Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: The Search for extra terrestrial intelligence

  1. #1 The Search for extra terrestrial intelligence 
    Gus
    Gus is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    "To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is as hopelessly culture-bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."

    - Douglas Adams

    Is it a mistake search the skies for signs of life so similar to our own ? Perhaps we need to change our definition of life or search the skies for "alien intelligence" or "highly organised and complex systems" ( DNA being only one example of complexity ) instead of "alien organic life" .
    After all why should other form of intelligence be based on organic life ? Maybe intelligence can develop in conditions completely hostile to organic life , maybe its not carbon based, DNA based, life may exist in other dimensions of a sort or even might not be based in matter (perhaps a complex form of light that can support intellignece of a sort) . However narcisitically we are looking only for "life " which has followed EXACTLY the same evolutionary path as our own which would seem to me to be extremely unlikely. We are in effect searching the universe for more of ourselves rather than anything truly "alien" - is this outlook indeed not hopelessly culture bound and myopic in its scope ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Gus; all you say of course is true.

    my thought simply stated is why would any intelligent life form want to visit earth or its people. they may have before man became intelligent or posed a threat, but even then it was probably what we call a low orbit observation. the life forms even you suggest would likely find our atmosphere highly toxic and our germs or virus may be deadly to there systems. they may even look at us as some new life form with minimal intellect not worth any time. the materials used to construct their ships may be toxic to our system or the fuels they use could have adverse effects on our atmosphere. there are thousands of reasons why really
    old societies or those with experience in space travel would steer away from earth.

    the same will be someday true for our astronauts as they explore even the solar system. hopefully in time with galaxy travels. the first 100 years or so outside the solar system will no doubt be advanced well equipped probes and can do most what we would in person. i would like to think is a primitive form of intellect is found on say some moon, we would not mess with it.

    as for what would evolve from differing conditions, we already have some good ideas from what has on earth. life on earth has developed in places and conditions man can't visit. deep ocean, very high pressure and temperatures just one. as to evolving; although most try to link everything some forms of life from the past must have lived and thrived under very different conditions. certainly we could not exist in and only the changed conditions allowed.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The Search for extra terrestrial intelligence 
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    "To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is as hopelessly culture-bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."

    - Douglas Adams

    Is it a mistake search the skies for signs of life so similar to our own ? Perhaps we need to change our definition of life or search the skies for "alien intelligence" or "highly organised and complex systems" ( DNA being only one example of complexity ) instead of "alien organic life" .
    After all why should other form of intelligence be based on organic life ? Maybe intelligence can develop in conditions completely hostile to organic life , maybe its not carbon based, DNA based, life may exist in other dimensions of a sort or even might not be based in matter (perhaps a complex form of light that can support intellignece of a sort) . However narcisitically we are looking only for "life " which has followed EXACTLY the same evolutionary path as our own which would seem to me to be extremely unlikely. We are in effect searching the universe for more of ourselves rather than anything truly "alien" - is this outlook indeed not hopelessly culture bound and myopic in its scope ?

    Gus, have you ever seen a sentient being that is not a product of complex DNA? Have you ever communicated with anything or anyone who was not organic based? I can only assume that your answer is no. No human being ever has. Or, at least we have no evident records of such contacts that can be scientifically validated. Does that mean that "Alternate life forms" simply do not exist? No, it is possible. Point in fact, the possibilities are endless. And theres your problem. When possibilities become endless, they become pointless as well.

    We have absolute zero examples, comparisons or analogies what so ever. Yes, we have Gods, myths and science fiction. Im sure the Green Lantern or Silver Surfer have battled their fare share of enemies who were made up of some unkown cosmic energy. But your still just free floating. If we have nothing to compare to, if we don't know what we are looking for, than we could be looking for anything. Literally - "Anything" You've gotta start somewhere and build.

    It is not so much an act of vanity that man searches the stars soley for carbon based life forms as it is that man - is simply just working with the tools that he was given.

    Never the less, I admire your open minded approach.

    'A' for enthusiasm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Who said we were searching for life similar to our own? - as I understand it SETI is/was searching for intelligent extra-terrestrials, of course the search is futile. As for the type of life, we know from meteors that amino acids are present elswhere - yet there were no signs of any equivalent structures which wwould indicate life based on other chemical structures.

