a contrary idea on a web forum where people are free to posts wims under aliases and are not held accountable.


You'll notice that I said "ad hominem", and not insult. The two are not necessarily the same. Perhaps you should work to check your own facts.

And yes, that's what he goes by. Why did you repeat his name, if it wasn't there for all to see?

[AWPrime]

As pointed out, Arecibo could receive a targeted, narrow signal from as much as a thousand or so light years' distance.Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.

[shadron]

Let me suggest this to shadron. If I was to say that you merely want to take apart what I have to say only because you want to doubt it, would I be lying? I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking. My idea was this: I wanted to know something. Would you be motivate only to attack my post without reading it first? Clearly the answer is "yes".

Does it make any difference too your argument what my personal point of view is? Why should you care? I don't claim that my point of view is neutral, but that has no bearing on this argument. You post on a skeptical forum and then wonder why you get argued with?

I will add that you may have seen your wording as clearly joking, but it certainly was not evident to me until I got to your declaration. I saw it as not a bit out of line with the thrust of your arguments right up to the end. When I saw that it was a red herring, I decided to let what I wrote stand. So, you're right - I didn't read it until I got there in my own writing. And that disqualifies what I wrote how?

You say you only want to know something, but that's not true, is it? You made pontifical assertions all through your postings, and then seem surprised when anyone disagrees with you. Then, you respond to none of my arguments (this has been the first reference you've made to me since the "Read you should" quip) which show that your assertions are merely that.

I think that quite thoroughly qualifies you for the role of troll.

[shadron]

Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.

Sure it does, but we're faced with the problem every man has when wanting to win that $150 million Powerball lottery. Sure, buying a ticket only gives him a very slim chance of winning, but not buying a ticket gives a zero chance, and there is an infinity of difference between those two numbers. Unlike buying a Powerball ticket, running SETI does have side benefits in means and methods that may be of use in other fields.

[AWPrime]

Sure it does, but we're faced with the problem every man has when wanting to win that $150 million Powerball lottery. Sure, buying a ticket only gives him a very slim chance of winning, but not buying a ticket gives a zero chance, and there is an infinity of difference between those two numbers. Unlike buying a Powerball ticket, running SETI does have side benefits in means and methods that may be of use in other fields.You must always weight the odds against the costs. And any aliens will do so as well.

The power requirements make the notion of constantly sweeping the universe with a 'Here I am' signal downright decadent. And the distances involved would make communication nearly impossible and downright impractical.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only if it is extremely powerful. And it assumes much.
See my ETA on that one. Not finding a signal from SETI tells us almost nothing, since it only rules out someone sending a strong signal right at us at the appropriate time to be arriving here exactly when we look in that direction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I made a post where I was clearly joking and at the end I said I was joking.
I didn't buy that "just joking" bit for a second myself. It wasn't funny, so as a "joke" it was a complete failure. I think it was a way for you to make some points with impunity. As if by saying "just joking" you can say whatever you want and not have to answer for it.

If you didn't mean any of that, it would have been better not to make that post. I just treated it as if that were the case.

As far as what people believe is the case, I do think Carl Sagan's remarks that I quoted earlier are an accurate expression of current scientific consensus. We actually don't know, but it would be foolish and absurd to think that the Earth is special or unique somehow.

[Lonewulf]

Hey, you know, the Earth IS unique. I mean, the sun revolves it because it's just that awesome.

[AWPrime]

See my ETA on that one. Not finding a signal from SETI tells us almost nothing, since it only rules out someone sending a strong signal right at us at the appropriate time to be arriving here exactly when we look in that direction.
Isn't that reverse logic?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't that reverse logic?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that SETI is cheap, and a positive result, though very unlikely, would be awesome. The lack of a hit doesn't say much about the prevalence of ETIs in the galaxy.

SETI data do not support the conclusion that the Earth is unique or even rare.

[AWPrime]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that SETI is cheap, and a positive result, though very unlikely, would be awesome.Have you even considered this from the alien perspective? Even a directed signal would have to be enormously powerful. That costs money. And what kind of retarded species would keep sending this signal for hundreds of thousands of years just hoping to get a return signal back?



SETI data do not support the conclusion that the Earth is unique or even rare.I actually don't care about that as my argument is independent of that.

[LarianLeQuella]

Have you even considered this from the alien perspective?


Actually, that is one thing that I have harped on a great deal. However, since we are earthlings, our perspective will ALWAYS be biased, only because we lack any real information. Who the heck knows what they will or will not do? Who the heck has any idea as to what type of technology they will develop. WE JUST CAN'T SAY.

As I said earlier, I think the whole effort is an extreme longshot, but overall I think it's worthwhile just on the longshot (not to mention some of the side benefots that have been borne from the effort). So, just because we don't think we'll find something, we should just not search or do anything? Seems like the lazy approach to me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Have you even considered this from the alien perspective?
Yes I have. If you like, read my comments on the other thread in the SETI section.

Even a directed signal would have to be enormously powerful. That costs money.
Yes that's a point I've made a number of times. Even if something is technologically possible, there's no reason to assume it is economically feasible. (Check my link about about the argument based on Fermi's Paradox.) Even if it were technically possible and economically feasible there might be no social or political will to do anything like that.

And the paranoids also sometimes say we shouldn't broadcast because it basically tells those evil overlord type of aliens where we live.

ETA: And while we're considering all the reasons an ETI wouldn't send a radio signal detectable by us: it might be that radio technology is a very primitive way of communicating. Already we are using it quite a bit less for stuff like TV.

And what kind of retarded species would keep sending this signal for hundreds of thousands of years just hoping to get a return signal back?
I'm not sure what "retarded" means in this context. I guess you're using it to mean "not very smart".

At any rate, with a technology we don't know about, perhaps a beacon permanently pointed at a nearby solar system might be feasible. Probably not.

Also, there is, as Shadron pointed out, the non-zero chance that we'd spot the needle in a haystack by pointing Arecibo to the exact right spot in the sky at the exact right moment to capture a signal sent similar to the ones we've sent (sent out for a matter of minutes).

Also, as Shadron pointed out, the benefits of the SETI program spill over into other areas (learning how to do fairly sophisticated pattern detection in a distributed computer system, for one).

And the costs are very modest (and not publicly funded). SETI only gathers its data piggybacked on whatever else Arecibo is doing, so there's no opportunity cost wrt to that facility.

[AWPrime]

Also, there is, as Shadron pointed out, the non-zero chance that we'd spot the needle in a haystack by pointing Arecibo to the exact right spot in the sky at the exact right moment to capture a signal sent similar to the ones we've sent (sent out for a matter of minutes).But at some point there are other hobbies that have a higher chance of leading to the discovery of intelligent aliens. Heck a sci-fi writer may have more luck in inspiring people to eventually design a FTL drive.

Also, as Shadron pointed out, the benefits of the SETI program spill over into other areas (learning how to do fairly sophisticated pattern detection in a distributed computer system, for one). If I remember it correctly, its the other way around.

And the costs are very modest (and not publicly funded). SETI only gathers its data piggybacked on whatever else Arecibo is doing, so there's no opportunity cost wrt to that facility.Its a hobby, nothing more. I just find it insulting for human intelligence if SETI wants to be taken serious.

[shadron]

Its a hobby, nothing more. I just find it insulting for human intelligence if SETI wants to be taken serious.

Its a little more than that, AW. There are some people who make a living off of it. They and their followers are deeply sorry about their blow to your intelligence.

[Lonewulf]

Heck a sci-fi writer may have more luck in inspiring people to eventually design a FTL drive.

A sci-fi writer may have more luck in inspiring people to essentially break the laws of physics, than SETI has of spotting a directed communications signal?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But at some point there are other hobbies that have a higher chance of leading to the discovery of intelligent aliens.
Such as? (I'm serious, if there is something else, is it not being done because of SETI?)

Really, with the technology we have, there isn't much else we can reasonably afford to do to look beyond our solar system for ETI.

[AWPrime]

Its a little more than that, AW. There are some people who make a living off of it.There are plenty of people who make a living of hobbies. Or weren't you familiar with the gaming industry? (which likely does far more to advance computer technology then SETI).


A sci-fi writer may have more luck in inspiring people to essentially break the laws of physics, than SETI has of spotting a directed communications signal?Which laws must be broken? Name them.


Really, with the technology we have, there isn't much else we can reasonably afford to do to look beyond our solar system for ETI.So? The current situation is like having a endless ocean with uncountable amount of islands. However each island is separated from all others by thousands of miles. Now on one island we have a person who just stares at the ocean looking for waves. Waves that might have been created (by people on other islands) through throwing rocks in the ocean. For he know that this can create waves. What he really needs is to invent and build a ocean capable boat. And this was an optimistic example.

As for our technological limits, I experience them was well. I would love to pilot an interstellar spacecruiser. But our present technology doesn't allow this, so I play EVE-Online, but I have enough common sense to realize that the game is a hobby. Even gambling can be a hobby (although it has better odds).

[Lonewulf]

Which laws must be broken? Name them.

Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

You want fanciful technology that are only barely theoretically possible, and proclaim it better and more likely than actually, you know, being able to detect a directed signal.

[AWPrime]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

You want fanciful technology that are only barely theoretically possible, and proclaim it better and more likely than actually, you know, being able to detect a directed signal.You assume that any FTL drive would use the same space-time in which that law applies.

In sci-fi they usually bypass this through some type of altered space-time and as far as we know there is no law that forbids such a solution. The question that remains is: How? We can hope to inspire/motivate someone to solve this issue.

And then we have the SETI hobby, with luck, it would only detect regular signals at several light years.

[Lonewulf]

You assume that any FTL drive would use the same space-time in which that law applies.

In sci-fi they usually bypass this through some type of altered space-time and as far as we know there is no law that forbids such a solution. The question that remains is: How? We can hope to inspire/motivate someone to solve this issue.Yes, science fiction is quite good at "making stuff up", or giving semi-plausible explanations that, quite frankly, just don't exist within our universe or any other. You seem to be under the presumption that if you can imagine it, then it must necessarily be able to come true. That is an optimism that only the most religious can achieve.

Hey, pray hard enough, and maybe the Lightspeed gods will look upon thee favorably.

[AWPrime]

Yes, science fiction is quite good at "making stuff up", or giving semi-plausible explanations that, quite frankly, just don't exist within our universe or any other. You seem to be under the presumption that if you can imagine it, then it must necessarily be able to come true. That is an optimism that only the most religious can achieve.I would advice you to reread my posts or stop using strawmen.

When you inspirire a generation then that generation (and generations to come) will be motivated to see if such a thing can really be done. For example, Alcubierre’s warp drive, took warp from sci-fi concept to thought experiment. A huge amount of work needs to be done before it can be definitely ruled out or invented.

[Lonewulf]

Your original point was:

But at some point there are other hobbies that have a higher chance of leading to the discovery of intelligent aliens. Heck a sci-fi writer may have more luck in inspiring people to eventually design a FTL drive.

So you said this in response to:

Also, there is, as Shadron pointed out, the non-zero chance that we'd spot the needle in a haystack by pointing Arecibo to the exact right spot in the sky at the exact right moment to capture a signal sent similar to the ones we've sent (sent out for a matter of minutes).

I'm afraid I can come to no other conclusion that you're essentially tossing out SETI on the off chance that someone develops some FTL drive someday...

[AWPrime]

That doesn't follow your previous argument/post.

And have you come to realization that SETI is on the level of a hobby?

[Lonewulf]

No, I haven't come to that "realization".

[AWPrime]

So what makes you think its more then a hobby?

[Bill Thompson]

Before Berkley decided to use the power of home computers to number crunch the data and created the SETI@HOME, I remember seeing a 60 Minutes show about how people were using their lives savings to listen for intelligent radio signals.

The show suggested that it was a lot like a religion.

I think it is. It is also like the Holly Grail of Sci Fi Buffs and if you dis it, they will become enraged as if you are stepping on thier faith.

[Lonewulf]

they will become enraged

WULF SMASH!!!!

I am enraged! Rawr!

[Lonewulf]

So what makes you think its more then a hobby?

In the same way that I do not consider the LHC to be "just a toy".

With the definition you seem to be using, every single thing in science is "just a hobby" -- especially if it doesn't have a high odds of succeeding promptly.

If you want to define SETI as "just a hobby" to sate your own agenda... hell. Go right ahead, if you want.

[AWPrime]

In the same way that I do not consider the LHC to be "just a toy".

With the definition you seem to be using, every single thing in science is "just a hobby" -- especially if it doesn't have a high odds of succeeding promptly.We are getting closer to your problem. You seem unable to see the difference between, for example, the LHC and SETI.

SETI might take a million years, or it might never produce results. While the LHC will produce some results which will enhance our understanding of the universe. As the LHC can confirm or motivate a revision of current theories.

If people really want to feel useful in helping to discover alien life. Then they should support research in physics, astronomy, etc. A better understanding of our universe might lead to practical communication systems or even drives. But that suggestion isn't as exciting or seemingly direct as SETI.



ps. @Bill Thompson - It's not a religion. Just some members have excessive amount of delusional self-importance.

[shadron]

Before Berkley decided to use the power of home computers to number crunch the data and created the SETI@HOME, I remember seeing a 60 Minutes show about how people were using their lives savings to listen for intelligent radio signals.

The show suggested that it was a lot like a religion.

I think it is. It is also like the Holly Grail of Sci Fi Buffs and if you dis it, they will become enraged as if you are stepping on thier faith.

Fine, Bill. Whatever flicks your Bic. SETI is just a grouchy, science fictiony religion, just because you think so. You've built up this strawman to take your abuse, so just party on. Brazil sounds just the place for you to do so.

I was a huge supporter of SETI@Home before I learned of Enrico Fermi's observation and found that he really made sense. I mean, I am with you, in thinking that it would be very cool if ETI was near by. But I think you need to force yourself to reconsider that, given all the evidence, it is much more likely that the nearest ETI like us is too far away.

