Science and Technology news... :: View topic - This NG is dead! Lets stimulate something here...

Eric · Guest

(Its easy to forget the real purpose of Boinc/SETI and just think its just
about trying to make big numbers and pretty graphs with lines that go down.)

I was thinking ("Oh no..", you say!), what if there are other civilizations
out there doing their own version of "SETI", but like us, they are just
listening and not transmitting? Everyone is watching the water hole, from
the woodline with binoculars, but nobody is going up to it to take a drink?

I know we transmitted some short burts a long time ago, but has there ever
been any consideration to do something more interesting such as:

Get a group of astronomers, biologists, RF engineers, etc together to come
up with the best "candidate locations" to transmit to. Good "candidate
locations" would be relatively near places with star systems that show
indirect evidence of planets, that show a spectral analysis possibly
compatible for what we think life "may" be able to adapt to, that have been
around for long enough for life to evolve "as we know it", and is feasible
(given our technology, or perhaps where we think our technology will be
within a few centuries) that we could detect our own transmitted signals
from.

Surely, there has to be places out there that meet this criteria? Get all
the right people together and mind crunch for "candidate locations". It
wouldn>t be perfect, as much would be in the realm of possibility, but its
the best that can be done. Key being "life as we know it", as thats the
best we can do. (For all we know, there could be smart metal organisms out
there that drink liquid nitrogen.)

Even if it took centuries or a millienium for a "round trip", thats still
centuries or a millienium sooner than not doing anything at all.

(Hopefully our signals wouldn>t be a dinner bell to some slimey green aliens
who would come and eat our descendents though.)

f/fgeorge · Guest

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:31:42 GMT, "Eric" <nospam@nospam.noo> wrote:

[quote](Its easy to forget the real purpose of Boinc/SETI and just think its just
about trying to make big numbers and pretty graphs with lines that go down.)

I was thinking ("Oh no..", you say!), what if there are other civilizations
out there doing their own version of "SETI", but like us, they are just
listening and not transmitting? Everyone is watching the water hole, from
the woodline with binoculars, but nobody is going up to it to take a drink?

I know we transmitted some short burts a long time ago, but has there ever
been any consideration to do something more interesting such as:

Get a group of astronomers, biologists, RF engineers, etc together to come
up with the best "candidate locations" to transmit to. Good "candidate
locations" would be relatively near places with star systems that show
indirect evidence of planets, that show a spectral analysis possibly
compatible for what we think life "may" be able to adapt to, that have been
around for long enough for life to evolve "as we know it", and is feasible
(given our technology, or perhaps where we think our technology will be
within a few centuries) that we could detect our own transmitted signals
from.

Surely, there has to be places out there that meet this criteria? Get all
the right people together and mind crunch for "candidate locations". It
wouldn>t be perfect, as much would be in the realm of possibility, but its
the best that can be done. Key being "life as we know it", as thats the
best we can do. (For all we know, there could be smart metal organisms out
there that drink liquid nitrogen.)

Even if it took centuries or a millienium for a "round trip", thats still
centuries or a millienium sooner than not doing anything at all.

(Hopefully our signals wouldn>t be a dinner bell to some slimey green aliens
who would come and eat our descendents though.)

UMmmm we are listening for a signal to come thru on a specific band,[/quote]
but we are transmitting on a bunch of other bands all the time. We are
beaming signals to satellites that miss some of the signal and it goes
right on by, stopping only when it hits something. No it is not fast
but it is going. Think HBO, ESPN, CNN, etc.

David Woolley · Guest

In article <fvo6f25j1rg8c9vl1l3smjabqs846m1bi8@4ax.com>,
f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:31:42 GMT, "Eric" <nospam@nospam.noo> wrote:

I know we transmitted some short burts a long time ago, but has there ever
been any consideration to do something more interesting such as:

Get a group of astronomers, biologists, RF engineers, etc together to come
up with the best "candidate locations" to transmit to. Good "candidate
[/quote]
The Encounter 2001 people did some of this. Their contracted expert
sometimes posts, at least to sci.astro.seti, which is a better newsgroup
for SETI, rather than SETI@Home.

[quote]locations" would be relatively near places with star systems that show
indirect evidence of planets, that show a spectral analysis possibly
[/quote]
They tend to show contra-indications of life. In any case, the project
Phoenix target list is a ready made list of appropriate targets.

However, you seem to have forgotten the most important classes of people:

- the politicians to get radio regulatory approval and clear messages
for transmission;
- the funders to pay for the real estate for antennas, the electrical
energy, the continuing replacement transmit tubes, etc.