    Since seti was essentially a 'radio' search' [and anyone who developes radio will very quickly learn of the directionability of radio beams], it's likely that we will not receive any 'stray' transmissions - they will be pointed, like a narrow laser beam at the target. Failure to transmit using narrow beams limits practical communication by about 2 orders of magnitude.

    As an example of this Voyager 1 is now about 100 AU's from earth, yet requires the world's largest antenna's and very latest low noise recievers to pick up a signal that has to be transmitted so slowly it sounds like an early teleprinter. It takes about 14 hours for signals from V1 to reach the earth so it's about 1/2500th the distance to the nearest star...

    If we wanted to communicate with V1 and assuming it was going to the Centuari stars we would need to boost the radio transmission by a factor of 7 million times, now since the largest transmitters on earth are of the region of 1Megawatt - you are now talking 1 trillion watts of power.
    THis is out of the question now and for a long time, for various reasons.

    The laser reflectors on the moon require a huge laser in order to be able to reflect the signal back to Earth where again, only 1 or two photons are collected... THink about multiplying that up to interstellar distances..

    So we can't send signals further than the edge of our solar system (that we would be able to pick up, and we have nothing that could pick up a signal from 4 ly if we used a transmitter less than a million times as pwerful as the most powerful we have....

    Eventually SETI realised this and gave up the search, it is now privately funded by people with money to waste - and manned by volunteers...

    Not to mention that they would have to be pointing in the right direction (to within about a tenth of a degree, at the right time, tuned to the right frequency, with the right filters, the right type of detectors.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mega; i have no reason to disagree with anything you said. you are indicating some people are quite stupid and beyond ignorant. i have never had faith in receiving waves from life forms. Contact was a good movie tho...

    any reference to future space travel would have to include better means of communications. no question there.

    as for other possible life forms, many (not me) think they should have formed or developed in or with similar manners we have. eat through a hole, by products out a hole, breath something or in short have many of our frailties. this to me is absurd since i am not convinced that some intelligent life evolved and became extinct on earth long ago. the development of life and then to intelligence is a time/conditions thing not necessarily dependent on much else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 re: VISITING ALIENS. 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Do I believe that alien life exists elsewhere in the vast expanse of space ?

    Yes, i would bet my soul on it !

    Do I believe that we have been visited by alien life forms ? No - definately not !!

    The reason: the speed of light problem.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Looks like there's nothing to debate here - life outside our solar system - High probability, - Intelligent life elsewhere - possibility, previous contact - probably/definitely not.

    Silicon life? - only in Pam Anderson's world..

    J, I was not implying anybody was stupid, The original group who put SETI together failed to include a radio physicist who could have saved them their cash. If people want to waste their money today that does not mean I think they are stupid - or ignorant - we all 'waste' money from time to time...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    28
    Well life outside of earth may well spoil the Biochemistry we know..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    id
    id is offline
    Forum Freshman id's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    18
    The very idea of finding life beyond our reaches is so fascinating, however hopelessly improbable. But we can always dream. And I don't believe we have ever been contacted by "aliens" or whatever you prefer to call them. I find it unlikely that any advanced society would travel the immense distance just to visit a pathetic planet of apemen who haven't yet discovered how to fully harness the power of their nearby star, only a mere 8 lightminutes away. I think they'd find us a huge waste of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Eventually SETI realised this and gave up the search, it is now privately funded by people with money to waste - and manned by volunteers......
    It is only privately funded in the sense that US taxpayers are private citizens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gus
    We are in effect searching the universe for more of ourselves rather than anything truly "alien" - is this outlook indeed not hopelessly culture bound and myopic in its scope ?
    A drunk was found staggering around in the road below a lamp post.
    "What are you doing?" he was asked.
    "Looking for my car keys," he replied with slurred diction.
    "Where did you lose them?"
    He gestured into the distance. "Somewhere over there."
    "So, why are you looking for them here?"
    "It's light here. It's dark over there."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Gus
    Gus is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Thank you all for your responses :-D

    I would like to respond to several interesting points that have been made so far :

    1) Why would anyone want to visit such a bunch of lowly primitive and frankly semi psychotic imbeciles as the ones that live on Earth ?