And I guess you'll never know. Sure it's more likely. I, too, see that as the likely outcome of Fermi's paradox, but there is a difference between being visited and ciommunicating. I don't think I need to "force" myself to believe that there is no possibility at all. To use your absolute belief that there is no life possible on Mars as a gauge, I think you would miss it if you tripped over it.

[Disclord]

We are getting closer to your problem. You seem unable to see the difference between, for example, the LHC and SETI.

SETI might take a million years, or it might never produce results. While the LHC will produce some results which will enhance our understanding of the universe. As the LHC can confirm or motivate a revision of current theories.

If people really want to feel useful in helping to discover alien life. Then they should support research in physics, astronomy, etc. A better understanding of our universe might lead to practical communication systems or even drives. But that suggestion isn't as exciting or seemingly direct as SETI.



ps. @Bill Thompson - It's not a religion. Just some members have excessive amount of delusional self-importance.

I think an interest in SETI might inspire someone to start looking at other areas such as you mentioned (physics, astronomy, etc.) and possibly some discovery of life. While it's not really the same, my interest in 1970's matrix quadraphonic sound decoders and modern Dolby Pro*Logic II matrix surround sound decoders inspired me to try and learn about the theory of vector spaces and matrix multiplication as well as spherical trigonometry.

[AWPrime]

I think an interest in SETI might inspire someone to start looking at other areas such as you mentioned (physics, astronomy, etc.) and possibly some discovery of life. While it's not really the same, my interest in 1970's matrix quadraphonic sound decoders and modern Dolby Pro*Logic II matrix surround sound decoders inspired me to try and learn about the theory of vector spaces and matrix multiplication as well as spherical trigonometry.Pretty good argument however I think that people how are involved with SETI were interested in alien life before getting involved.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know I've already made this point, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in for the SETI detractors. SETI doesn't take anything away from any other scientific endeavor. It also doesn't take anything away from the motivating effect of reading science fiction.

So those are not legitimate arguments against SETI.

You want to talk about a massive waste of taxpayers money, how about the ISS? Remember how its backers virtually promised a cure for AIDS? Or the amazing benefit of learning about living in microgravity (as if the Russians hadn't already done that with MIR).

I wonder how many more unmanned probes we could have sent for the cost of the ISS.

[AWPrime]

I know I've already made this point, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in for the SETI detractors. SETI doesn't take anything away from any other scientific endeavor. It also doesn't take anything away from the motivating effect of reading science fiction.I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.
Yes, I note that you consider SETI to be just a "hobby". That's fine--you can use the loaded language if you like.

But what exactly is it that they do that bothers you? Are they going around door to door leaving pamphlets and trying to get you to join them or something?

[AWPrime]

Well you may keep your strawmen.

But must I really repeat the last part of my previous post?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well you may keep your strawmen.

But must I really repeat the last part of my previous post?
What strawman? I'll repeat your previous post for you. You said:
I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

I'm just trying to figure out how exactly SETI asks anything of you. So it's not someone knocking on your door? Do they send you mailings or something?

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity, AWPrime, why should I take your opinion any more seriously than you take SETI?

Should I care what you take seriously?

[Bill Thompson]

Fine, Bill. Whatever flicks your Bic. SETI is just a grouchy, science fictiony religion, just because you think so. You've built up this strawman to take your abuse, so just party on. Brazil sounds just the place for you to do so.



And I guess you'll never know. Sure it's more likely. I, too, see that as the likely outcome of Fermi's paradox, but there is a difference between being visited and ciommunicating. I don't think I need to "force" myself to believe that there is no possibility at all. To use your absolute belief that there is no life possible on Mars as a gauge, I think you would miss it if you tripped over it.

What is true and more likely has been answered. No strawman there.

So I question why you hang on to something that is demonstratively false. I can think of several reasons. And my experience with these sorts of discussions tell me that there are a number of reasons why people have such faith in ETI. None of these resons are rooted in science and logic.

People I work with are computer programmers and software engineers. If you explain something to them, they get it. On the web, this is not so. Some people just can't get it. They can't see the numbers in Fermi's Paradox, so it is just not very impressive. Also, if someone tells them that there are answers to Fermi's Paradox, they jump to the assumption that it has been explained away.

Another reason is that web forum posters are often lonely sorry sods in their mother's basement or high school drop outs or people from a troubled family. SETI is the one thing they can cling to for hopes of a bright future. They do not like people taking that away from them.

The question of SETI and ETI and all the specifics and probablilties have been answered for me and for people I have met in person and have talked to. The only question is why some people on the web don't get it. And I have reached the conclusion it has nothing to do with my argument being faulty.

[Lonewulf]

"The numbers" in Fermi's Paradox?

I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate those figures. :rolleyes:

Another reason is that web forum posters are often lonely sorry sods in their mother's basement or high school drop outs or people from a troubled family.

You'd know, I'm sure.

[Bill Thompson]

"The numbers" in Fermi's Paradox?

I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate those figures. :rolleyes:


What? You cannot look them up?

Here, I made this web page, just for you:
http://gelsana.com/fermi1.html (http://gelsana.com/fermi1.html)

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

You have to understand that our solar system are late-comers. The galaxy has been around long enough for ETI to have taken over every part of it several times over. But it hasn't. So it is not illogical to conclude that, dispute all the billions of stars, the odds of intelligence coming about must be very low.

People have written books about Fermi's Paradox and have come up with entertaining scenarios. But they do not dismiss its powerful idea and stark realization.
http://gelsana.com/fermi2.html (http://gelsana.com/fermi2.html)
http://gelsana.com/fermi3.html (http://gelsana.com/fermi3.html)

Oh, and about the other comment. Yes, it turned out in later discussions that some of those kids who were big SETI fans were, in fact, high school drop outs and did have troubled pasts and family lives. One openly admitted he admired SETI for the comfort it gave him.

Getting comfort from an idea of having other worldy friends is what cults do, and oddly enough the people who cults prey on are the kinds of kids who are also big fans of SETI.

If you read my links you will find that SETI has the earmarks of a pseudo religion. Have you ever heard of F.A.R.M.S.? It is a group run by Mormons who -- dispite all the evidence contrary to it -- "know" that the Book of Mormon must be true and they look for any evidince that it is. SETI works the same way towards the existance of ETI.

Comments like "we cannot rule out the existance of --" and "we want to believe --" are what people of faith say. It is what the people of SETI also say.

In a nut shell, the reason why we are driven to religion is our natural fear of death; the reason why we are drawn to SETI is our natural fear of being alone.

Religious people even laugh and redicule any notion that your consciousness might not survive our death. They do this because they do not WANT to consider that they are
wrong.

It is the same sort of thing with SETI but it is our fear of being alone. Our fear of being alone in the galaxy is a powerful emotion. It often takes over our capacity to view the subject rationally.

[Lonewulf]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers. It's an argument based in logic ("If X exists, then why can't we see X"), not a mathematical equation. Or did you fail to look it up yourself?

And either way you look at it, Fermi's Paradox is filled with a number of assumptions that have already been contested -- with no satisfying answers available for that contest.

[Typicallucas]

Wasn't it determined that radio signals degrade after just a few light years?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I would guess that terrestrial radio signals aren't strong enough to shine all the way to other solar systems and that SETI is looking for signals that are of larger/grander.

RE: The title of the OP I also no longer participate in SET@Home, but I liked feeling like a citizen scientist.

That's also the reason why I spent time volunteering on Galaxy Zoo categorizing galaxies.

[Bill Thompson]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers.

Yes it does.

Read the posts again.

I even copied the paragraph that deals with numbers here just so you could read it.

Here, I will post it again for you to read:

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

My experience is that lots of people cannot grasp these numbers and "see" what they mean. If you got the visual, you can see that there is a powerful argument here that cannot be easily pushed aside.

It kind of reminds me of some friends of mine who did not think we walked on the moon. I told them that radio telescopes followed the mission up and down and because of triangulation, the missions could not be faked. I tried to explain this simple concept of geometry where if you have two vectors pointing to to a source of a signal, the only place where that source could be is where the vectors cross. They just could not get it. THey could not do the math. The same is true with Fermi's idea.

[Bill Thompson]

I don't know the answer to this question, but I would guess that terrestrial radio signals aren't strong enough to shine all the way to other solar systems and that SETI is looking for signals that are of larger/grander.

RE: The title of the OP I also no longer participate in SET@Home, but I liked feeling like a citizen scientist.

That's also the reason why I spent time volunteering on Galaxy Zoo categorizing galaxies.

We already got the links to studies that showed that radio signals (unless they are a direct beam) would fade out just beyond the orbit of Pluto.

[Bill Thompson]

I know the "numbers" for Drake's Equation, sure. But Fermi's Paradox does not involve numbers. It's an argument based in logic ("If X exists, then why can't we see X"), not a mathematical equation. Or did you fail to look it up yourself?

And either way you look at it, Fermi's Paradox is filled with a number of assumptions that have already been contested -- with no satisfying answers available for that contest.

That is what some people think and I know why they think this. But it is not true. You are making assumptions based on the fact that people have tried to explain away Fermi's Paradox. But it does not fudge or change the numbers involved. They try to answer WHY aliens are not walking down Main Street when they SHOULD be. They do not change the mathematics or the fact that they really should be there.

When people hear that books have been written addressing Fermi's Paradox, they assume that it has been shot down or "debunked". But these books are only about possible scenerios as to why aliens have not visited us when they should have been here all along. The scenerios are far-fetched and are intended to provide an ability to clink on to a belief that is not rational.

Contesting the assumptions is another thing. Noone would honestly or intelligently contest that the galaxy could be taken over in 10 million years given how advanced human beings have gone in a few thousand years. You can contest it. But noone should respect such a contesting of this assumption. The assumptions are logical. If you fight it, you are only clinging to a dream.

[AWPrime]

What strawman? This one:

So it's not someone knocking on your door? Do they send you mailings or something?Its an internet phenomenon, so that situation won't likely occur. Now I need to ask you this, are you completely unable to understand my position?


Out of curiosity, AWPrime, why should I take your opinion any more seriously than you take SETI?
Should I care what you take seriously?That is up to you.

[Lonewulf]

That is what some people think and I know why they think this. But it is not true. You are making assumptions based on the fact that people have tried to explain away Fermi's Paradox. But it does not fudge or change the numbers involved. They try to answer WHY aliens are not walking down Main Street when they SHOULD be. They do not change the mathematics or the fact that they really should be there.

Because the laws of physics don't exist because you don't want them to? Seriously, traveling at light speed is not easy. It's barely even theoretically possible, and the energy expenditure is ginormous, even if you manage to "cheat" physics.

And you're the one that's assuming that Fermi's Paradox is saying more than it really says or that it's "proven" beyond doubt. And yes, you are wrong on this. Sorry.

When people hear that books have been written addressing Fermi's Paradox, they assume that it has been shot down or "debunked". But these books are only about possible scenerios as to why aliens have not visited us when they should have been here all along. The scenerios are far-fetched and are intended to provide an ability to clink on to a belief that is not rational. "Traveling to other solar systems and galaxies is very hard" is far fetched? Nope.

Contesting the assumptions is another thing. Noone would honestly or intelligently contest that the galaxy could be taken over in 10 million years given how advanced human beings have gone in a few thousand years. You can contest it. But noone should respect such a contesting of this assumption. The assumptions are logical. If you fight it, you are only clinging to a dream.

1) Resources are limited, especially if you're stuck on a planet. Just because life evolves on a planet does not mean that that planet must provide enough resources to make space travel easy or even possible for the long run. Just imagine Earth with less accessible metals and useful minerals.

2) "The universe has been around for billions of years" does not mean that it has provided good grounds for life throughout its existence. For the first few billions of years, it would have been very hard for life to evolve on the forming universe. So it's a little far fetched to assume that life could evolve in the chaotic conditions of those first few billions of years.

3) Nothing says that travel throughout the universe has to be easy, no matter how far we've come in any amount of time. It's easily possible that there is is a limit on what technology is capable of doing. It may very well be impossible to actually go the speed of light in any meaningful way.

4) Nothing even says that intelligent life has to be common and in any other solar system. Life may be common, but intelligent life could very well be uncommon. The billions of years of life on Earth seems to show that intelligence is not the "logical conclusion" you seem to think that evolution has.

5) Ultimately? You just don't know, one way or the other. Seriously. All we have is speculation one way or the other -- even the "master scientists of NASA that agree with you" are just making a slightly better educated guess. The only example of life that we have a sample of is here on Earth, making our study size way too small.

6) Travel between galaxies would be very hard, given the intense sizes between them, and the fact that they're accelerating away from each other. So you'd probably have to look at life that exists only within the same galaxy. (This problem grows even worse if you cannot travel the speed of light, and both galaxies are traveling at .5 c away from one another... adding up to 1 c)

7) Even if life could develop, does not necessarily mean that there can't be setbacks. What if Earth went through a nuclear war, or was hit by an asteroid, or we ran out of valuable resources far sooner? There's nothing stating that we should be able to enter space with such limited resources.

8) Even if we managed to spread, nothing states that communications between ourselves should be easy (Faster Than Light communications are about as hard as FTL travel). This would keep us separated, and make it hard for us to truly spread amongst the stars without separating ourselves from each other. Soon, "aliens" would include members that were once part of our own species, but have been separated for too long.

9) Assuming that an intelligent race is even interested in spreading great distances without a cap is an assumption, and one with no basis.

None of the above is easily contestable. They are, in fact, harsh reality. You can't avoid them or ignore them. FTL is science fiction, and the idea that "you can only go up" is also limited by the reality of physics.


So no, your assumptions are not conclusive. Sorry.

That is up to you.

Very well. I make my choice now. I'm sure you can guess which it is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This one:
I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is. You said you don't mind SETI as long as they don't ask of you to take it seriously. I'm trying to figure out exactly how they ask anything whatsoever of you.