[quote]right on by, stopping only when it hits something. No it is not fast
but it is going. Think HBO, ESPN, CNN, etc.
[/quote]
Modern broadcast satellite TV has very little redundancy, which means it
requires a similar order of magnitude of sensitivity to detect it as it
does to make use of the signal, so the ETI would need antennas that are
of the same order of magnitude of effective diameter (one can go smaller,
because one can integrate the power in the whole bandwidth, over a period,
of time, but the large bandwidth also reduces the ability to reject
natural sources) as one would get by scaling the satellite>s antenna by
the ratio of however many light years to just over 0.1 light seconds.

The other problem is that the uplink beam is swept with the earth>s
rotation, so will only be on target for a few seconds a day.

Basically, leaked digital TV uplinks make rather poor SETI beacons.

f/fgeorge · Guest

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:50:53 +0100, david@djwhome.demon.co.uk (David
Woolley) wrote:

[quote]
right on by, stopping only when it hits something. No it is not fast
but it is going. Think HBO, ESPN, CNN, etc.

Modern broadcast satellite TV has very little redundancy, which means it
requires a similar order of magnitude of sensitivity to detect it as it
does to make use of the signal, so the ETI would need antennas that are
of the same order of magnitude of effective diameter (one can go smaller,
because one can integrate the power in the whole bandwidth, over a period,
of time, but the large bandwidth also reduces the ability to reject
natural sources) as one would get by scaling the satellite>s antenna by
the ratio of however many light years to just over 0.1 light seconds.

The other problem is that the uplink beam is swept with the earth>s
rotation, so will only be on target for a few seconds a day.

Basically, leaked digital TV uplinks make rather poor SETI beacons.
I totally agree with the last part, I have no idea what you are[/quote]
talking about regarding the antenna size. But my point was that we are
broadcasting something, which is better than nothing, but not by very
much!

David Martel · Guest

Eric,

Always willing to shake things up.
There seems to have been intelligent life on this planet for a very long
time. The technology to transmit and receive radio waves is quite new and
confined so far to one species (I>m aware that some animals do transmit or
receive electrical signals but the signals are really weak). So is radio a
good marker of intelligence?

Eric · Guest

"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:fvo6f25j1rg8c9vl1l3smjabqs846m1bi8@4ax.com...
[quote]UMmmm we are listening for a signal to come thru on a specific band,
but we are transmitting on a bunch of other bands all the time. We are
beaming signals to satellites that miss some of the signal and it goes
right on by, stopping only when it hits something. No it is not fast
but it is going. Think HBO, ESPN, CNN, etc.
[/quote]
Hi,

True... I was thinking something more directional and with much more power
though...

Eric · Guest

"David Martel" <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3W3Jg.11760$Qf.10971@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[quote]Eric,

Always willing to shake things up.
There seems to have been intelligent life on this planet for a very long
time. The technology to transmit and receive radio waves is quite new and
confined so far to one species (I>m aware that some animals do transmit or
receive electrical signals but the signals are really weak). So is radio a
good marker of intelligence?
[/quote]
I agree that RF may not be the ultimate marker of intelligence, but it is
the most efficient in our current toolkit.

Plus, the "water hole" is one of the few things we can assume common with an
intelligence we know absolutetly nothing about...

Eric · Guest

"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:T1156877486@djwhome.demon.co.uk...
[quote]In article <fvo6f25j1rg8c9vl1l3smjabqs846m1bi8@4ax.com>,
f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:31:42 GMT, "Eric" <nospam@nospam.noo> wrote:

I know we transmitted some short burts a long time ago, but has there
ever
been any consideration to do something more interesting such as:

Get a group of astronomers, biologists, RF engineers, etc together to
come
up with the best "candidate locations" to transmit to. Good "candidate

The Encounter 2001 people did some of this. Their contracted expert
sometimes posts, at least to sci.astro.seti, which is a better newsgroup
for SETI, rather than SETI@Home.

locations" would be relatively near places with star systems that show
indirect evidence of planets, that show a spectral analysis possibly

They tend to show contra-indications of life. In any case, the project
Phoenix target list is a ready made list of appropriate targets.

However, you seem to have forgotten the most important classes of people:

- the politicians to get radio regulatory approval and clear messages
for transmission;
- the funders to pay for the real estate for antennas, the electrical
energy, the continuing replacement transmit tubes, etc.

[/quote]
Now thats very interesting! Going to have to google and read up on that.