    Answer :

    We humans are interested in all forms of life no matter how lowly including things that are not alive . To assume that aliens would or would not exhibit such curiosity presumes too much - if they exist we have no idea what would interest aliens or even if the concept of "interest" is relevant.

    2) The problem of communications and transport over long distances :

    Ok Im going out on a limb here . Didnt they recently teleport subatomic particles across the Rhine ? One related article Article here :

    http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...um-world_rss20


    There a better article if I can find it ill post it. Anyway apparently this is to with "Quantum entanglement" . Once two particles have touched they can effect each other instantaneously even if they are on other sides of the universe (god knows what that implies since during the big bang everything touched everything else). Perhaps this effect modified by a civilisation millions of years older than our own could be used to transport information and even matter long distances instantaneously. At the end of the day, the point is, if an alien civilisation was millions of years older than our own why should we think they would be limited to our own present day technological achievments ?

    3) We have no experience of extra terrestrial life therefore we must look for what we know - organic life needing water, nitrogen, oxygen, warmth etc etc


    Well, what at the end of the day forms intelligence ? Although an understanding of how the mind works is still in its most rudimentary stages, according to most scientists it would be the interplay of electrons in the brain. So basically- according to many - our intelligence , our consciousness, is an complex interplay of electrons and electromagnetic waves.
    So perhaps we could look for such electric/electromagnetic complexity in the universe rather than the "organic matter" that supports it. Imagine for example that future AI experiments produce succesful results and in 20,000 years computers evolve into a distinct and intelligent lifeform . They might still exhibit consciousness (complex interplay of electrons etc) but would not necessarily exhibit any of the necessecities for organic life (water, warmth, DNA, Oxygen etc etc) . Perhaps in this respect we should be searching for the "software" of intelligence not the "hardware".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    1- the fact we show interest in lessor species, is only because we can control there action.

    the response was the reverse however and what would any intelligent society want to visit us for. likely they would have a history and what our reaction would be, well known. half would break out in instant prayer the other half shooting guns at them.

    2-its more a time/distant thing and as suggested our current equipment is not capable of directing or communication with anything very far from our planet, much less deep in space. yes matter has been transported from one spot to another. however practical use of such technology is somewhat in the future. i thought this was in some lab...

    3-my thought is life exist in many forms in many places. the need for elements we require of no importance. but it is logical life forms should require some of what we do, to form if nothing else and if these elements are present the odds increase for success. the drunk joke was funny tho...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It is only privately funded in the sense that US taxpayers are private citizens.
    My information is that it is no longer funded at all by the taxpayer, and has not been ince about 1993. If I'm wrong, can you point to any relevant source?


    http://www.setileague.org/editor/petition.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Ok, you're a native living in the highlands of New Gunea in the 1930s(or even later). You've heard stories about strange looking beings that travel in large vessels and even some that fly. You decide you'd like to get in contact with these beings and lacking any knowledge of radio, pound away on your drum log and wait patiently for a reply. There is no response and after a while you get bored and go back to farming and maybe a little head-hunting for diversion.

    How do we know what level of technology any possible ETs would be at and just what to listen or look for. The universe could be full of "transmissions" we lack the ability to detect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Gus
    Gus is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    How do we know what level of technology any possible ETs would be at and just what to listen or look for. The universe could be full of "transmissions" we lack the ability to detect.
    Exactly - however Im not sure that its because we lack the ability - we are not even trying and are limiting ourselves to a very narrow scope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    The probability is that there is nobody within range transmitting any form of communication by any medium in this direction at any given time on any given frequency - why is it so bloody difficult to perceive we may be the only/first organisms to use radio waves to communicate over distance?

    I know people long to believe that ET is out there somewhere zooming around at 300,000 times the speed of light, transporting goods through wormholes from one galaxy to another, but face it - there is a mathematical chance we are the first intelligent life anywhere - someone had to be first - why not us? IF the universe was infinitely old then others would be here, they are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Ok, you're a native living in the highlands of New Gunea in the 1930s(or even later). You've heard stories about strange looking beings that travel in large vessels and even some that fly. You decide you'd like to get in contact with these beings and lacking any knowledge of radio, pound away on your drum log and wait patiently for a reply. There is no response and after a while you get bored and go back to farming and maybe a little head-hunting for diversion.