Its an internet phenomenon, so that situation won't likely occur. Now I need to ask you this, are you completely unable to understand my position?
Not really. They don't knock on your door. They just contact you via the internet? Are they spamming you or something?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

These arguments depend on several assumptions.
--That the technology is attainable
--That whatever technology is possible will necessarily be realized (there are economic and social reasons why it might not)
--That if other ETIs exist they already existed at least ten million years ago.

Earlier, I pointed you to my previous refutation of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox. Apparently, you didn't bother reading it, since you're making the same bad arguments without responding to my refutations.

I'll copy it here. You can reply to them by number if you wish:

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we no other ETIs exist in the galaxy (much less in the universe).

Remember, making this argument is essentially saying that for an intelligent civilization to exist, evidence of their existence must be ubiquitous in the galaxy. Evidence of our own existence doesn't exist much beyond our own solar system (an infinitesimally small proportion of the volume of the galaxy), and yet we exist.

[AWPrime]

I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is. Primary a deliberate misrepresentation of a situation/subject, in such a way that they can attack it.


Not really.Although I don't feel like it, I will try to explain it to you again.

It like seeing someone being deliberately ignorant in front of your eyes and then they say that they are truly contributing to cause x.
Or like seeing a role play gamer taking his role too serious, mixing up reality and fantasy, and then yourself feeling embarrassed to be of the same species.

In both situations the other side expects/demands to be taken serious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Primary a deliberate misrepresentation of a situation/subject, in such a way that they can attack it.
If there has been any misrepresentation of your position, it's your own doing. You said you don't want them to ask something of you. My paraphrase of your statement is that it doesn't bother you that people pursue SETI and take it seriously, it's that you wish they wouldn't ask you to take it seriously.

I don't think that's what you meant (now) because otherwise you would be able to cite an example of SETI personnel asking anything at all of you.


It like seeing someone being deliberately ignorant in front of your eyes and then they say that they are truly contributing to cause x.
Or like seeing a role play gamer taking his role too serious, mixing up reality and fantasy, and then yourself feeling embarrassed to be of the same species.
So it's not so much that you don't mind people pursuing SETI as long as they don't ask something of you. It's more that you do mind that SETI exists. You are bothered by the fact of the existence of people who take SETI seriously.

OK--you're entitled to that opinion. You should be upfront and own up to that opinion instead of pretending you're being magnanimous if they would only leave you alone.

[AWPrime]

If there has been any misrepresentation of your position, it's your own doing. You said you don't want them to ask something of you. My paraphrase of your statement is that it doesn't bother you that people pursue SETI and take it seriously, it's that you wish they wouldn't ask you to take it seriously.

I don't think that's what you meant (now) because otherwise you would be able to cite an example of SETI personnel asking anything at all of you.Joe, I severely question your grasp of the English language. Are you really incapable of understanding that my statement doesn't require the literal asking?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, I severely question your grasp of the English language. Are you really incapable of understanding that my statement doesn't require the literal asking?

I assure you, my grasp and use of English is superior to yours.

You're just backpedaling now. You clearly said you don't mind that SETI exists as long as they don't ask you to take it seriously. What you really meant was that the very existence of SETI and people who think it's important or serious really bugs you--the same way RPG enthusiasts bug you when they speak as if their fictional world were real.

It's not that SETI or the RPG enthusiasts are asking YOU to do anything. It's just their existence that you don't like.

Again, that's fine, but you should admit that that's your position. You're not being magnanimous about anything. Your statement suggested that you were being tolerant, but that these people just wouldn't leave you alone.

[AWPrime]

You're just backpedaling now. You clearly said you don't mind that SETI exists as long as they don't ask you to take it seriously.I have, in context its a figure of speech. Here the word ask can also cover the meanings of demand or expect.


What you really meant was that the very existence of SETI and people who think it's important or serious really bugs you--the same way RPG enthusiasts bug you when they speak as if their fictional world were real.

It's not that SETI or the RPG enthusiasts are asking YOU to do anything. It's just their existence that you don't like.No, its the self-delusion, not the existence that can annoy me.
Also the use of the word existence in this part is a failure at best, as it insinuates that my position would be counter their existence (murder), while its actually counter to their self-delusion. Now, I can't tell if those kinds of mistakes that you have shown are deliberate or just signs of a poor grasp of the language. But please can you review your posts before you submit them?


Self-delusion is annoying to other people. And the fanatical SETI (personnel, contributors, etc) are really deluded in that they think that they actually do something that really helps in the search for intelligent alien life. The only thing they really contributing to is their own self-worth (not that this is a bad thing).
My message is: Nice that you are enjoying that, but don't delude yourself and simply enjoy it as a hobby.


ps. Also the argument of non-zero-chance isn't an argument at all. A lot of things have probabilities that are non-zero.
For example a guy could try to make an Ark in a desert in case of flooding (can happen if an asteroid hits a nearby ocean). We wouldn't take the guy serious, but if it makes the guy happy and he doesn't break any laws, it is a nice hobby for him. Although his delusion would make him a target for discussion and mocking. But we wouldn't end his existence.

[Lonewulf]

Uhm, so you're saying that making an Ark to prevent a world flood based out of the bible is equivalent to listening for directed radio waves?

Radio waves that would work the same throughout the universe these aliens would probably inhabit?

That's your stance? Really?

[Typicallucas]

I assure you, my grasp and use of English is superior to yours.

Haha what are you going to compare ****s next?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have, in context its a figure of speech. Here the word ask can also cover the meanings of demand or expect.
The only figurative language in this statement is your use of the word "hobby" to describe SETI. Here's what you said:

I don't care what other people hobbies are, as long as they don't ask of me to take them too serious.

When I pressed you about what or how they ask anything at all of you, it turns out that you do care what they believe. It bugs you that, according to you, they are self-deluded, not that they're asking anything of you or doing anything to you at all.

So you've backpedalled on that first part--the "I don't care" part. You really do care what they do and what they think, right? It's not that they're spending any public money or proselytizing or anything like that.

[Lonewulf]

Yes yes, but they think there's a chance that an alien civilization might actually exist, and possibly figured out how to use radio waves! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes yes, but they think there's a chance that an alien civilization might actually exist, and possibly figured out how to use radio waves! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

And it's entirely unreasonable and delusional to look for evidence.

Actually, AWPrime, I think most of us here agree with you more than we disagree. I think most of us agree that we're not likely to come into contact with ETI in any way in the history of our civilization ever. Most of us think this is so just because everything in the galaxy (and the universe at large) is so spread apart in space and time, not because there's anything unique about the Earth.

Still, there are valid arguments for continuing SETI:

It's not publicly funded, so it takes away from no other facet of space exploration. It doesn't even use dedicated time on the Arecibo radio telescope, but just piggybacks on it at whatever part of the sky it's pointing to for other radio astronomy projects.

There could be side benefits (maybe the discovery of a new type of pulsar or other patterned signal, maybe just improved mathematical algorithms for distinguishing a signal from noise).

We don't know. Even though you and I believe it will never score a hit, we could be wrong. The arrogance of claiming we know something even though we really don't know could be a huge loss to science.

As Shadron pointed out, you can't win if you don't play. This is equivalent to getting a bunch of lottery tickets for almost no cost. I scoff at people who play the lottery, but if someone gave me 10 tickets, I would definitely check to see if any of them was a winner. I would be foolish to throw them away without looking simply because the odds of one being a winner are so vanishingly small.

There's really no other program to look for ETI. With our current technology and economic constraints, there isn't much else we can do to look for intelligent life at any distance.

By the way, we talk about SETI as if the only thing it could detect is a signal from another planet. But what if these self-replicating probes by some ancient intelligent civilization were zipping around our galaxy--maybe not ubiquitous, but relatively common? What if they were sending out generic First Contact radio signals? Then all talk about the limitations of a radio signal with regard to the vast distances to other stars really wouldn't matter.

One of my points of criticism about the argument that we are alone based on the Fermi Paradox is that we may have had a near miss--like a probe passed through here a mere 500 years ago. Surely if the probes were broadcasting radio signals, a program like SETI would make our ability to detect such a thing much greater than waiting for one to find us.

[AWPrime]

Uhm, so you're saying that making an Ark to prevent a world flood based out of the bible is equivalent to listening for directed radio waves?

Radio waves that would work the same throughout the universe these aliens would probably inhabit?

That's your stance? Really?Well in the guy in my example might survive a flood (an inland going tsunami). But in both cases, the odds approach zero, but will keep the person occupied and happy.

First there is no reason to assume that aliens would ever send out a directed radio wave. This even becomes worse if you think about this, they would have to target every star system in range for maybe millions of years.
Then we have the range problem, normal signals have a maximum range of a couple a LYs. Now if you want to reach all over this galaxy (not even this universe). You would need an entire star worth of power. This makes it unrealistic and in some ways decadent from the alien side.

One of my points of criticism about the argument that we are alone based on the Fermi Paradox is that we may have had a near miss--like a probe passed through here a mere 500 years ago. Surely if the probes were broadcasting radio signals, a program like SETI would make our ability to detect such a thing much greater than waiting for one to find us.Nice idea, but is has a flaw. How fast is such a probe going? In 500 years it may already be beyond the detection range. Also such probes would have limited amount of fuel to use to power any high power radio signals.

So you've backpedalled on that first part--the "I don't care" part. You really do care what they do and what they think, right? It's not that they're spending any public money or proselytizing or anything like that.I don't care what to do. I care what they think and how they promote themselves, there is a distinct difference here.

If it harms nobody then I can't object to what they do. In their mind it might be serious business, however if I find enough flaws then I don't have to give in to their spoken or unspoken request to take them serious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

First there is no reason to assume that aliens would ever send out a directed radio wave.
Except for the fact that we have done it. So using our only sample of what an intelligent civilization does, we can indeed assume that a relatively nearby ETI might send out a directed radio signal.

This even becomes worse if you think about this, they would have to target every star system in range for maybe millions of years.
Then we have the range problem, normal signals have a maximum range of a couple a LYs. Now if you want to reach all over this galaxy (not even this universe). You would need an entire star worth of power. This makes it unrealistic and in some ways decadent from the alien side.
You're making an all or nothing argument. It is possible to send out a directed signal without "an entire star worth of power". I know this for sure because we have sent out such signals, and yet we have not used up a "star worth of power".


Nice idea, but is has a flaw. How fast is such a probe going? In 500 years it may already be beyond the detection range. Also such probes would have limited amount of fuel to use to power any high power radio signals.

How do you know? You can't possibly know these things. In Fermi's Paradox, it was assumed that the probes would be ubiquitous. My problem with making a conclusion that there are no ETIs because we haven't run across a probe means that the probes must truly be ubiquitous (like at least one for every planet around every star in the galaxy), and that for a long time to guarantee that one would be here while we were capable of knowing what it was.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to draw the conclusion that no probe means no ETIs, but scanning the sky with a radio telescope could spot a signal from something other than a star.

ETA: BTW, the "500 years" figure is just a number I pulled out of thin air to suggest a near miss. Radio telescopy would nevertheless greatly increase our chances of detecting a near miss. The arguments that show the limited range of SETI's ability to detect a signal don't apply to its ability to detect a signal from a probe or spacecraft.

I care what they think and how they promote themselves, there is a distinct difference here.
Well the thinking part is just a problem for you, I suspect. Because they will continue to think in ways you disapprove of, I'm sure. But what about the way they promote themselves bothers you?

How exactly do they promote themselves? I remember getting a forwarded e-mail about 10 years ago about the SETI@home project that said you could "help find ET". Is that what you mean? If so, do you know that SETI won't ever find evidence of an ETI?


If it harms nobody then I can't object to what they do. In their mind it might be serious business, however if I find enough flaws then I don't have to give in to their spoken or unspoken request to take them serious.
Frankly, I don't think anyone at SETI cares whether or not you take their work seriously. I don't think there is a spoken or unspoken request. (Or is this again your idea of "figurative" language, and you don't really mean to say that they're making an implied request of anything from you?)

[AWPrime]

Except for the fact that we have done it. So using our only sample of what an intelligent civilization does, we can indeed assume that a relatively nearby ETI might send out a directed radio signal.

You're making an all or nothing argument. It is possible to send out a directed signal without "an entire star worth of power". I know this for sure because we have sent out such signals, and yet we have not used up a "star worth of power".There are things that must be done by an Alien if it really wants to advertise its location.
The signals we have sent out so far, don't have the strength. The signal that would to be sent would need to cover a large part of our galaxy and last for a long time to account for evolution and discovery of science.

How do you know? You can't possibly know these things. No machine is limitless.

In Fermi's Paradox, it was assumed that the probes would be ubiquitous. My problem with making a conclusion that there are no ETIs because we haven't run across a probe means that the probes must truly be ubiquitous (like at least one for every planet around every star in the galaxy), and that for a long time to guarantee that one would be here while we were capable of knowing what it was. That is because only that would be a serious attempt by any ETI.

On the other hand, I'm not trying to draw the conclusion that no probe means no ETIs, but scanning the sky with a radio telescope could spot a signal from something other than a star.

ETA: BTW, the "500 years" figure is just a number I pulled out of thin air to suggest a near miss. Radio telescopy would nevertheless greatly increase our chances of detecting a near miss. The arguments that show the limited range of SETI's ability to detect a signal don't apply to its ability to detect a signal from a probe or spacecraft.So? The non-zero argument you seem to love is so extremely weak, that it should be thrown in the trash.

You need to focus on this first step: The aliens are going to make either a real attempt or we will discover them through their casual signals.
The former would mean a massively powerful signal and/or probes everywhere. In the latter they would need to be our next door neighbors.