Yeah, guess funding would be the biggest obstacle. I wonder if any
"canidate locations" are in the path of Arecibo and if so, how much it would
cost to give Arecibo the capability to transmit at the water hole. (Didn>t
Arecibo send a signal out once, but had to do it ~2.3 Ghz.?)

David Woolley · Guest

In article <LEqJg.86630$Eh1.85684@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"Eric <nospam@nospam.noo>" wrote:

[quote]Yeah, guess funding would be the biggest obstacle. I wonder if any
"canidate locations" are in the path of Arecibo and if so, how much it would
[/quote]
All of the Phoenix target list are, as far as I know, unless they have
enhanced it for the ATA.

[quote]cost to give Arecibo the capability to transmit at the water hole. (Didn>t
Arecibo send a signal out once, but had to do it ~2.3 Ghz.?)
[/quote]
By some definitions of the waterhole, 2.3GHz is in the waterhole.
Transmitting within the narrow definition (around ~1.42GHz) is illegal
(to protect radio astronomers). Note that project Phoenix does cover
a wide range of frequencies, which might even include 2.3GHz and even
SERENDIP covers frequencies on which transmission is allowed. SETI@Home
uses just part of the SERENDIP data that is all in the protected band.
(If I remember correctly, the frequency of first detection in "Contact"
was actually pi * that of the Hydrogen hyperfine line, about 4.46GHz.)

Arecibo regularly transmits at both around 2.3GHz and around 470MHz as
it is used for planetary radar and atmospheric sounding. When it is
transmitting Arecibo cannot be used for any reception which means that
there is no concept of parasitic active SETI.

Many of the 2.3GHz transmissions are CW radar and are detectable at
interstellar distances, but would present as one of detections, which
couldn>t be verified.

Note that, although there is a popular idea that Arecibo is for SETI, it>s
only ever had primary SETI usages in terms of single figure percentages,
and is probably down to about 1 or 2%. SERENDIP and therefore SETI@Home
are parasitic SETI, they take advantage of being able to operate multiple
receivers simultaneously (especially when at different feed points)
to make SETI observations in whatever direction is pointed at as the
result of primary experiments - except when it is transmitting.

David Martel · Guest

?
[quote]
I agree that RF may not be the ultimate marker of intelligence, but it is
the most efficient in our current toolkit.
[/quote]
If your toolkit contains tools that are inadequate or poorly designed it
might be wise to recognise this fact and perhaps research toolkits rather
than seek ETI using the current toolkiit if funding or resources are
limited.

[quote]Plus, the "water hole" is one of the few things we can assume common with
an intelligence we know absolutetly nothing about...
[/quote]
Sorry, I don>t buy this. While water may seem important to Earth based
life we have no idea what is important to life elsewhere. The water hole
seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.
The whole microwave window might be a better choice but it>s pretty
broad. And it assumes that that intelligence and technology go hand in hand.
We have little evidence to support this assumption.
I think that we know very little about life or intelligence. Our
experience is limited to life and intelligence on Earth at present, a small
toolkit of uncertain adequacy.

Dave M.

f/fgeorge · Guest

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:56:43 GMT, "David Martel"
<marte005@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]
?

I agree that RF may not be the ultimate marker of intelligence, but it is
the most efficient in our current toolkit.

If your toolkit contains tools that are inadequate or poorly designed it
might be wise to recognise this fact and perhaps research toolkits rather
than seek ETI using the current toolkiit if funding or resources are
limited.

Plus, the "water hole" is one of the few things we can assume common with
an intelligence we know absolutetly nothing about...

Sorry, I don>t buy this. While water may seem important to Earth based
life we have no idea what is important to life elsewhere. The water hole
seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.
The whole microwave window might be a better choice but it>s pretty
broad. And it assumes that that intelligence and technology go hand in hand.
We have little evidence to support this assumption.
I think that we know very little about life or intelligence. Our
experience is limited to life and intelligence on Earth at present, a small
toolkit of uncertain adequacy.

Dave M.

Okay Dave, tell us where you would spend your money? What technology[/quote]
would you use and how would you do it? The people involved currently
are doing what they can with what they have, if you have a better idea
please present it. Remember funding is the key, without it your ideas
are just that, ideas. So come up with ways to convince people that
can>t see the forest for the trees, that searching your way will work.
Currently Berkeley is doing it thru the 'back door'. They got money to
prove that distributed computing can work, and oh by the way, are
looking for ET to do it.
Let>s assume you think Silicon is what ET is made of, how would you
design a project to search for that? Or do you think ET is made of
something we have not even thought of yet, how would you find it?