    How do we know what level of technology any possible ETs would be at and just what to listen or look for. The universe could be full of "transmissions" we lack the ability to detect.
    you actually make one of my points; whatever is in that vessel certainly would have the know how to figure out what those folks were up to and the desire to communicate non-existent. my thought is this would include the entire earths population. why bother...

    i have harped on wavelength conception for years. the existence of them will require a method of reception and well beyond my educational level.
    until some one figures out that static heard is also silence between noise, ill have to settle on understanding something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    The probability is that there is nobody within range transmitting any form of communication by any medium in this direction at any given time on any given frequency - why is it so bloody difficult to perceive we may be the only/first organisms to use radio waves to communicate over distance?

    I know people long to believe that ET is out there somewhere zooming around at 300,000 times the speed of light, transporting goods through wormholes from one galaxy to another, but face it - there is a mathematical chance we are the first intelligent life anywhere - someone had to be first - why not us? IF the universe was infinitely old then others would be here, they are not.
    While the chance is not equal to zero, given the number of stars which could support planets with life in our galaxy and the number of galaxies that we can observe, it's not probable we're the first organisms to use radio.

    I'm not saying I believe that there's galaxy spanning civilizations out there. My point is we're still at a relatively primitive level scientifically, and we may not be able to detect communications that are beyond our ability to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    Jackson,

    Let me enlighten you as to 'noise herad in a reciever - firstly - most noise is actually generated inside the receiver, you can prove this by taking the aerial plug out of your old analogue TV and you should then see what we call 'snow' and from the speakers 'hiss' - so since there is no aerial connected there is no noise coming from outside. - This 'set noise' is a function of components running warm/hot, causing electrons to jump orbits - produce low energy infrared photons and 'borrow' minute amounts of current from the circuit to achieve this, these tiny changes in current are amplified and become the 'noise'.

    If you tune to a blank channel and then plug in the aerial, there will usually be no change in noise, this is because your receiver is not sensitive enough to pick much up. Incidentally, using a device called a 'noise factor meter' and using with a UHF TV, you can determine that only about 7% of the noise you see on screen is noise from external systems, if you are in the UK (using UHF frequencies around 600MHz) then about 60% of the 7% of noise is from the remains of the BIG BANG!
    Next time there's nothing on TV - tune to a blank channel and watch the birth of the universe (though it's an old old old repeat!).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    a little frustration on my part and a thought things are looked at from a single perspective led to my "silence between noise". my actual feeling, i think you know is wavelengths may exist at levels we don't or cant define or measure.

    in layman's terms the bottom end of the wave is the silence. the top end of a light wave what we see and the strength determines color. or some configuration of this...

    brain wave an often used term but creates no wave. only a color with certain equipment gives notice of activity. no color its dead, etc...

    what you feel is waves from the BB may have source and it may be coming from where the universe now ends. if this is true then a mighty small receiver is picking up something from a very great distance. this to my simple mind infers some life form could produce an everyday common type (to them) wave that we could hear any day if we looked in the right place. you also know i feel there is something other than the universal expansion that travels faster that light. i do not think its in wave form but when this whatever is figured out you will find it on the EM scale (if we have the equipment) below were we understand wavelengths to exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    a little frustration on my part and a thought things are looked at from a single perspective led to my "silence between noise". my actual feeling, i think you know is wavelengths may exist at levels we don't or cant define or measure.

    in layman's terms the bottom end of the wave is the silence. the top end of a light wave what we see and the strength determines color. or some configuration of this...

    brain wave an often used term but creates no wave. only a color with certain equipment gives notice of activity. no color its dead, etc...

    what you feel is waves from the BB may have source and it may be coming from where the universe now ends. if this is true then a mighty small receiver is picking up something from a very great distance. this to my simple mind infers some life form could produce an everyday common type (to them) wave that we could hear any day if we looked in the right place. you also know i feel there is something other than the universal expansion that travels faster that light. i do not think its in wave form but when this whatever is figured out you will find it on the EM scale (if we have the equipment) below were we understand wavelengths to exist.