Then is also the factor is time, the odds of discovering anything increase greatly the more range one has. However the more distance between them, the more difficult communication becomes. As soon as any reply takes more then one lifetime, then people will simply file away the fact of their existence and stop caring. Like going to the moon, in the beginning it was an world event, then reality hit and it was clear that continuing to go to the moon wasn't worth the money.


ps. The most plausible scenario of communication with alien intelligent life is this:
Civilization 'A' looks with its telescopes for systems that might support life. This civilization then sends seed ships to such planets. If successful a branch civilization will form and it will repeat this. Now after 'n' amount of years and branches, a seed ship arrives at a planet with that has native civilization 'B'. A has an oops moment, and what happens afterward is unknown, but likely war in some form.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No machine is limitless.
And do you know that a self-replicating machine is impossible?

ETA: Do you know that a space-going vessel or probe must carry its fuel with it?


So? The non-zero argument you seem to love is so extremely weak, that it should be thrown in the trash.
I refuse to throw an argument in the trash that has not been refuted. Now--can you do that?

You need to focus on this first step: The aliens are going to make either a real attempt or we will discover them through their casual signals.
The former would mean a massively powerful signal and/or probes everywhere. In the latter they would need to be our next door neighbors.

You're making the same mistake that the Rare Earthers make when they invoke Fermi's Paradox.

We on Earth are an intelligent civilization that has sent out directed signals. We haven't sent out massively powerful signals or sent out probes that are ubiquitous in the galaxy. Yet we exist.

So your dichotomy is false--an ETI need not either make a "real attempt" by sending out a massively powerful signal (using "a star worth of power") or probes that are ubiquitous in the galaxy or be detectable only by our casual signals (by that I guess you mean the fact that our TV broadcasts are only detectable within our solar system even with a radio telescope much more sensitive than Arecibo).

[AWPrime]

And do you know that a self-replicating machine is impossible?
ETA: Do you know that a space-going vessel or probe must carry its fuel with it?Space is quite empty, there rarely is any place to refuel or replicate. So don't expect any probe to waste energy transmitting while its between systems.
Also I never said anything against self-replicating machines, and you know such feature would make continuously traveling probes, just stupid. A probe can just go to a system, make copies of itself and send some of those copies to other systems to repeat the process. Self-replication makes remaining in a system easy.

I refuse to throw an argument in the trash that has not been refuted. Now--can you do that?I have refuted it several times, you just chose to be willfully ignorant. There are many things that have a non-zero probability, and just because its above zero doesn't make isn't reason enough to do anything. To be useful one would need a practical approach to have any impact.
Heck the chance that you die in a nuclear explosion is larger then zero, but its not very helpful to stay the rest of your life in a bomb shelter. And building one out of sand stone because you couldn't afford reinforced concrete doesn't help make it a serious solution.

You're making the same mistake that the Rare Earthers make when they invoke Fermi's Paradox.

We on Earth are an intelligent civilization that has sent out directed signals. We haven't sent out massively powerful signals or sent out probes that are ubiquitous in the galaxy. Yet we exist.And you are blind to the problems. We are intelligent, but we haven't done anything to be really detectable. So you can't assume that an ETI will do what we haven't. And even we know what it takes to make ourselves detectable with the present technology.


So your dichotomy is false--an ETI need not either make a "real attempt" by sending out a massively powerful signal (using "a star worth of power") or probes that are ubiquitous in the galaxy or be detectable only by our casual signals (by that I guess you mean the fact that our TV broadcasts are only detectable within our solar system even with a radio telescope much more sensitive than Arecibo).Which other scenario is there then? Its a simple yes or no decision.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Space is quite empty, there rarely is any place to refuel or replicate. So don't expect any probe to waste energy transmitting while its [sic] between systems.
But you don't know this, do you?


and you know such feature would make continuously traveling probes, just stupid. A probe can just go to a system, make copies of itself and send some of those copies to other systems to repeat the process. Self-replication makes remaining in a system easy.
You sure are quick to say what would be "stupid" wrt to an alien technology.

I have refuted it several times, you just chose to be willfully ignorant. There are many things that have a non-zero probability, and just because its above zero doesn't make isn't reason enough to do anything. To be useful one would need a practical approach to have any impact.
Heck the chance that you die in a nuclear explosion is larger then zero, but its not very helpful to stay the rest of your life in a bomb shelter. And building one out of sand stone because you couldn't afford reinforced concrete doesn't help make it a serious solution.
From a cost/benefit analysis, if the thing costs basically nothing, then any non-zero chance of success is worth the effort. That's why I made the analogy of free lottery tickets. Your reply was that you would throw my argument into the trash. That is not a refutation. It's more akin to replying to your opponent's move in a chess game by upsetting the board scattering all the pieces.


Which other scenario is there then? Its [sic] a simple yes or no decision.
Huhn? I'm supposed to answer "yes" or "no" to the question,"Which other scenario is there then?" (And I already answered that question, but I will do so again.)

You made a false dichotomy. You said an intelligent civilization will either send out a powerful broadcast using basically a "star worth of power" or will do nothing and only be detectable by its own activity. I pointed out that we are an intelligent civilization that has sent out directed signals far short of "a star worth of power". I also linked at least once to the Wiki entry on Active SETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI)which gives the details of the 5 signals we have sent out directed to 17 stars.

I agree with you that the chances of SETI finding a signal from an ETI are vanishingly small. I just don't know why it bothers you so much that this very low cost program that uses no public funding at all exists. You're upset that people are wasting their time on a fruitless endeavor? So should they instead spend time arguing about it in an on-line forum? Is that more productive somehow? :)

[AWPrime]

But you don't know this, do you?

You sure are quick to say what would be "stupid" wrt to an alien technology.I do make the assumption that they live in the same universe as we do and that the probes won't be perpetual motion machines. So don't ignore reality whenever it suits you. Traveling probes will miss developing intelligent civilizations (and will eventually break down) and replicating probes would be common within their sphere of influence. So we are not yet within the expanding sphere of probes/aliens just don't care/we are the first ones at this level of development.


From a cost/benefit analysis, if the thing costs basically nothing, then any non-zero chance of success is worth the effort. That's why I made the analogy of free lottery tickets. But that isn't a real effort. Like building a bunker out of 1meter sandstone. Anyone who takes it too serious should expect a discussion at best and most likely a good mocking.
Just doing anything just because the costs are low and the odds are non-zero isn't an argument to take it serious.


You made a false dichotomy. You said an intelligent civilization will either send out a powerful broadcast using basically a "star worth of power" or will do nothing and only be detectable by its own activity.They either going to make an effort or they won't. It as simple as that. And any serious attempt will try to stack the odds.


I pointed out that we are an intelligent civilization that has sent out directed signals far short of "a star worth of power". I also linked at least once to the Wiki entry on Active SETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI)which gives the details of the 5 signals we have sent out directed to 17 stars.A couple of pings to a handful of stars. That isn't a real attempt, its child's play. It will take a permanent signal to all star systems within practical communication range before I can take active SETI even slightly serious. And that is of course ignoring all the other problems.

[Bill Thompson]

What is called Fermi's Paradox is elegant and simple and revealing like many great ideas. The very reason why it is called a Paradox and not an Observation is because people refuse to believe it. They refuse to believe what it says and what it means.

When reality shows us something we do not want to believe, it is human nature to come up with any far-fetched absurdity to make ourselves think the way we want.

We are, in a very real sense, frail beings.

==============================================

And the SETI pings are what would be expected to happen when sampling any huge set of ramdomness. SETI only proves that ramdom things occur randomly.

And so, since microbial life is the ultimate random of unlikely ramdonness, SETI shows, indirectly, that we are probably very lonely beings.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I do make the assumption that they live in the same universe as we do and that the probes won't be perpetual motion machines.
Yes, and neither of those assumptions rule out scenarios where SETI could get a hit. The point is, we don't know, so we should look.

But that isn't a real effort. Like building a bunker out of 1meter sandstone. Anyone who takes it too serious should expect a discussion at best and most likely a good mocking.
Just doing anything just because the costs are low and the odds are non-zero isn't an argument to take it serious.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

You clearly said that an intelligent civilization either sends out a signal with "a star worth of power" or does nothing. I pointed out that it's a false dichotomy since we are an intelligent civilization that has done something in between those two extremes.


They either going to make an effort or they won't. It as simple as that.
Unless any effort they make falls short of "a star worth of power" in which case you don't count it as a "true effort".


A couple of pings to a handful of stars. That isn't a real attempt, its child's play.
Is there any reason you assume that another intelligent civilization can't possible do exactly what we have done?

Again, I agree with you that SETI is not likely to get a successful hit. (I think we are unlikely ever in our history to encounter another ETI just because everything is so far apart in space and time.) I disagree with you that it's a pointless project, though.

I've listed my arguments before, and you have not addressed them all (any one of which is sufficient to make SETI worthwhile). I'll number them this time.

1. Even though you and I believe it highly unlikely that SETI would ever detect a signal, we could simply be wrong. The thing about the unknown technology of a unknown intelligent civilization is that it's unknown.

2. SETI is extremely low cost and uses no public funding at all. Therefore any non-zero chance of success is worthwhile. It costs us nothing at all (not even telescope time at Arecibo). It's like a free lottery ticket given to the human race.

3. There could be spin-off benefits. Finding a new type of pulsar, for example. Or developing better algorithms for sorting out a signal from the noise.

4. Even though SETI could only detect a narrowband signal directed at us at stellar distances, we don't know that other scenarios (like probes or spacecraft that send out radio signals) might not result in hits.

5. Similar to the way you do risk assessment (where you multiply the chances of the bad thing happening by a factor reflecting the gravity of the event--which is why even though airplane accidents are many many times rarer than auto accidents, they tend to result in more fatalities per incident, so we spend a lot more time and money keeping the incidence of airplane crashes low), we should multiply that very low odds times a very high factor reflecting how huge a success would be. Than you compare THAT to the cost (for the public, nothing at all).

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is called Fermi's Paradox is elegant and simple and revealing like many great ideas. The very reason why it is called a Paradox and not an Observation is because people refuse to believe it. They refuse to believe what it says and what it means.

Since you're repeating these notions without responding to me, I'll repeat my earlier post:


These arguments depend on several assumptions.
--That the technology is attainable
--That whatever technology is possible will necessarily be realized (there are economic and social reasons why it might not)
--That if other ETIs exist they already existed at least ten million years ago.

Earlier, I pointed you to my previous refutation of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox. Apparently, you didn't bother reading it, since you're making the same bad arguments without responding to my refutations.

I'll copy it here. You can reply to them by number if you wish:

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we no other ETIs exist in the galaxy (much less in the universe).

[AWPrime]

Yes, and neither of those assumptions rule out scenarios where SETI could get a hit. The point is, we don't know, so we should look.Actually it almost completely rules out the radio detection of the probe approach. There are here, or they will come here or even there will never be here.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

You clearly said that an intelligent civilization either sends out a signal with "a star worth of power" or does nothing. I pointed out that it's a false dichotomy since we are an intelligent civilization that has done something in between those two extremes.What we have done so far just may as well be nothing. Any civilization that really makes an effort will be obvious in its local area.


Unless any effort they make falls short of "a star worth of power" in which case you don't count it as a "true effort".Any real effort will stack the odds in its favor, it won't fully rely on luck. One just can't assume that a ETI will be listening at that exact time, frequency, direction and with the proper equipment to hear a single ping.


Is there any reason you assume that another intelligent civilization can't possible do exactly what we have done?Easy, its quite likely that most intelligent civilizations are pre-science as we have been for most of our existence. The signal duration and strength should be long and powerful enough to compensate for this.


1. Even though you and I believe it highly unlikely that SETI would ever detect a signal, we could simply be wrong. The thing about the unknown technology of a unknown intelligent civilization is that it's unknown.A poor excuse. They don't have radio yet, they have radio or they have something better (unknown). SETI just assumes the second case, a very poor plan. A better SETI plan would assume the first two cases.
A good plan will take all cases into account.


2. SETI is extremely low cost and uses no public funding at all. Therefore any non-zero chance of success is worthwhile. It costs us nothing at all (not even telescope time at Arecibo). It's like a free lottery ticket given to the human race. So is stargazing using just your eyeballs. But it doesn't make it a real effort.


3. There could be spin-off benefits. Finding a new type of pulsar, for example. Or developing better algorithms for sorting out a signal from the noise.More likely to come from leading astronomers and other professions.


4. Even though SETI could only detect a narrowband signal directed at us at stellar distances, we don't know that other scenarios (like probes or spacecraft that send out radio signals) might not result in hits.Won't help. Physics dictate those will have limited amount of power, and if they are in the neighborhood then they will likely make a stop at earth anyway. And if you assume that they aren't limited by power then you can just as well assume that use warp drive.


5. Similar to the way you do risk assessment (where you multiply the chances of the bad thing happening by a factor reflecting the gravity of the event--which is why even though airplane accidents are many many times rarer than auto accidents, they tend to result in more fatalities per incident, so we spend a lot more time and money keeping the incidence of airplane crashes low), we should multiply that very low odds times a very high factor reflecting how huge a success would be. Than you compare THAT to the cost (for the public, nothing at all).Nope. Now your just being overenthusiastic about any result.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now your just being overenthusiastic about any result.

My not.

[Bill Thompson]

Most people seem to be much too hung up with UFO's when discussing this subject and you never get to other aspects or facts. When a friend or family member is stuck on UFO's and thinking they are from extraterrestrials, nothing else matters because, in their mind, they already exist and they already are here.

So, the them, of course SETI is useful because of course they will get a signal. To them, this is only showing us where all the UFO's are coming from.

[AWPrime]

Unlikely, I haven't met a SETIer that believes in UFOs.

[lightfire22000]

Wouldn't intelligent life on other planets think we're idiots for sending radio signals randomly into space?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unlikely, I haven't met a SETIer that believes in UFOs.

I agree.

Bill, lumping people who aren't willing to reject the possibility that we might make contact with an ETI in with people who think UFOs are ET spacecraft is a strawman argument. It would be comparable to claiming that anyone with any criticism of the Bush and/or Obama administrations is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist.