David Martel · Guest

George,

I do not have the knowledge, experience or interest to come up with a
"better" plan. I do believe that the SETI folk are interested but like me
they lack in knowledge and experience. The OP asked for someone to stimulate
the group and I think a discussion of the weaknesses in the current search
is stimulating.
SETI lacks funding because the funding process (my experience is in NIH
but I think NSF is about the same) involves rating a bunch of projects and
then handing out the available money to the ones with the highest ranks.
Let>s be clear on that, SETI, when rated by fairly competent scientists, is
rated lower than other projects. SETI is fundamentally weak and isn>t likely
to get funded.
SETI is creating a catalog of odd radio signals. I imagine that
eventually a thesis or two will come of this. So this is not a worthless
project but I don>t believe that it will ever achieve the "advertised"
outcome. If you like being a part of SETI feel free to continue, it will
produce something. And it>s a pretty harmless hobby.
I>m not being deft in avoiding your request for a better SETI plan, I
don>t have one. I know nothing about silicon life and so I would not search
for it. If it showed up and I recognized it I might develop a plan to study
it. Some science gets done by noticing weird results while doing your
experiments and then following up. And to give SETI it>s due, a lot of
science got done while looking for "vital forces".

Dave M.

David Woolley · Guest

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:56:43 GMT, "David Martel"
<marte005@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]Plus, the "water hole" is one of the few things we can assume common with
an intelligence we know absolutetly nothing about...

Sorry, I don>t buy this. While water may seem important to Earth based
life we have no idea what is important to life elsewhere. The water hole
seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.
The whole microwave window might be a better choice but it>s pretty
broad. And it assumes that that intelligence and technology go hand in hand.
[/quote]
The whole microwave windows is defined by the existence of water in the
atmosphere, and, for that reason, *is* one definition of the water hole.
I believe that that is what project Phoenix searches, although constrained
by other technical limitations and available equipment.

The definition of "water hole" typically used by people talking about
SETI@Home has only a metaphorical association with water. It is actually
associated with hydrogen, which is fundamental to the whole universe.
The metaphor is that of the place where all the animals come together, i.e.
a single point common to everyone.

The only definition that is does have some association with water is that
of the frequencies between the hydrogen hyperfine line and the group of
hydroxil lines at around 1.6GHz. Although project SERENDIP does cover a
significant part of this, it also covers about a similar range below
the hydrogen line. I>d say there was no SETI search that was truly
defined by this definition.

f/fgeorge · Guest

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:11:57 GMT, "David Martel"
<marte005@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]George,

I do not have the knowledge, experience or interest to come up with a
"better" plan. I do believe that the SETI folk are interested but like me
they lack in knowledge and experience. The OP asked for someone to stimulate
the group and I think a discussion of the weaknesses in the current search
is stimulating.
SETI lacks funding because the funding process (my experience is in NIH
but I think NSF is about the same) involves rating a bunch of projects and
then handing out the available money to the ones with the highest ranks.
Let>s be clear on that, SETI, when rated by fairly competent scientists, is
rated lower than other projects. SETI is fundamentally weak and isn>t likely
to get funded.
SETI is creating a catalog of odd radio signals. I imagine that
eventually a thesis or two will come of this. So this is not a worthless
project but I don>t believe that it will ever achieve the "advertised"
outcome. If you like being a part of SETI feel free to continue, it will
produce something. And it>s a pretty harmless hobby.
I>m not being deft in avoiding your request for a better SETI plan, I
don>t have one. I know nothing about silicon life and so I would not search
for it. If it showed up and I recognized it I might develop a plan to study
it. Some science gets done by noticing weird results while doing your
experiments and then following up. And to give SETI it>s due, a lot of
science got done while looking for "vital forces".

Dave M.

I was not trying to be ornery, I too was trying to create some[/quote]
activity in this newsgroup. Please forgive me if the way I said what I
said was unseemly. I too have no idea of how to go about another way
to search, nor good ideas about where to search, or what 'other' might
be better. I do participate in Seti and occasionally other projects
when Seti runs out of work. I think doing something is better than
doing nothing and until a better is developed, I am crunching for
Seti.

David Martel · Guest

George,

You did not in any way offend me and I did not find your question
"ornery".
We humans have a strong urge to "do something" even when we have no idea
what to do. And saying "I haven>t a clue" is often regarded as an indication
of stupidity rather than as an indication of wisdom. You are welcome to
regard me as clueless.
I think the OP was right, this newsgroup is pretty dead. Did BOINC kill
it? Is there a BOINC group?

Dave M.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - SETI Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2