    We actually know the whole spectrum of wavelengths, they run from 0+ cycles per second (Hertz) to a value determined by planck time. Our radio spectrum paracticaly extends to about 100Ghz (10^11 Hz) all of this we can detect, measure, produce and receive, (this limit is rising all the time)

    Visible light occupies less than an octave of this range and has a wavelength somewhere around 400-700nm That's in the range of 4.3 to 7.5 * 10 ^14 hertz. etween 100GHz and red light lies near and far infrared most of which we can also detect, above light comes UV & gamma - gamma and above we cannot discern individual wavelengths, these are the highest energy photons and would seem to be a better possibility for communication, as they allow data rates many millions of times higher than normal radio waves. I am not sure what you mean by the bottom and top of the wave, silence is merely the absence of a wave.

    It is the sheer amount of power generated by the big bang, that allows us to detect it, the amount of power required to generate that amount of noise at that distance is incomprehensible - it amounts to about all the power of all the galaxies that have ever existed released over a few minutes -

    All photons in the EM spectrum travel at light speed, it is their frequency only that differs, the higher the frequency the more energy the photon has but nowhere can photons travels faster than light - whatever their energy level. This is usually difficult for the lay person to understand so let me give you a parallel - suppose all bullets travelled at 500 metres/second and were all the same size, the only difference that's allowed is the rifling in the barrel. Let's say 1 rifle has 1/4 turn over a length of 500mm and another has 5000 turns over the same distance, clearly you will need to put a lot of energy into getting the second bullet down the barrel - 20,000 times as much as the first bullet yet, they are both the same mass and travelling at the same speed, they vary only in speed of rotation, the 1/4 rifle will rotate at 250 RPM it has a frequency of 250hz and the other at 5million rpm or 5Mhz - you can consider this rotation as the energy of the bullet - thus with light waves - this is a very crude analogy but it's close.

    For an alien to send a signal across the universe he/she/it would need to expend about 1.0% of the energy of the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    For an alien to send a signal across the universe he/she/it would need to expend about 1.0% of the energy of the big bang.
    Do you want to retract this nonsense statement before someone believes it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    For an alien to send a signal across the universe he/she/it would need to expend about 1.0% of the energy of the big bang.
    Do you want to retract this nonsense statement before someone believes it?
    True, you could do it with a candle, but if you want a signal that can be processed with the equipment we have today and in a reasonable time, you need a tad more, about 1% should do it, remember by the time your candle light passed by the earth, the individual photons would be so dispersed that our little planet would miss most of them, unless of course you can show mathematically that I'm wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Then how can we see the stars at that distance? How is the starlight width in proportion to communicational radiation width, if equal energy is used?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Then how can we see the stars at that distance? How is the starlight width in proportion to communicational radiation width, if equal energy is used?
    Just let me know haow many stars you can personally see the other side of the universe as opposed to early life galaxies 10 billion light years aways so young they are burning many many times brighter than older nearer galaxies, [I have heard millions of times brighter but cannot confirm this].



    THe Hubble can see some galaxies that are very far off, in order to do this it takes exposures over many hours [and sometimes over many consequtive days!] to gather enough photons to put a tiny smudge on the highest resolution image technology around today. If the said galaxy represented a single binary digit of communication data then in order for hubble to to recieve 8, 5 letter words would take around 8*5*(6 bits)*2*16 hours*1.5 = 480 DAYS! THe 5 & 8 are obvious, the 6 bits, allows any character to be one of a set of 64, *2 allows for synchronisation, 16 = hours per bit resolved, and *1.5 for error correction.

    Now remember this is taking the output of an ENTIRE galaxy to send a single 40 character message in 1.25 YEARS! now, scale the time down to current 2MB broad band speed which is 2 million bits/second which is [720 bits] = 3.6*10^-4 seconds (that's 360 microseconds) gives a bit time ratio of 115 BILLION to one, radiation follows a square law that is, to be able to resolve twice the data in the same amount of time [at maximum receiver sensitivity] you must square the required power, 115 Billion Squared is 1.372*10^22 , Now what this means is, today, to send a message from a galaxy 9 billion light years away, which could just about be resolved by hubble would require the output of a galaxy to be 13,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 * ALL the power from the brightest furthest galaxy in the known universe. and with 100 billion stars in each galaxy, {I am told ) - and limiting your comms ability to a pathetic 2MB bandwidth....
    Now you can divide this final figure by a factor 100 using a neat trick us radio guys use to improve things but that's about as far as it goes today.