[Bill Thompson]

I agree.

Bill, lumping people who aren't willing to reject the possibility that we might make contact with an ETI in with people who think UFOs are ET spacecraft is a strawman argument. It would be comparable to claiming that anyone with any criticism of the Bush and/or Obama administrations is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist.

No. It is just an observation. I have just observed that talking to people often requires crossing the UFO berrier.

You assuming that I am lumping people in is a strawman argument.

Let me ask you something, "Joe the Juggler". Do you think this is an "argument" that I "want to win". It is not. My view is something that I would love to be wrong about. So, let me ask you this. Why do you suppose I believe as I do?

I believe as I do because I am aware of some of the variables that need to be just precisely right in order for there to be life and I am aware of some of the variables that need to be precisely right in order for there to be intelligent life.

Let me ask you something else. Let's say there are tens of millions of planets in our galaxy that are in the sweet spot where there is liquid water, and have the right envoronment for life to thrive -- let's say that if someone was standing there, they would find it a nice temperature and radiation free and, apart from the missing plant and animal and microbial life, a paradice -- does that mean they would automatically have life?

[AWPrime]

I have to agree even further with Joe. There is also a logic problem -> why bother with SETI if UFOs are real?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. It is just an observation. I have just observed that talking to people often requires crossing the UFO berrier[sic].
You didn't present it as a record of personal observation, but as a truism. Frankly, I don't believe that most people you've met who don't reject SETI (or even support it, whatever that might mean) believe that UFOs are ET spacecraft.

See AWPrime's comment. I don't think these two groups have a lot of overlap.




Let me ask you something else. Let's say there are tens of millions of planets in our galaxy that are in the sweet spot where there is liquid water, and have the right envoronment for life to thrive -- let's say that if someone was standing there, they would find it a nice temperature and radiation free and, apart from the missing plant and animal and microbial life, a paradice -- does that mean they would automatically have life?
I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically".

ETA: Since "automatically" means "by itself" the only alternate view I can suppose is something like through the intervention of a deity or Designer or some such, and I reject that.

I think matter obeys the laws of physics and chemistry everywhere in the universe.

So if the conditions were right for polymers to be formed spontaneously, then I think it's almost certain that any polymer that is self-replicating would become more abundant in any given sample. If the elements for forming vesicles exist, then the vesicles would form and would trap stuff inside of them. Since the self-replicating molecules would be more abundant, then they too would be in the vesicles in greater numbers. Again, through chemistry and physics, these vesicles probably would tend to form tubules that would break off (essentially dividing) and the most abundant molecules would be more likely to be represented in each "daughter" proto-cell.

All the prerequisites for natural selection are in place, so life would be off and running.

So, in sum, I think that if there were conditions as you describe, I would be very surprised if we didn't find life. But this is just speculation.

My position is based on the fact that the laws of physics probably operate the same everywhere (OK--I'm not talking about in or near a black hole or anything exotic like that), and I can think of no reason why the processes that led to life here wouldn't happen elsewhere.

The big question is whether similar conditions exist elsewhere.

I apply my same approach to that question: the things that led to the conditions on Earth are also the result of the laws of physics. Given the size of the universe (or even the galaxy), I don't see any reason to assume it's unlikely that these conditions won't exist elsewhere. The arguments made in the Rare Earth Theory have been pretty well debunked. At the very least, I don't find them compelling. (In many cases they're merely speculation, and speculating the exact opposite can be just as compelling.)

[Bill Thompson]

added below...

[Bill Thompson]

The BBC had a very cool interactive instructional presentation online showing how microbial life is constructed. It was divided into two parts. One part was called The Science and the other half was called "Reality Check".

It seems you are like the sort of person that clicked on "The Science" and was excited at how microbes are constructed without clicking on the "Reality Check".

Under the best of conditions, life coming into existance is so improbable that we would not believe that it could exist apart for the fact that it does, in fact, exist here on Earth.

It is a pipe dream to think that if an environment for life to thrive is found on another planet it will means that life will come into existance.

We know what all the parts of a microbe is made of. But is is still impossible for us to put one together just right so it will get going. If it is impossible for us to intentionally make one, the odds of one coming together ever is insanely low.


You didn't present it as a record of personal observation, but as a truism. Frankly, I don't believe that most people you've met who don't reject SETI (or even support it, whatever that might mean) believe that UFOs are ET spacecraft.

See AWPrime's comment. I don't think these two groups have a lot of overlap.





I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically".

ETA: Since "automatically" means "by itself" the only alternate view I can suppose is something like through the intervention of a deity or Designer or some such, and I reject that.

I think matter obeys the laws of physics and chemistry everywhere in the universe.

So if the conditions were right for polymers to be formed spontaneously, then I think it's almost certain that any polymer that is self-replicating would become more abundant in any given sample. If the elements for forming vesicles exist, then the vesicles would form and would trap stuff inside of them. Since the self-replicating molecules would be more abundant, then they too would be in the vesicles in greater numbers. Again, through chemistry and physics, these vesicles probably would tend to form tubules that would break off (essentially dividing) and the most abundant molecules would be more likely to be represented in each "daughter" proto-cell.

All that sounds like hitting the right numbers in a huge lottery even giving the best of the best environments.
You say " then I think it's almost certain " but I think if you would look at this honestly you would rather say "I think its as improbable as improbable can be"

Once again, this is what the large number of stars tell me. We exist because there had been a huge number of players in the lottery to get one winner --- I mean, in our galaxy, of course.

It is all a matter of statistics.

If it wasn't. If it would just fall into place easily and commonly then two things would not be true:

#1. Earth would not be so lifeless without any microbes at the beginning of its history
#2. As Fermi noticed, ETI would have come about long before we came on the scene and the whole galaxy would be colonized by now.

All the prerequisites for natural selection are in place, so life would be off and running.

So, in sum, I think that if there were conditions as you describe, I would be very surprised if we didn't find life. But this is just speculation.

My position is based on the fact that the laws of physics probably operate the same everywhere (OK--I'm not talking about in or near a black hole or anything exotic like that), and I can think of no reason why the processes that led to life here wouldn't happen elsewhere.

The big question is whether similar conditions exist elsewhere.
no it isn't.
there could be planets that are otherwise identical to earth but lifeless becuae earth was like that once.

I apply my same approach to that question: the things that led to the conditions on Earth are also the result of the laws of physics. Given the size of the universe (or even the galaxy), I don't see any reason to assume it's unlikely that these conditions won't exist elsewhere. The arguments made in the Rare Earth Theory have been pretty well debunked. At the very least, I don't find them compelling. (In many cases they're merely speculation, and speculating the exact opposite can be just as compelling.)

You are almost there but you drop off at the end. Given the best conditions, it is still a roll of the dice but in an even bigger way. Having the perfect conditions for life to survive is not the same thing as saying that live will exist. Did you get that? Having a lottery ticket does not make you a winner.

Life, in its simplest forms is still a complex machine. A chemical compound that can make perfect copies of itself is the big win -- as in winning a lotter with the right numbers.

For hundreds of millions of years. Earth was perfect for life. But was lifeless. The lottery win had to happen and by chance a self-copying primitive microbe had to fall together in all the churning and bubbling of chemicals. It does not happen very often. And once it happens it has to keep going and going and going. After it starts, it has to be just right where there is enough environmental influences to allow for mutation and evolution. Just the right of mutation and evolution too. Not too much and not too little.

A lottery is a good analogy. Every week, there are millions of potential lottery winners. And yet, many times, despite it is POSSIBLE that there could be lots of winners, there is often just one. So I think is the case with our galaxy.

This Rare Earth crap sounds like a religion. Is it? Nice try to just blow me off as a quack. It won't work.

One bottom line is that Fermi was right. If intelligent live evolution was common and not like a lottery, they would be just walking down our street. It is not speculation.

I would rather believe in a bitter truth than a pleasent and fun lie.

The idea that the only beings like us are us in our galaxy seems to me, given all the facts and evidence and statistics and physics and chemistry, to be a bitter truth.

On the other hand, the idea that we are going to get a radio signal from an advanced civilization seems to me to be a pleasent and fun lie.

And, like I said, I would rather believe in a bitter truth than a pleasent and fun lie.

SETI seems to be to have all the earmarks of a faith or something people want or even need to believe in.

This explains why some people have confessed to me that people get upset about this topic. I get a simular rage discussing islam to a muslim or Mormonism to a Mormon or scientology to a scientologist. If I am wrong, why are you so pissed off? Normally if someone says something that is way off base, the typical approach would be to laugh it off. Instead I get hounded by wack jobs who follow me from one webforum to another on this particular topic.

[Roboramma]

Under the best of conditions, life coming into existance is so improbable that we would not believe that it could exist apart for the fact that it does, in fact, exist here on Earth.

It is a pipe dream to think that if an environment for life to thrive is found on another planet it will means that life will come into existance.

We know what all the parts of a microbe is made of. But is is still impossible for us to put one together just right so it will get going. If it is impossible for us to intentionally make one, the odds of one coming together ever is insanely low.

The problem is that we still don't know how life started on the earth. The science of abiogenesis is still too young. So we don't know the odds. We don't know how difficult it is for our kind of life to get started, nor to do we know how many other kinds of life are possible, and how difficult those kinds of life are.

You may be right - it might be that life getting started is such an increadibly unlikely event that looking for it elsewhere (especially in the form of technological civilizations) is useless. On the other hand, that may not be the case.
Life may be very common in the universe. It might be that in the right conditions it comes in to existence very quickly, and it might also be that the right conditions are quite common.

We don't know yet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The assertion that the example of the Earth somehow argues that life is improbable doesn't hold up. We know nothing about how probable abiogenesis is. (ETA: But we do have pretty much all the details of how it happened on Earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D98847%26page%3D16&feature=player_embedded)--at least we've got a solid theory.)

We don't know if conditions on Earth were prime or relatively bad. So taking every possible characteristic of the Earth and calculating the odds of that constellation of conditions is just the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Back to the lottery analogy--if you've got a billion (or hundreds of billions or hundreds of billions of billions) of tickets, you know darn well you're going to have multiple winners.

Even unlikely events--like one in a million--happen all the time when there are truly large numbers (http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html) involved. Having a lottery ticket does not make you a winner, but that would be analogous to arguing that every planet has life, and no one is arguing that position, so it's a straw man. Having billions of lottery tickets does guarantee you a win.

At any rate, as I've said over and over, the position I hold is that we simply don't know, but I see no reason to believe that the laws of physics operate uniquely on the Earth or that the Earth is somehow unique in the universe.

[Bill Thompson]

The problem is that we still don't know how life started on the earth. The science of abiogenesis is still too young. So we don't know the odds. We don't know how difficult it is for our kind of life to get started, nor to do we know how many other kinds of life are possible, and how difficult those kinds of life are.

You may be right - it might be that life getting started is such an increadibly unlikely event that looking for it elsewhere (especially in the form of technological civilizations) is useless. On the other hand, that may not be the case.
Life may be very common in the universe. It might be that in the right conditions it comes in to existence very quickly, and it might also be that the right conditions are quite common.

We don't know yet.
But I think it is the case. I have talked at length with the best biologists. I have that luxury. I was lucky. I was smart enough and lucky enough to attend the AAAS in Saint Louis and talk with both NASA scientists and biologists. In fact, there are lots of hurdles to cross going from dead stuff to a working cell "machine" capable of making copies of itself.

Here is another clue. It took a hell of a long time for earth to get its first microbes. If it was an easy thing, it would have happened right away.

And then it took a hell of a long time for those cells to join in colonies like they did.

A special I saw on PBS described it perfectly. If you could compress the entire history of earth down to a 24 hour period it would go like this:

From Midnight until sunrise there would be nothing on earth. No microbes. Nothing.

From sunrise all the way until sunset.... the entire daylight hours... there would only be microbes on earth.

From sunset and into the evenings there would be plants, animals and such.

Only a few moments before the stroke of midnight would human beings appear.


So just in using Earth as an example we can see that life in the universe is rare (ahem, earth is part of the universe). What is more is that life strung together in colonies is rare. What is more is that intelligent life is also rare.

Not only is it just like winning the lottery. It is like winning the lottery several times in a row. That almost never happens.

These are just a few pieces in the puzzle that form a picture of reality to me. Fermi's paradox is another piece. I also think the explainations people give for Fermi's Paradox sound too much like religious appolgoists whose goal is to have faith in something that is not real.

It is not illogial to think that just because you have a planet that looks good for life, you are not necessarily going to have life.

It is not illogial to think that just because you mocrobial life on a planet you are not necessarily going to have plants and animals

It is not illogial to think that just because you have plants and animals you might not have intelligent life.

What is more is that Nature works AGAINST life, not with life. Life has struggled to get a foot hold and survive against the forces of nature.

We have both nature and statistics working against our existance.

Another force against us is time. The Earth is middle aged now. The Earth is middle aged because the sun is middle aged. Sure, we came into existance, but we came into existance very late in our planets life. It may be likely that other planets perfect for life do not beat the proverbial clock.

[JoeTheJuggler]

These are just a few pieces in the puzzle that form a picture of reality to me. Fermi's paradox is another piece. I also think the explainations people give for Fermi's Paradox sound too much like religious appolgoists whose goal is to have faith in something that is not real.

That's just name calling. Can you respond to the numbered arguments I have made against the argument based on Fermi's Paradox?


1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation? [n.b. this was in response to amb's specific slant on the Rare Earth argument, and doesn't really need to be answered by Bill Thomson]
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The strongest point is that you could use the Fermi Paradox argument from the point of view of an ET just like us located elsewhere in the galaxy. They wouldn't be able to detect us, so they would declare that we don't exist. Yet we certainly do exist.