    And THAT is assuming the absense of all but bright bodies in the universe,ie no dead /black bodies, no dark matter, no interstellar gas etc etc etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mega; i may be wrong but i have heard minutes in exposed time to light on Hubble, opposed to hours or days. i learned this in a discussion to determine why we do not do what you suggest and allow some additional movements. as i understand it even solar movements to determine possible planets are from a serious of shots...

    stars are generally bright in accordance to size and size is determined by color as perceived from and through the distortion we encounter on earth or what is likely on Hubble. the distance to a point is not material to this perceived color. they are different and if were on Hubble the actual color would not be equal to whats seen on earth. anything in the outer universe is a collection of rays that is sent and at some point this direction the breakdowns can be noted.

    you of course have incorporated BB into whats seen as a very young systems 14 billion years out and as new stars system are dim as that light which is seen is 14 byo. you know my concept and the probable distortions and simply depleted total rays or removed from solid matters absorption lead to the reduced light available to see. both view are consistent to the time line and dimness theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Back to topic:

    Why are we looking for carbon based life-froms and why could it be that humans are one of the fist intelligent lifeforms in the universe?

    Carbon based lifefroms is the most likely/fastest/ fit for life. All other of our so far known substances are unuseful for life than carbon(whole books have been written of the special substance water).

    We could be the fist cince we are carbon based, we lifefroms live in an optimal almost impossible optimal world (temerature;moon;sun;size;rotation of earth;rotation around the sun;.......)

    I don't see why we shouldn't belong to the first.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    mega; i may be wrong but i have heard minutes in exposed time to light on Hubble, opposed to hours or days. i learned this in a discussion to determine why we do not do what you suggest and allow some additional movements. as i understand it even solar movements to determine possible planets are from a serious of shots...

    stars are generally bright in accordance to size and size is determined by color as perceived from and through the distortion we encounter on earth or what is likely on Hubble. the distance to a point is not material to this perceived color. they are different and if were on Hubble the actual color would not be equal to whats seen on earth. anything in the outer universe is a collection of rays that is sent and at some point this direction the breakdowns can be noted.

    you of course have incorporated BB into whats seen as a very young systems 14 billion years out and as new stars system are dim as that light which is seen is 14 byo. you know my concept and the probable distortions and simply depleted total rays or removed from solid matters absorption lead to the reduced light available to see. both view are consistent to the time line and dimness theory.
    Hee Hee, eat this sucker! :wink:

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2004/07/

    Furthest galaxies, exposure time 1 million seconds! that's 1/31th of a year or about 12 days!

    Note the 1 photon per minute! That from a collection of the brightest earliest galaxies ever seen. - I tell you I HAVE done the maths properly and it is based on Hubble data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Back to topic:

    Why are we looking for carbon based life-froms and why could it be that humans are one of the fist intelligent lifeforms in the universe?

    Carbon based lifefroms is the most likely/fastest/ fit for life. All other of our so far known substances are unuseful for life than carbon(whole books have been written of the special substance water).

    We could be the fist cince we are carbon based, we lifefroms live in an optimal almost impossible optimal world (temerature;moon;sun;size;rotation of earth;rotation around the sun;.......)

    I don't see why we shouldn't belong to the first.
    factually were not looking for any life outside our little solar system. we are however looking for signs of intelligent life, even here in a very small way.

    carbon based is what we are and its best to look for something you can understand. some do think other base type could exist but even the concept would be hard to explain. there are a certain number of natural elements that should be common in all the universe and amino acids could form rather easily anyplace.

    all the things you mention to an optimal world or put another way, acceptable conditions could be in other time frames or mass. i am not convinced the moon as much to do with it, but many do...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mega; sorry guy, can't digest...

    i will say 21 minutes is a little longer then i thought this equipment could handle and i would really question what all distortion could be involved.

    the 800 exposures taken over four months were a total of 12 days of exposed time. there is no indication of super imposing, since they reference the 800 exposures but this should be the only possible means for the achievement. then they had to clean it up somehow and this is where i become skeptical.

    this is how many of NASA ideas are progressed. as i mentioned a solar erratic movements mean planets, then you have black holes. generally what is released is a animation of whats seen by their specialist, since what we would see could not be what is explain as what is being shown.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    mega; sorry guy, can't digest...

    i will say 21 minutes is a little longer then i thought this equipment could handle and i would really question what all distortion could be involved.

    the 800 exposures taken over four months were a total of 12 days of exposed time. there is no indication of super imposing, since they reference the 800 exposures but this should be the only possible means for the achievement. then they had to clean it up somehow and this is where i become skeptical.

    this is how many of NASA ideas are progressed. as i mentioned a solar erratic movements mean planets, then you have black holes. generally what is released is a animation of whats seen by their specialist, since what we would see could not be what is explain as what is being shown.
    Since Hubble orbits the earth in some 90 minutes a continuous exposure is not practical, so they add the exposure times together hence the 1 million second exposure, they are not 'superimposed' as such the data is mathematically added, and also remember it was not one but two telescopes that took the picture. You need a grasp of Mathematics., Electronics, astronomy and photography to appreciate the article, and also radioastronomy, if you are looking to shoot down what I have said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    think what you will, but adding to something is no less then super imposing, well, in fact thats exactly what SI is. my comment on clean up is also just as vital. you might agree that your mention of 12 days would lead some to think 12 day exposure. i rarely get to talk to such intelligence and am programed to respond in a manner which i could understand.

    if you think i am in some way opposed to NASA, forgive me. i have nothing but respect for what they do or would do if they were funded or allowed to pursue goals many of us feel they should...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    think what you will, but adding to something is no less then super imposing, well, in fact thats exactly what SI is. my comment on clean up is also just as vital. you might agree that your mention of 12 days would lead some to think 12 day exposure. i rarely get to talk to such intelligence and am programed to respond in a manner which i could understand.

    if you think i am in some way opposed to NASA, forgive me. i have nothing but respect for what they do or would do if they were funded or allowed to pursue goals many of us feel they should...
    No, when it comes to images if you super-impose say black and white you get grey - whereas in image enhancement of the type used with Nasa is a little more complex, if you add black and white you get white, signal addition is very different from just SI - if you take one hundred images and only two show a faint galaxy then the result is a faint galaxy, if only 1 shows a galaxy then you show black, the images with a galaxy have the pixel values 'added' to enhance the image, there's a lot of processing including poisson distribution maths as well. If you could put a fixed hubble in space and open the shutter for 1 million seconds continuous it would show the same picture, so it was a 12 day exposure but interrupted by it's orbit around the Earth. Remember they are using Charge Coupled Device camera's (CCD's) so at the end of each exposure the map values are stored individially and processed in a lab.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Much like the guys who during WW2 set about to develop the radar system and discovered by accident the sound of the big bang.

    So to will some young scientist one day accidental tune some new experimental machine to a frequency that will explode to life with the sound of extraterrestrial talk back shows.

    Steve
    Those are my principles and if you dont like them, I have others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    IN an earlier post I suggested that the earliest objects in the universe were many times more bright than anything seen today, others pointed out that that early galaxies, stars were less bright. Here is a link for those to read, it concerns the latest spitzer data from IR images of the bing bang [or even big bang]. Released 22nd December 2006.

    http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    Much like the guys who during WW2 set about to develop the radar system and discovered by accident the sound of the big bang.
    Not exactly. I just noticed this misinformation. Penzias and Wilson discovered the background radiation in 1964 while working with a microwave receiver at Bell Labs. (It wasn't pigeon droppings.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    Much like the guys who during WW2 set about to develop the radar system and discovered by accident the sound of the big bang.
    Not exactly. I just noticed this misinformation. Penzias and Wilson discovered the background radiation in 1964 while working with a microwave receiver at Bell Labs. (It wasn't pigeon droppings.)
    That is correct however it is now known that [a small proportion] of the intrerference on the WWII radar was indeed echoes of the Big bang. If I could remember which of my books it was in...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    IN an earlier post I suggested that the earliest objects in the universe were many times more bright than anything seen today, others pointed out that that early galaxies, stars were less bright. Here is a link for those to read, it concerns the latest spitzer data from IR images of the bing bang [or even big bang]. Released 22nd December 2006.

    http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml
    "giant stars 1000 times ours or BH activity" since i just went through this someplace else, i prefer not to rehash. however please explain your opinions to one of the following...

    1. where else is it in our know universe are multiple stars found, even 100 times ours. knowing stars near there death are thought to become very large. ours should be about "1000 times larger".