ETA: That is, using the "Why aren't they here?" approach to decide whether or not "they" exist could be turned around to ask, "Why aren't we everywhere in the galaxy?" Since we're not, then we must not exist. It's obviously a bad argument.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is not illogial to think <snip>

It is not illogial to think that <snip>

It is not illogial to think that just because you have plants and animals you might not have intelligent life.
That something is "not illogical" does not argue in favor of an assertion (like the assertion that we are unique or rare).

What is more is that Nature works AGAINST life, not with life. Life has struggled to get a foot hold and survive against the forces of nature.
Nature doesn't work either for or against anything. Saying so is to commit the pathetic fallacy.

At any rate, this sounds like you're using our samples size of one biosphere to argue that it was difficult or unlikely for life to have arisen. Yet at the same time you argue that the Earth is exactly just right for life--uniquely suited for it. We don't know either of these things, and they seem to conflict with each other.

We have both nature and statistics working against our existance.[sic]
What does that mean? Nature has no intention. What statistics are you talking about?

Another force against us is time. The Earth is middle aged now. The Earth is middle aged because the sun is middle aged. Sure, we came into existance[sic], but we came into existance[sic] very late in our planets life. It may be likely that other planets perfect for life do not beat the proverbial clock.
Or it may be that the Earth was a particularly slow developer. It may be that conditions on Earth aren't as perfect as you think. Or it may be that complex life only arises when conditions are traumatic. A huge part of what made complex forms of life a relatively (Cambrian) development was how long it took to pollute our atmosphere with oxygen. There are other situations that could result in an oxygen-rich atmosphere much earlier. For that matter, we don't know for sure that something other than oxygen could have spurred on more complex life forms.

The fact is, we don't know.

[shadron]

And then it took a hell of a long time for those cells to join in colonies like they did.

A special I saw on PBS described it perfectly. If you could compress the entire history of earth down to a 24 hour period it would go like this:

From Midnight until sunrise there would be nothing on earth. No microbes. Nothing.

From sunrise all the way until sunset.... the entire daylight hours... there would only be microbes on earth.

From sunset and into the evenings there would be plants, animals and such.

Only a few moments before the stroke of midnight would human beings appear.

Well, nothing changes like science. Particularly what we know about the early Earth.

For example, http://www.colorado.edu/news/r7cadd9fb58e8ed47366b4c4079a0deea.html

Now, the late heavy bombardment occurred around 3.9 billion years ago (http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Hadean.htm#Geological_Time-Scale ); on your clock, that would be about 3:45AM. And this paper is speculating that microbial life pre-existed that; they speculate as far back as 12:35AM.

Now, granted,these are whacko geophysicists, but they are published in Nature and work for the astrobiology/xenobiology unit of NASA. They have the explicit endorsement of at least one astrobiologist. The Imperial College in London has also released a separate paper supporting this conclusion.

The first Eukaryotes (single celled with interior symbiotes) are suspected of living 2 bya, or about 1:15PM, true multicellular at 6:30PM.

There are also thought to have been between one and three episodes of snowball Earth in the time period from 600 to 800 million years ago (between 7:45PM and 8:50PM) which may have delayed the appearance of advanced multicellular forms because life presumably would have been driven back to less specialized primitives living around thermal vents. For a guage, the Cambrian Explosion started about 9:15PM.

I'm not clear on whether all this weakens or strengthens your argument; perhaps both. It perhaps shows a smooth progression from the simple to the complex, and a vast ability of life to cling through adversity, like snowballs and monstrous bombardments.

[shadron]

This explains why some people have confessed to me that people get upset about this topic. I get a simular rage discussing islam to a muslim or Mormonism to a Mormon or scientology to a scientologist. If I am wrong, why are you so pissed off? Normally if someone says something that is way off base, the typical approach would be to laugh it off. Instead I get hounded by wack jobs who follow me from one webforum to another on this particular topic.

Speaking only for myself, this is the only forum I've ever worked with except for primitive uucp newsgroups a long time ago, so I have no idea what whack jobs you are referring to following you around. All of the people in this thread, afaik, have been here longer than you have. However, I note that this was your first thread on this site (first one I saw, anyway), and you've managed to keep it going, single-handedly on your side, for about 180 messages. As far as I know, only you have declared SETI to be a religion; The Atheist may think it, but he doesn't say it that way, and at any rate has not joined you here. If you think this topic as bothersome and is not worthy of discussion, why did you came here and open it up? It sounds to me more like you go from forum to forum trying to pick fights.

If you think you've got fleas, then either spray them or take them outside.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This explains why some people have confessed to me that people get upset about this topic. I get a simular [sic] rage discussing islam to a muslim or Mormonism to a Mormon or scientology to a scientologist. If I am wrong, why are you so pissed off?
Who's getting pissed off? Who's raging?

Sounds like you're conducting a side debate entirely in your imagination.

ETA: At most, I get frustrated when you and amb keep raising the argument based on Fermi's Paradox without responding to the points I made (and numbered) months ago. Actually, that's a lie. I rather enjoy whipping that out. :)

[Bill Thompson]

Who's getting pissed off? Who's raging?

Sounds like you're conducting a side debate entirely in your imagination.

ETA: At most, I get frustrated when you and amb keep raising the argument based on Fermi's Paradox without responding to the points I made (and numbered) months ago. Actually, that's a lie. I rather enjoy whipping that out. :)

It started at Bad Astronomy. They would say so and so or such and such who works for NASA has lots of faith in ETI and things such and such project should be launched to gather data at a particular star system. I would say, sure he would, his job would depend on it. Then they would come back and demand proof that this NASA engineer was basically a scam artist.

I did not visit the discussion thread every day. And so I would miss out when they temporarily banned me for not answering their questions promptly.

if that is not getting pissed off I don't know what is.

Lots of amature astronomers are also Star Wars or Star Trek geeks. Finding ETI is thier holy grail and they have religious devotion to the notion that we are not alone in the galaxy.

I made a list of at least 2 dozen problems that life would have to overcome in order to come into existance. Their need to poke holes in that list was intense.

It got to be a joke that I could not take seriously.

Then the morons followed me over to another web site. ANd finally one moron has followed me here. I will not name names.

Sorry I missed your points about Fermi's Paradox. Is it like a religious apologist argument? Right now I am exchanging heated arguments with Mormons from FARMS and FAIR and LDS as they try to explain how their views might be true. Will I get that same sinking feeling when I read how you have explained away Fermi's Paradox?

Listen, even SETI literature say that what they do is based on "faith" and "hope"

[JoeTheJuggler]

It started at Bad Astronomy. They would say so and so or such and such who works for NASA has lots of faith in ETI and things such and such project should be launched to gather data at a particular star system. I would say, sure he would, his job would depend on it. Then they would come back and demand proof that this NASA engineer was basically a scam artist.

I did not visit the discussion thread every day. And so I would miss out when they temporarily banned me for not answering their questions promptly.

if that is not getting pissed off I don't know what is.
So you're not responding to anyone or anything that was posted on this forum, right?

You said, "If I am wrong, why are you so pissed off?" It's the "you" that threw me. You're addressing someone in the second person who isn't present or you're responding to something that was said on another forum and not this one.

Lots of amature[sic] astronomers are also Star Wars or Star Trek geeks. Finding ETI is thier holy grail and they have religious devotion to the notion that we are not alone in the galaxy.
And some are not. So you're just prejudiced against amateur astronomers.

I made a list of at least 2 dozen problems that life would have to overcome in order to come into existance[sic]. Their need to poke holes in that list was intense.
And I suspect they were fully able to debunk that list. At best, many items on these lists are speculation. I've pointed out that it's often just as valid to speculate the opposite.

The biggest trouble is that arguing for a rare or unique Earth involves arguing that sometimes traumatic upheaval or less-than-ideal conditions is what spurs on life and at the same time arguing that the Earth is so incredibly "just right" that complex life isn't likely to occur again. (BTW, I think you've already recognized that this business calculating the odds against complex life is the same approach that Intelligent Design/Creation proponents use.)


Sorry I missed your points about Fermi's Paradox. Is it like a religious apologist argument? Right now I am exchanging heated arguments with Mormons from FARMS and FAIR and LDS as they try to explain how their views might be true. Will I get that same sinking feeling when I read how you have explained away Fermi's Paradox?
Bill Thompson, I call shenanigans. I've posted my refutation of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox at least twice in this thread. Now you're even replying to one of the posts where I've repeated it, but while you can't be bothered to read it much less answer the points I've made you unfairly characterize my arguments as being religious somehow, when they're clearly not.

Please do not raise Fermi's Paradox again until you have read and answered my points. Until then, I can see you're more interested in carrying on about your paranoid delusions regarding members of other forums, a topic I have zero interest in discussing, and one that is clearly off-topic.

[Bill Thompson]

Bill Thompson, I call shenanigans. I've posted my refutation of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox at least twice in this thread. Now you're even replying to one of the posts where I've repeated it, but while you can't be bothered to read it much less answer the points I've made you unfairly characterize my arguments as being religious somehow, when they're clearly not.


I wasn't talking about you when I made that comment, Captain Paranoia

So, Joe The Juggler, if that is your real name, you have posted some theory that is supposed to explain away Fermi's Observation. How can what you say be any different or any better than the very best of the best ones that I have read? How can they be any better than the ones directly from The Planetary Society that are the biggest supporters of SETI who also admit that it is all a matter of faith? You demand that I comb all these 5 pages of dialog for your post that I have made? Who are you to make demands on me?

And no, I was not talking about you earlier. I was talking about someone else. Don't be paranoid.

I would like to read your new and exciting theories that explain away Fermi's Paradox. It would take just a second, since you know where they are, to post which post number they are.

So, I missed something you said. Well, excuuuuuuuse me!


You said this:

Back to the lottery analogy--if you've got a billion (or hundreds of billions or hundreds of billions of billions) of tickets, you know darn well you're going to have multiple winners.


But there are not billions of lottery tickets!!

You know damn well there are not billions.

Maybe you missed my point or maybe you choose to ignore it. But I made perfectly clear that just having the just perfect earth-like condition was a prerequsite for owning a lottery ticket. Microbrial life happening to come together was winning the lottery.l


The only ones that can have a proverbial ticket are star systems that are in the GHZ and that is a narrow ban around our galaxy. Other galaxies don't count becuase they are too far away to consider.

Now, if you take into consideration that most star systems are binary, that knocks the number down even more. Then if you take into consideration that most star systems won't have a planet in the star habital zone, that knocks the number down even more.

Then their is the life killing radiation issue. By our solar system as an example. Most small rocky planets do not have a magnetic field strong enough to have a protective magnetic field.

What you fail to understand is that just the number of planets that pass the test just to have a lotter ticket in their hand is very very small. Not freaking billions, dude.

[Bill Thompson]

There are not billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy. And we know this by the statistic sample we already have from the project started on Mt. Hamelton at the James Lick Observatory not far from where I once lived in Calfornia. They have found 353 extra-solar planets so far. The number of earth-like planets they have found so far is zero.

[Bill Thompson]

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.


"Could" is not a scientific term. Science is all about going with what is most likely. After discovering more than 300 extra-solar planets and not finding one earth-like one, it is not logical to assume that the galaxy could be full of civilization like ours. Besides even before the search for extra solar planets there was a mathematical model of how star systems were likely to appear that was published in Carl Segan's "Cosmos" and having a star system set up for life was not a likely option.

Now, you are also missing the mathematical importance of Fermi's Observation and that is that, yes, advanced civilizations actualy HAVE had MORE than enouth time to fill the galaxy.


2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.


WRONG. Fermi's Paradox does NOT assume faster than light travel.



3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.


Then we are alone. That is part of Drakes Equation for determining the liklihood of ETI -- that civilizations last long enought.

4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation? [n.b. this was in response to amb's specific slant on the Rare Earth argument, and doesn't really need to be answered by Bill Thomson]

As I said, Fermi accounted for the fact that even with the modest of technologies, the galaxy sould be colonized in just a few million years.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

Fermi was not talking about probes. He was talking about the push for survivial and colonization.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wasn't talking about you when I made that comment, Captain Paranoia

So, Joe The Juggler, if that is your real name, you have posted some theory that is supposed to explain away Fermi's Observation. How can what you say be any different or any better than the very best of the best ones that I have read? How can they be any better than the ones directly from The Planetary Society that are the biggest supporters of SETI who also admit that it is all a matter of faith? You demand that I comb all these 5 pages of dialog for your post that I have made? Who are you to make demands on me?
OK, "dude", you still haven't replied to my numbered refutation of the arguments based on Fermi's Paradox. I did not post "some theory that is supposed to explain away Fermi's Observation". I actually listed several points, any one of which would answer the question, "Why aren't they here?" in ways other than, "They don't exist."



I would like to read your new and exciting theories that explain away Fermi's Paradox. It would take just a second, since you know where they are, to post which post number they are.
What? You actually replied to one my posts that had that list in it, but acted as if you didn't have time to read it.

I'm done with you. You're not participating in an actual discussion.

Stay on your meds, "dude".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see you found the list all by yourself. Next, it'd be nice if you learned how to use quote tags.

[quote=JoeTheJuggler]1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.

"Could" is not a scientific term.
When you're making an argument based on an absence of expected evidence, all I have to do to refute it is give possible alternate explanations of why there is no evidence.

Science is all about going with what is most likely. After discovering more than 300 extra-solar planets and not finding one earth-like one, it is not logical to assume that the galaxy could be full of civilization like ours. Besides even before the search for extra solar planets there was a mathematical model of how star systems were likely to appear that was published in Carl Segan's[sic] "Cosmos" and having a star system set up for life was not a likely option.[/B]
You're making a logical, not a scientific, argument. Scientifically, all you can say is that we don't know.

At any rate, I'm not arguing that "the galaxy is full of civilizations like ours". I'm just pointing out that the absence of evidence given our current technology doesn't come anywhere close to being evidence of absence. If we hypothesize a galaxy full of civilizations just like our own, there would not be probes all over the galaxy. Therefore, the conclusion that other civilizations don't exist (based on the absence of probes) is not logical.

That we haven't discovered many Earth-like extra-solar planets (depending on how you define "Earth-like") is more an artifact of the technology we have for detecting them. The easiest planets for us to find are large gas giants very near their stars. Those are the first kind we've found. As we've developed technology to detect other sorts of planets, we've found them in abundance.

At any rate, the argument based on Fermi's Paradox (which is what these points are responding to) does not say anything about us having to discover extrasolar Earth-like planets. That's simply not part of it at all. It just says that if ET intelligent civilizations existed, they would have sent out probes to virtually fill the galaxy. The fact that we haven't found such a probe visiting us, goes the argument, proves that they don't exist. I'm pointing out that it proves no such thing.


Now, you are also missing the mathematical importance of Fermi's Observation and that is that, yes, advanced civilizations actualy HAVE had MORE than enouth time to fill the galaxy.
Yes. That's why I said at best it argues that there hasn't been a sufficiently advanced civilization around long enough to fill the galaxy with proves. (But you're using it to conclude that ET civilization--even like our own--is extremely rare.) At worst, it makes assumptions that could be false. There could be many reasons why no civilization ever develops that fills the galaxy with its probes other than that other civilizations don't exist.


WRONG. Fermi's Paradox does NOT assume faster than light travel.
I didn't say it does. It assumes the ability to make self-replicating probes that travel at least a bit faster than the fastest thing we've sent out. And everything we've sent out so far has had to carry its own fuel. This is technology we lack at this point. The argument assumes that it's possible, and that any civilization (except, apparently our own) will have already achieved everything that is technologically possible some 5 or 10 million years ago.


Then we are alone. That is part of Drakes Equation for determining the liklihood of ETI -- that civilizations last long enought.
Nope. You're right that the Drake Equation is based on civilizations having some duration, but it does not say anything about a requirement that a technological civilization has to be able to send out self-replicating probes capable of something like 1/4 the speed of light, or that they would have had to do so millions of years ago. (Seriously--show me a factor in the Drake Equation that covers this stuff.)



As I said, Fermi accounted for the fact that even with the modest of technologies, the galaxy sould be colonized in just a few million years.
Hold on a second! Did you just say "could be"??!!

In fact, I agree, that a civilization could have filled the galaxy with probes by now, but we at least know that that didn't happen. Nobody is arguing that it did. You're arguing that because it didn't, other civilizations either don't exist or they must be extremely rare. Again, that conclusion doesn't logically follow from the absence of probes.

Fermi was not talking about probes. He was talking about the push for survivial and colonization.
So the only thing that counts as an intelligent civilization is one that colonizes the entire galaxy? So by that standard, we are not an intelligent civilization. Any way you look at it, the argument is severely flawed. It's claiming knowledge that we don't have.

[JoeTheJuggler]

An interesting story in Time:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907238,00.html

Speaking of the composition of the water ice that forms a trail behind Saturn's moon, Enceledaus, the article says:
For biologists, that's huge. The only way to account for that particular chemistry is if the salts have dissolved out of rocks in the interior of Enceladus into a large quantity of standing water, as would occur if the moon had a subsurface ocean. "Both components [table salt and carbonates] are in concentrations that match the predicted composition of an Enceladus ocean," says Postberg. "The carbonates also provide a slightly alkaline pH value, which could provide a suitable environment on Enceladus for life precursors."

[Roboramma]

But I think it is the case. I have talked at length with the best biologists. I have that luxury. I was lucky. I was smart enough and lucky enough to attend the AAAS in Saint Louis and talk with both NASA scientists and biologists. In fact, there are lots of hurdles to cross going from dead stuff to a working cell "machine" capable of making copies of itself. But we don't know how difficult those particular hurdles are to cross. You can't say "there are a lot of hurdles" and go from that to "it's unlikely", because each of those steps may be very likely.

Here is another clue. It took a hell of a long time for earth to get its first microbes. If it was an easy thing, it would have happened right away. As far as I know, once the earth had a chance to cool down and stopped being bombarded by celestial objects, it did happen "right away". Moreover, we only have a latest bound for the emergence of life (ie. the earliest evidence of life we've found) it may have come earlier than that, just not later.

And then it took a hell of a long time for those cells to join in colonies like they did. Well, your argument is certainly stronger in regards to complex life, but again, as we don't know how likely it is, showing that it happened once isn't evidence that it can't happen again. The worst probability you can derive from that is that there is a 50% chance that if life emerges, it will evolve to complex life. (Note, that probability is not to be taken seriously, the point is that you can't get anything less from this particular data point).

So just in using Earth as an example we can see that life in the universe is rare (ahem, earth is part of the universe). What is more is that life strung together in colonies is rare. What is more is that intelligent life is also rare. Um... I don't follow. Even if complex life tends to take 5 billion years to emerge, that wouldn't make it rare: there are plenty of places that have had those 5 billion years (earth is one). If you argument is that earth is an anomaly where life emerged particularly fast, then you can't use it as an example of how quickly life emerges, so I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[AWPrime]

There are not billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy. And we know this by the statistic sample we already have from the project started on Mt. Hamelton at the James Lick Observatory not far from where I once lived in Calfornia. They have found 353 extra-solar planets so far. The number of earth-like planets they have found so far is zero.
Not a good argument, we lack the technology to detect earth like planets, right now we mostly detect huge planets that are very close to their star.

Now if we had technology that could find all the planets in a distant star system then we could draw some conclusions.

[Bill Thompson]

Not a good argument, we lack the technology to detect earth like planets, right now we mostly detect huge planets that are very close to their star.

Now if we had technology that could find all the planets in a distant star system then we could draw some conclusions.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing.

But, at the same time, the planets we have found that are in the sweet spot for life have hostile environments for life, as I recall. Somehow they have determined that their atmospheres are too violent ...

[AWPrime]

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing.

But, at the same time, the planets we have found that are in the sweet spot for life have hostile environments for life, as I recall. Somehow they have determined that their atmospheres are too violent ...
Could be a side effect of their size.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, at the same time, the planets we have found that are in the sweet spot for life have hostile environments for life, as I recall. Somehow they have determined that their atmospheres are too violent ...
You're definitely overstating what we know.

We've only detected extra solar planets in a teeny tiny volume of space near us--a very small percentage of the volume of the Milky Way. For most of them, we don't know any details (composition, whether they have moons, etc.). We certainly haven't ruled out that one or more of them might harbor life, or even complex life.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_209458_b)is one of the few exoplanets whose atmospheric composition we know something about. (It's a gas giant with sodium and water vapor in its atmosphere, we think.)


By and large, the selection effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Selection_effect) (based on the techniques we've used so far) accounts for why we've found so many more gas giants than rocky terrestrial planets.

I expect you're talking about the "sweet spot" where liquid water is possible. That, of course, depends on a lot of factors, many of which we are ignorant. For example, we first thought Gliese 581 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) wasn't in the "Goldilocks Zone" but now we're pretty certain it is.

The Kepler mission recently launched will be able to detect more Earth-like planets. We'll start getting some results in about 2 or 3 years.

Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extrasolar_planets) of extrasolar planets found to date. Note the bar graph near the top of the article showing the increasing number of extra solar planets discovered per year since 1989. I expect that overall trend will continue for a while. We're just at the beginning of this.

Of the 350 or so we've found so far, we only know the true mass of some 75 of them.

In short, about all we know is that planets are relatively common. It would seem that planet formation is a routine thing that happens along with star formation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unlikely, I haven't met a SETIer that believes in UFOs.

Ditto.

At the very least, I don't think anyone participating in the discussion here in this forum has thought that UFOs have anything to do with ETIs.

I think we can safely leave UFOs out of this discussion.

[Safe-Keeper]

Unlikely, I haven't met a SETIer that believes in UFOs. I suppose this might be because in many peoples' minds, SETI is there to find intelligent life, to confirm that we are not alone. If you believe in UFOs, well, then you already 'know' we aren't alone and there's no need for SETI to tell you.

Make perfect sense to me, at least:).

[AWPrime]

I have to agree even further with Joe. There is also a logic problem -> why bother with SETI if UFOs are real?
Yep I already made that conclusion.

[Bill Thompson]

Joe the Juggler,

Probes? Self replicating probes? Do you have a link to where you get this information? This is a new one on me and I have read about Fermi's Paradox several times. I would like to see where you get your information.

This sounds nothing at all like Fermi's Paradox to me. And so, before discussing your ideas to explain it, I want to know that we are both on the same page in understanding it.

I saved a very good article explaining it that was published online by the Planetary Society and Space.com:


Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?
It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. But in 1950, Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that has caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. (How many luncheon quips have you made with similar consequence?)

The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.
Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Our+Galaxy+Should+Be+Teeming+With+Civilizations% 2C+But+Where+Are+They%3F&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

It is a solid argument. And, sure, you can come up with theories as to why we "seem" to be alone while we actually are not alone. But all the arguments I have read are complex. According to Occam's razor, if there are hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. The simpliest explaination is that, for some reason or multitude of reasons (and I can make a list as to what those might be) we are the only ones like us in our galaxy.

We human beings cannot accept this. I too wish it was not true. Ask yourself do you believe this because you want to believe it?

Before I heard of Fermi's Paradox I was a firm believer that there had to be life out there, and intelligent life as well. But when I heard of this simple, logical observation I was forced to reevaluate my view.

My theory is that we believe we are not alone because we, as human beings -- a social animal -- cannot stand the very idea that we are alone. In fact, I believe, we are incapable of giving up that faith.

Seth Shostak wrote that quote I have included. He has also included some of the outlandish ideas that provide an explaination to Fermi's Paradox. Once again, as logical thinkers, we have to turn to Occam's razor.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe the Juggler,

Probes? Self replicating probes? Do you have a link to where you get this information? This is a new one on me and I have read about Fermi's Paradox several times. I would like to see where you get your information.
Try Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Probes.2C_colonies.2C_and_other_arti facts).

ETA: From the first couple of lines in the Wiki article:The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.[1] In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes are not seen.


Also, that was the version of the argument discussed at length by amb on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98847).

Actually, the self-replicating probes idea is an attempt to make it easier to argue that any technical civilization would have a ubiquitous presence in the galaxy by now. Arguing that they have to have colonized or visited every place in the galaxy and leave enduring evidence makes the argument even weaker.


This sounds nothing at all like Fermi's Paradox to me.
Really? The argument is, if they exist why aren't they here? Or rather, since they're not here, they must not exist. It's very faulty reasoning, as I've shown in my numbered points.

ETA: What do you suppose the argument based on Fermi's Paradox is?

If the probe thing isn't the version you're arguing, just substitute for that technology whatever technology it takes to colonize every corner of the galaxy (and again, all we've been able to rule out is a very tiny corner of it) or otherwise leave evidence available to a civilization like ours in every place in the galaxy.

My numbered points work just as well for any other technology it would take to leave evidence everywhere in the galaxy. You first have to assume such technology is possible, then you have to assume that whatever technology is possible will necessarily be attained, then you have to assume that whatever technology that is attained will be implemented (there are plenty of things we can do that we don't because we spend a large part of our economic activity on eating and preparing for war and so on). And you've got to assume that any civilization will have been in existence long enough (a million years?) to spread by whatever means throughout the galaxy, even though our one example of an intelligent civilization has not.


It is a solid argument.

Not it's not. Just asserting that it's a solid argument doesn't make it so.

Again, by the same reasoning, we Earthlings shouldn't exist since we have not filled the entire galaxy with evidence of our existence. You can't insist that the argument that we are alone based on lack of evidence (Fermi's Paradox) is valid without addressing this point.

And, sure, you can come up with theories as to why we "seem" to be alone while we actually are not alone.
That's a straw man. I'm not claiming that we "seem" to be alone. I'm claiming that we might very well not be alone, but we don't have the evidence for it one way or another. A civilization just like our own could exist relatively near us (say a couple of hundred light years) and we still might not have any evidence of it.

It's the Rare Earthers who are claiming knowledge we don't have. We haven't even examined the nearest extra-solar planets well enough to detect a civilization. (We almost certainly haven't even found all the nearest extra-solar planets.) We probably couldn't detect our own existence from a distance of the nearest extra-solar planets.

In other words, the absence of evidence at this point doesn't prove anything. We just don't have the information we need to make conclusions on the existence of ETIs yet.

That's why it's a good idea to keep looking.

As I've said from the start of this thread, I agree that it's incredibly unlikely that we'll get a radio signal from an ETI via the SETI program, I don't think it's pointless. I've given my reasons for that, but I'll recap: 1. We don't know what we don't know, 2. It costs almost nothing (and is entirely privately funded), 3. There may be side benefits from any such undertaking.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's another approach. So far, we've found no physical evidence for the existence of a Higgs Boson. Would you claim then that they don't exist?

After the Large Hadron Collider starts working, at which point it is expected to produce a Higgs Boson every few hours, if none is discovered after some period of time, you'll have a stronger case for the non-existence of the Higgs Boson. But before we have the technology to detect it, it's premature to say anything about the absence of evidence.

Similarly, we lack the ability to detect intelligent civilizations at any significant galactic distance from us. Making a conclusion on the lack of evidence is premature.

Another example: if I lost my keys and I haven't yet looked in my bedroom, it would be premature for me to rule out that my keys are in the bedroom just because I have no evidence of my keys being in the bedroom.

[Beerina]

I watched a documentary on how fast the remains of human civilization would disappear if we all vanished in an instant, and one of the things they mentioned was that radio signals dissipate pretty fast. Of course, I don't know their sources, and TV documentaries have been going downhill lately.

I read in a science column that using the sun as a gravitational lens would allow you to see houses on planets in other solar systems in our galaxy, and continents on planets in other solar systems in other galaxies.

It's about the technology you use. Keep in mind there's little use for radio telescopes beyond pure research, and that's funded by government. If extra-solar society is detected, you could expect money like the Internet boom to be dumped into radio telescopes.

What we have is no more stressing what we're capable of any more than the space program.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I read in a science column that using the sun as a gravitational lens would allow you to see houses on planets in other solar systems in our galaxy, and continents on planets in other solar systems in other galaxies.

I find that difficult to believe. Even if the lensing effect were so strong that you could resolve shapes on the edge of a disk (inside an atmosphere, presumably), how would you distinguish "houses" from natural shapes like mesas?

Also, I thought I'd read that solar gravity lensing was problematic because of fluctuations in the sun's corona. I could be wrong. I'm not sure where I read that.

ETA: Even if I'm wrong about that, it would still only work for extremely nearby planets. It's a great big galaxy!

I think it's far more likely that we'll be able to detect an atmosphere in extreme disequilibrium (like ours, with more oxygen than is likely to remain for any length of time in the absence of life) as evidence of life. Civilization or intelligence will be much more difficult to detect.

At any rate, it's far too early for us to make anything out of a lack of evidence. In a few years, Kepler will at least tell us whether Earth-like planets are abundant.

[AWPrime]

Joe I think I agree with most of your arguments, however:

Here's another approach. So far, we've found no physical evidence for the existence of a Higgs Boson. Would you claim then that they don't exist?

After the Large Hadron Collider starts working, at which point it is expected to produce a Higgs Boson every few hours, if none is discovered after some period of time, you'll have a stronger case for the non-existence of the Higgs Boson. But before we have the technology to detect it, it's premature to say anything about the absence of evidence.
Not discovering a Higgs Boson also provides information and the LHC is useful for many other goals. Therefore I don't fully agree with the comparison.


Although the chances of alien life in this galaxy is very high, I think that current results could point to one or more of these scenarios:
- They lack the technology
- They are too far
- They won't have the will
- We lack the technology

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not discovering a Higgs Boson also provides information and the LHC is useful for many other goals. Therefore I don't fully agree with the comparison.

You misunderstood my point then--or maybe I wasn't very clear.

I was comparing drawing a conclusion to lack of evidence of a Higgs Boson before using the LHC to look for it. That is, I wanted to make a parallel to some other thing where we, at one point, lacked the technology to gather the evidence of the existence of something. At that point in time, it's at the very least premature to say the thing doesn't exist.

Indeed, overall it's an argument in favor of the LHC (and by analogy, an argument in favor of programs like Kepler and a broader approach to SETI than just the search for radio signals).

Same with ETIs and more generally exobiology. Not having any evidence of their existence now, when we lack the technology to detect even life even on the nearest of extrasolar planets, is at least premature.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Although the chances of alien life in this galaxy is very high, I think that current results could point to one or more of these scenarios:
- They lack the technology
- They are too far
- They won't have the will
- We lack the technology

These correspond pretty nearly to my numbered points that rebut the argument based on Fermi's Paradox as well.

I would point out that "too far" could be in space and time. We don't know that civilizations can last longer than our own. If they're relatively short-lived, like most of the other species that have existed on our own planet, then the argument that they must have filled up the galaxy with evidence of their presence long before now doesn't hold up.

[JoeTheJuggler]

SETI was the topic of a segment of the Diane Rheme show on NPR today.

I think you can listen to it online from this page:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

[Bill Thompson]

SETI and SETI@Home are two different things.
The SETI Institutude does not support SETI@Home. Some people working at UC Berkley support the SETI@Home project which is now bundled with something called BIONIC which does number crunching for more down-to-earth projects.

Also, the SETI Insitute's web site does not even promote finding Intelligent life as one of its goals right there on its home page showing its list of goals. Life is one thing. Intelligent Life is a whole different bunch of statistics. There was life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years before "intelligent" live came about.

I have emailed some key players in the SETI organization asking them if the popularity and hope is fadeing. The very fact that they read and answered my email right away suggests to me that they WANT to believe but it also tells me they are desperate.

Anyway, I decided to post on this dicussion thread because I had an idea and a question. Imagine if the MythBusters got in volved. Imagine that The Myth was "we are alone for all practical purposes".

Would the result be "Busted" "Confirmed" or "Plausable"?

Now, just be be clear, we are talking about Intelligent life somewhat like us so that we could actually communicate with them in a meaningful way. We are also talking about intelligent life reasonably close so that communication is even possible and reasonable.

[erlando]

Some people working at UC Berkley support the SETI@Home project which is now bundled with something called BIONIC which does number crunching for more down-to-earth projects.

That would be BOINC (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/)...

[Humanzee]

Say we (when our telescopes get a bit better) find an Earth sized planet in a habital orbit around a star close enough that we could reasonably send a message to; would we do it? I believe we would. Even considering we don't know how likely life is in the universe. For that reason I feel we should give a listen ourselves, especially considering its low cost. Just this lurkers 2 cents.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then SETI @ Home is a huge waist [sic] of effort. No intelligence would ever pick us out of the billions to be important or worth any time or effort.

It is self evident. Our species was too stupid to know SETI @ Home was a waist [sic]of time.
I guess you missed the part of my first post on this thread (post #7) where I said:

BTW, best I can tell, none of this is about SETI@home in particular, right? It's just about SETI with radio telescopy in general. Nothing happens to degrade potential signals between the time they're received at Arecibo and the time they're divvied up and received by home participants, is there?

At any rate, it sounds like you've been railing against SETI in general and not SETI@home or the SETI Institute in particular.


Now this claim:
Also, the SETI Insitute's web site does not even promote finding Intelligent life as one of its goals right there on its home page showing its list of goals.
isn't very accurate. (While it's not listed on the Mission Statement, but it is definitely expressed as a goal on their website (see below).

The very meaning of the acronym SETI is the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence". From the SETI Institute's website (http://www.seti.org/seti):

SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.

Or do you suppose they think they can find some signature of the technology of alien life that is not intelligent?

[Beerina]

It just occurred to me that even if a weak and degraded signal was not decodeable, it would still show up as a bulge in the non-randomness. (Been running Seti@home for years now.)

[RhodyDave]

Seti@home is completely pointless. As has been pointed out already, any radio or tv or broadcast signal dissipates rapidly in the vast distances of space. Within a relatively near distance from the point of origin, such a signal becomes indistinguishable from the background "noise" of interstellar space.

Given the infinite size of the universe, the chances that there are any AI broadcasting within even 10,000 light years of our planet are infinitesimal. Human beings could literally search the universe for millions of years with no results. There are far better things to focus our efforts on than trying to discern that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the cosmos.

[shadron]

1. Do you mean SETI or SETI@Home? Two different things.

2. Since you didn't make that clear it seems likely that you read none of this thread before you decided to resurrect it. Did you? If so, what is your point in bringing it back?

[RhodyDave]

1. Do you mean SETI or SETI@Home? Two different things.

2. Since you didn't make that clear it seems likely that you read none of this thread before you decided to resurrect it. Did you? If so, what is your point in bringing it back?

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I did or did not do, all of which amount to nothing. My statement about the pointlessness of Seti applies to both the @home, and the other form. It is truly pointless. Even IF we were to discover some signal from multiple light-years distant, it would have absolutely no bearing on life on our planet. It is nothing more than mental gymnastics.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seti@home is completely pointless. As has been pointed out already, any radio or tv or broadcast signal dissipates rapidly in the vast distances of space. Within a relatively near distance from the point of origin, such a signal becomes indistinguishable from the background "noise" of interstellar space.

Given the infinite size of the universe, the chances that there are any AI broadcasting within even 10,000 light years of our planet are infinitesimal. Human beings could literally search the universe for millions of years with no results. There are far better things to focus our efforts on than trying to discern that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the cosmos.

It's a needle in a really really really big haystack. But that doesn't mean it's "completely" pointless. There is still a non-zero chance of getting extremely lucky.

And since the cost is relatively little for expanding our search much farther than we can currently send probes, why not try? (Also, an argument I made some time ago in this and/or another of these SETI threads is that we also might get lucky and catch a signal coming from a probe or other spacecraft rather than from the planet of origin. Such a probe might also send out targeted signals rather than broadcast, so the range would be pretty great.)

Also, the next generation of radio telescopes might well vastly increase our ability to detect a radio broadcast. I only just recently heard about the Square Kilometer Array (http://www.skatelescope.org/) project.

So, I wouldn't say that it's "completely pointless". I would however caution people from concluding from the lack of a real hit so far that no ETIs exist. As you correctly point out, even if there are ETIs about, things are so far apart in space and time that we are extremely unlikely to find that needle in the haystack.

[As an aside, by "AI" I hope you mean "alien intelligence" rather than "artificial intelligence", which is the conventional usage.]

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I did or did not do, all of which amount to nothing.

It's a reasonable assumption. We covered this point (equating SETI@home with SETI) about a year ago. We covered these same arguments you've resurrected. The only thing new I've said just now was the mention of the SKA project.

[LarianLeQuella]

radio or tv or broadcast signal dissipates rapidly in the vast distances of space. Within a relatively near distance from the point of origin, such a signal becomes indistinguishable from the background "noise" of interstellar space.



True, except for a focused signal. Those would stand out quite nicely. Just saying. :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

True, except for a focused signal. Those would stand out quite nicely. Just saying. :)

Larian, have you heard about the SKA? I'm told it would enable us to receive broadcast signals out to something like 1000 light years, IIRC. That would encompass pretty damn many stars, even though it's still a tiny part of the volume of the galaxy.

And of course, there's still the issue of timing. Even a civilization that paralleled our own wouldn't have been broadcasting their equivalent of I Love Lucy long enough for such signals to reach us if they were over about 60 light years away.

In the scale of the galaxy, missing a signal by a hundred or thousand or even a million years is a near miss. But a miss is still a miss in the astronomical haystack.

[LarianLeQuella]

Joe,

At first I was wondering why you were asking about my tastes in music. ;) You are refering to Square Kilometer Array I take it. Will that really be able to detect things that fall victim to the inverse square law of omnidirectional signals? If it can detect such weak signals, I am seriously impressed! :)

[ThePoliteSkeptic]

Haha. Didn't you hear? Radio astronomy is a hoax. Possibly even a conspiracy.

[Elind]

Seti@home is completely pointless. As has been pointed out already, any radio or tv or broadcast signal dissipates rapidly in the vast distances of space.

Silly silly astronomers out there who think they can do the impossible.:rolleyes:

Since radio signal photons "dissipate" rapidy, presumably all photons dissipate rapidly. If one photon from a star dissipates rapidly, then all must do the same and we shouldn't be able to see anything, regardless of it's size.

Those aren't stars out there, they are just holes in the shell between us and heaven.

[Mikemcc]

Certain aspects of a signal are lost relatively quickly. For instance a square pulse train is formed from a fundamental frequency and a number of harmonics at multiples of that frequency. Dependent on the medium it's travelling though (even interstellar space isn't a perfect vacuum some of the photons will be attenuated or slowed more than others. This means that the pulses lose definition, the rise and fall times increase. But an FFT analysis will still show underlying frequencies such as the fundamental. recovery of these pulses is even necessary on earth-bourne radars, for this very reason. The recivers use quantisers just after the receiver front ends to recover the pulse shape.

One problem is recognising that something may be an artifical signal, for instance seeing the frequencies associated with a TV signal may appear as a noisy natural signal unless you understand about frame and line rates.

The earth is actually a rather bright source of radio waves even compared to some stars. So looking for bright radio sources with varying doppler shift about it's parent star may indicate the possibility of a planet with radio sources. It's not proof of intelligence, but a potential pointer.

So no, SETI@Home is not completely pointless.

[Beerina]

You're making a lot of assumptions about what I did or did not do, all of which amount to nothing. My statement about the pointlessness of Seti applies to both the @home, and the other form. It is truly pointless. Even IF we were to discover some signal from multiple light-years distant, it would have absolutely no bearing on life on our planet. It is nothing more than mental gymnastics.

Are you sure you have anything useful to contribute? If the signal were strong enough and we could decode it, we could learn a hell of a lot, both socially and technologically. It would be immeasurably transformative.


Societies in the habit of using radio waves to transmit data many light years might pick a form that would be resistant to undecodable distortions. You can pack a hell of a lot of error correction into a signal at the cost of transmission throughput. We are idiots to think that if such was to be used, they'd just blast out a signal like we would, though degradation would, of course, make inter-solar-system signals, not designed for such, almost impossible to detect, much less successfully decode.

And yes, deliberate signals would (probably) be more direction-focused, so we'd have to "luck out" that we got in the line of sight of one. But again, depending on the topology of their civilization, the required throughput rates, and the cleverness of their error correction, maybe even that might not be required. Maybe a 9 volt omni-directional transmitter could transmit across the galaxy, or between galaxies, with a clever enough error correction scheme.

[Elind]

My statement about the pointlessness of Seti applies to both the @home, and the other form. It is truly pointless. Even IF we were to discover some signal from multiple light-years distant, it would have absolutely no bearing on life on our planet. It is nothing more than mental gymnastics.

You really bring meaning to the word blandness as it applies to mental gymnastics. In other words meaningless.

If you think that discovering that there is intelligent, technological, life elsewhere in the universe would have no bearing on human life I have to plead for a special exemption to rule 12. When I get it I will finish this sentence..

Perhaps you were speaking of plants, or tadpoles?

[Ottis]

As to the SETI argument.

How many discoveries in the course of human history would have been missed or greatly delayed if we had decided it "just isn't worth it to look" ?


I quit reading half way through the posts so forgive me if someone else has made a similar statement.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And the news from yesterday means either we got awful lucky to find a Goldilocks planet so soon and so close or they're relatively common in the galaxy.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201010013

[Beerina]

Some guy is now claiming (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/11/scientist-claims-strange-signal-comes-alien-planet/) he got a possible signal from that area -- but when pressed, refuses to release the details.


"I know the scientist, and when he first announced it, I asked him for the details, and he wouldn't send them to me," astronomer and SETI pioneer Frank Drake told SPACE.com. "I'm very suspicious."