    2. what time limits would you give for the formation, life of a star to its final death, in order to become a BH. remember the light depicted is itself 14 byo. our 5-6 byo solar system, is expected to complete the cycle in about another 5-6 by.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="Megabrain"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That is correct however it is now known that [a small proportion] of the intrerference on the WWII radar was indeed echoes of the Big bang. If I could remember which of my books it was in...
    Your books can pick up radar signals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    Yep, pressed like bloody flowers, though a mere echo of what it used to be. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman crabbattle72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    19
    didnt they find water on mars or something like that, and said it was a sign that life once lived there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbattle72
    didnt they find water on mars or something like that, and said it was a sign that life once lived there?
    actually I think (last I heard) there is bacteria on mars (whether dead or slightly alive I don't know). There is also signs that water once flowed there (although this is debatable).

    However, most of mars's water is in the polar caps. There are traces of it in canyons and such, but not very much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    There are very recent pictures from mars that show two photo's of the same area a couple of years apart, there are changes which [on earth] are only found as a result of 'water flow' - ie not wind earthquake etc.
    From this it is hypothesised that a liquid caused the feature changes, and that the liquid may have been water.

    That's the way scientists formulate it, here's the way the papers put it

    "Rivers of water found on mars"

    OR for the Sun, (a british popular newspaper):-

    "Hydro Electric Power Station photographed on Jupiter's Moon Callisto!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbattle72
    didnt they find water on mars or something like that, and said it was a sign that life once lived there?
    actually I think (last I heard) there is bacteria on mars (whether dead or slightly alive I don't know). There is also signs that water once flowed there (although this is debatable).

    However, most of mars's water is in the polar caps. There are traces of it in canyons and such, but not very much.
    ice on poles and what mega mentioned are reasons to believe water may exist in some quantity.

    bacteria was thought to be on a meteor, thought to have come from mars, some years back. this i believe was found not to be accurate. to my knowledge no life has been found via the rovers.

    most of ice and/or fresh water is also found at the earths poles.

    water is a element we feel essential for life. true or not, for life to exist some action must occur. pressure, electrical etc...it is thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Jackson,

    Life is made of complex molecules, if you have all these elements lying around and no 'motion' to disturb them then no life - I think that's what you mean, if so it's right on the button! - the first life had to be constructed atom by atom, chemistry, electricity, atmospheric disturbances, geological activity all will have played a part at some point or another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Hang on.............hubble orbits the earth in 90 minutes ??????

    How fast is it travelling ????????
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Guest
    Not sure how this ties in with the search for ET, but assuming it's the precursor to a relevant question I'll answer, It's about 17500 Miles per hour, 5 miles per second, so don't stand too close to the edge of the platform!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Jackson,

    Life is made of complex molecules, if you have all these elements lying around and no 'motion' to disturb them then no life - I think that's what you mean, if so it's right on the button! - the first life had to be constructed atom by atom, chemistry, electricity, atmospheric disturbances, geological activity all will have played a part at some point or another.
    "some action must occur". pretty much "geo activity".

    you know i feel through the history of any planet or moon in any solar system at some point this activity could happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Guest
    True but it's a bit like footprints in the sand, no two are identical, yet only a hand ful may result in life. IE there are to many variables [grains if you like].

    The number of different shaped footprints in the sand is effectively infinite when you consider the possible orientation, number and position of grains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    SETI and other programs are based on certain logical assumptions. When the only inter-stellar communication system you can figure out is the hydrogen radio window, it makes sense to give it a try. it demands less energy, ir travels further, and it isn't blocked by our atmospere. So why not try?

    Personally I always figured that SETI would fail because of technology advancement -let's say that, after 200 years using the hydrogen radio window, you find out an "ansible" (kudos to Ms. LeGuin :wink: ), something that could broadcast FTL messages and anyone pick them just with a "ansible" receiver... so you know that what you need is the "ansible" channel, and actually any civilization still using hydrogen radio window likely will not be advanced enough to withstand interference or provide a worthy communication. So you will just shut down the old radio stations and will go with the "ansible"... why build the biggest lighthouse in the world when you got satellites to guide passing-by ships?

    And yet from a moral standpoint... what would we be if we would not even consider a SETI program, as long as we could afford it? 8)
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •