PDA

View Full Version : SETI


Cacophonix
12th Sep 2013, 08:58
The news that John Billingham has died (long after the sadly departed Carl Sagan) got me to wondering about our place on this unfashionable arm of a nondescript galaxy...

John Billingham - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10302934/John-Billingham.html)

Is their anybody out there and even if there was could we, over the heart breaking eons of time and space, be able to communicate with them?

Would they want to communicate with us and if they did would it be a good idea for us to do so...?

So many questions, so little communication or answers....

PINK FLOYD - Is there anybody out there? - YouTube

Caco

tony draper
12th Sep 2013, 09:18
There may not even be a 'out there' out there.:uhoh:

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 10:38
1905, Einstein says travel at faster than near light speeds is impossible.
2011, Einsteins theory is questioned by experimental results at CERN and the science world then goes out of its way to disprove anything contradictory to his 106 year old theory.
2012, the science world sighs relief as it is announced that neutrinos don't go faster than light after all. This is because the most accurate measuring instruments we have ever had and their results, taken by some of the most intelligent people on the planet, have been incorrectly read.
2012+, that particular line of experimentation is closed down.

Until we realise, for example, that the headlights on a car travelling at the speed of light will in reality still produce a light beam and with the nearest potentially habitable 'planet' 20 light years away, the whole subject will end up on the hamster wheel.

The same can be said for Newtons Laws, because if you have a fan on a yacht, the air forced onto the sail will in fact propel it, when the thrd 'law' says it will remain stationary!

Mythbusters Blow your own sail full scale - YouTube


Footnote: Nowhere at this present time, are there any experimental programs being funded to explore the possibility of faster than light particles.

tony draper
12th Sep 2013, 10:46
Ere surely tiz the energy supplied by the fuel working the fan that is producing the forward motion? ergo the wee yot is being acted upon by a outside force.
:uhoh:

Cacophonix
12th Sep 2013, 10:47
Silo

Within the confines and limitations of our current understanding of physics we are certainly doomed to live alone but what if there are entities out there that are able to engineer wormholes or singularities (or other hitherto undreamed of feats of galactic physics or engineering) where these laws break to down and they are thus are able to transcend these limitations in order to travel or communicate wherever they want?

Caco

mixture
12th Sep 2013, 10:52
2012, the science world sighs relief as it is announced that neutrinos don't go faster than light after all. This is because the most accurate measuring instruments we have ever had and their results, taken by some of the most intelligent people on the planet, have been incorrectly read.


Even boffins with expensive toys are merely humans and can make stupid mistakes.


The same can be said for Newtons Laws, because if you have a fan on a yacht, the air forced onto the sail will in fact propel it, when the thrd 'law' says it will remain stationary!

What does a fan on a yacht have to do with the price of eggs ? Fan, natural wind, what's the difference ? You're only emulating one with the other.

I'm no physics expert but I suspect you're choosing to selectively read Newton's third law to benefit your "argument" (in quotes because I can't make head or tail of the point you're trying to make !). I believe the concept of momentum conservation and Newton's second law also apply.

are there any experimental programs being funded to explore the possibility of faster than light particles.

How do you know, and why does it have to be funded research ? I suspect, for example lots of idle students are looking for ways to get their name in lights and are messing around in labs around the world trying to push the boundaries.

Sallyann1234
12th Sep 2013, 11:04
Until we realise, for example, that the headlights on a car travelling at the speed of light will in reality still produce a light beam

Could you explain that please?

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 11:14
Even boffins with expensive toys are merely humans and can make stupid mistakes.

The whole team that verified all the results before releasing them to the scientific community ?!

What does a fan on a yacht have to do with the price of eggs ? Fan, natural wind, what's the difference ?

According to the third law, the fan should push the yacht/dinghy the opposite way, but it doesn't!

How do you know, and why does it have to be funded research ?

Because there is none documented and in general only funded research tends to be documented before any results are published.


My point is that despite the basic purpose of Science being to increase our understanding on the physical universe, unless the theories and laws made hundreds of years ago by those such as Newton & Einstein, we will not be finding out much more about our cohabiters of the Universe.

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 11:19
Could you explain that please?

Only once you've un-explained it :ok:

tony draper
12th Sep 2013, 11:22
I would say that boat was spinning due to the torque of the fan. :)

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 11:25
I would say that boat was spinning due to the torque of the fan. :)

Clearly someone that didn't watch the whole video to see the boat travelling in a straight light with and against any wind that may have been present!

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 11:27
Well, as my opinion is that we are only here due to a whole shed full of coincidences, I respect all your opinions on the subject, however 'grasping at theoretical straws' they may seem to me. I look forward to reading them.
stardate (http://www.stoacademy.com/tools/stardate.php)

Cacophonix
12th Sep 2013, 11:52
Until we realise, for example, that the headlights on a car travelling at the speed of light will in reality still produce a light beam

I assume Silo that what you are referring to here is that within the relativistic frame of reference of a photon travelling at the speed of light (I hesitated to use the car example because of the requirement for an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a car to the speed of light) then if another photon is emitted it will appear to travel away at the speed of light...

Caco

TURIN
12th Sep 2013, 12:04
Even if there are little green men out there, the chances that they will exist in the same miniscule time frame as us are, if you'll pardon the pun, astronomical.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

ExRAFRadar
12th Sep 2013, 13:49
Always amazes me that people think Newton/Einstein are wrong is some respect.

Seriously, an entire generation of Physicists have somehow all got it wrong and someone on a website has the real truth.

Newton's Laws work incredibly well where v is much less than c.

As v approaches c we need to move to Einstein's equations for an even greater precision. The problem of the precession of Mercury for example could not be explained with Newtonian mechanics alone.

Your Tom-Tom would not work with enough precision if Relativity was not factored into the GPS constellations clocks.

And do not get fixated on the Speed of Light. Light travels at c because it has no mass. It was Maxwell who proved electromagnetic fields have a fixed speed. Einstein took the equations of Maxwell at face value and asked what-if....

Light just happens to travel at the Universal maximum speed.

So the 2 basic postulates of Relativity, that the speed of light is a constant and that no Inertial frame of reference has any superior point of view to any other, which have been proven so many times, means those chaps who said Relativity might be wrong were just that, wrong.

Now if you want a real thing that cannot be explained with Relativity see Quantum Entanglement. As the man himself said "Spooky action at a distance"

Quantum entanglement shows that reality can?t be local | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/quantum-entanglement-shows-that-reality-cant-be-local/)

But just because Relativity itself cannot explain the above does not make it wrong.

It itself may just be a 'Special Condition' of a larger reality.

Google Flatland for those who want to read something different

rgbrock1
12th Sep 2013, 14:29
Gobona wrote:

Don't need to. If FTL travel is possible, reverse time-travel is possible

Oh good god no. That would mean I could re-experience the "thrill" of being married to my ex again.

I think I'll shoot myself now.

cattletruck
12th Sep 2013, 14:53
To higher life forms than us, I would think the only aliens who would show an interest in us mere Earthlings are those that want to add us to their private collection of interplanetary species.

I wonder how much a human sells for on U-bay? Anyone know the URL?

tony draper
12th Sep 2013, 14:56
Don't think backward time travel is possible,all the atoms and molecules elements and minerals that make up your body are already being used elsewhere ,no problem like that traveling forward in time though,we are all doing that right now.
:)

Lonewolf_50
12th Sep 2013, 14:59
Putting the kybosh on reverse time-travel, of course, is the fact that no-one from the future has come back to our present.Why would they want to? The chicks are hotter and hornier in the future. :E
Is their anybody out there and even if there was could we, over the heart breaking eons of time and space, be able to communicate with them?

Would they want to communicate with us and if they did would it be a good idea for us to do so...?o many questions, so little communication or answers.
Send more Chuck Berry. ;)

rgbrock1
12th Sep 2013, 15:01
LW50 wrote:

Why would they want to? The chicks are hotter and hornier in the future. :E

From the 1st lesson in Slasher-ism 101. :E

MagnusP
12th Sep 2013, 15:21
The chicks are hotter and hornier in the future.

. . . and by the time I get there, I'll be too old to do anything about it. :{

Flap 5
12th Sep 2013, 15:56
SETI is unlikely to work. Our own galaxy is 120,000 light years across. The average distance of possible stars with life orbiting them would be around 40,000 light years away. The next nearest galaxy (Andromeda) is around 2.5 million light years away.

Any message travelling at the speed of light could not be replied to anyway. The senders would be long gone by the time the reply got back to their location. And that location would have changed by several light years when the reply did arrive.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Sep 2013, 16:26
unlikely to work

as long as at least one factor in the Drake equation remains a complete unknown, the outcome of SETI is equally unknown.

Unlikely is not a reasonable statement, in probability or reality terms.

Personally, I think it's worth a punt.

SilsoeSid
12th Sep 2013, 20:46
"A Message from Earth (AMFE) is a high-powered digital radio signal that was sent on 9 October 2008 towards Gliese 581 c, a large terrestrial extrasolar planet orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581."
A Message From Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Message_From_Earth)


Apart from my hope that they sent a pre-message message to indicate the frequency to listen out on, I hope 'they' have the right software to understand it all. I find that at times it is difficult enough to convert a .docx file to a .doc in order to run it on a slightly older 'puter. In addition, despite it being the most common file on t'internet, has anyone found a decent flv player/converter :bored:

501 of the submitted text messages, photographs and drawings were selected to be transmitted in the digital time capsule. These messages were on various topics, such as the contributors' own lives and ambitions, world peace and views of the Earth.


I wonder if they sent any vid files ...

http://img.brightcove.com/warning-update-flash.jpg

BabyBear
12th Sep 2013, 20:54
Is it not the case that Einstein's theory holds true as the speed of light is approached and actually works if the speed of light is exceeded, with the getting through the speed of light being the problem?


BB

G-CPTN
12th Sep 2013, 20:56
Exacckerly!

My daughter encourages me to digitize my collection of photographic prints that date back to the very early 20th Century.

Currently, these prints are decipherable using the Mark I Eyeball interpreted by any human brain (and, maybe, any animal brain), whereas I ha' ma doots whether the technology to decode CDs, DVDs, hard drives, flash-cards or flash drives will endure long enough for digitised photographs to survive.

As I have stated, finding a box of prints will alert the finder to their significance, whereas finding a pile of CDs will not be the same - who knows whether the CDs contain images or text?

s e t h
12th Sep 2013, 21:14
what always amazes me is how we can peer back only 200 years to discover the brains of the day had barely 10% of the knowledge/technology we have today...yet today all the scieltists and armchair 'brains' think we're smart enough to understand all the laws of the universe...:rolleyes:

mikedreamer787
12th Sep 2013, 22:07
Oh ye of 20th century sublight cretinism....

Roll on 23rd century!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMFb9_PSSF8XzZE4vbd_R-ssXVoxoSPmZevbT3Nw1iLPQm0SX2

Warp 9.9 has been defined as 1,909c in case you didn't
know.

B Fraser
12th Sep 2013, 22:11
Always amazes me that people think Newton/Einstein are wrong is some respect

There are a cult of wuckfits out there who deny Darwinism.

I'm sure that Newton and Einstein would be pleased to be proven wrong as science is self-testing and it would mean that our knowledge had moved forwards. Einstein does actually prove that Newton is not entirely correct but on a universal scale that was unimaginable to Newton.

Newton's laws are quite sufficient for a journey to the planets and that's good enough for most people.

mikedreamer787
12th Sep 2013, 22:21
Right on BF.

I remember a plumb bob experiment deep in a mine years
ago and the bobbers of the plumb were out to disprove
Newton. The plumb was out by a few poofteenths and
they thought they'd proved old Isaac wrong. Turns out
they didn't take into account the local gravity generated
by a nearby hill. When they did Newton's equation was
spot on to the last decimal point.

er340790
12th Sep 2013, 22:33
They're all wrong... and the earth is flat.

(Trust me, I've just flown over the Prairies! :E)

dead_pan
12th Sep 2013, 22:34
Back to the original thread topic, there's an excellent book on the subject by a guy called Seth Shostak called "Confessions of an Alien Hunter". I found it in my local library a few years back and took it out half-expecting it to be some crap about Roswell or whatever. Turns out it was most excellent with some great background on SETI (where Shostak worked before and after it was closed down by NASA and then resurrected by the billionaire Paul Alen), the Drake equation etc. The final chapter was particularly thought-provoking and elegaic....

Flap 5
13th Sep 2013, 08:17
If we do receive a message from 'out there' we will only know that there was some sort of intelligent life there some tens of thousands of years ago. It would interest archaeologists but would be of no interest to those who would like to make contact.

In fact messages may be arriving all the time. We may just not have the technology to recognise them. After all the Voyager probe, which has just left the solar system, has information on it which even we would now have difficulty in playing back. And Voyager was only launched 36 years ago.

radeng
13th Sep 2013, 09:59
The cynic in me suggests that we are more likely to find an alien intelligence than intelligence in many of the dim sh*ts we have running the various countries.

mikedreamer787
13th Sep 2013, 11:23
They're all wrong... and the earth is flat.

And gravity is all bullshit - the Earth sucks.

SilsoeSid
13th Sep 2013, 22:07
Once it has reached its destination, how do you stop a spacecraft that is travelling at the speed of light + ?

mikedreamer787
13th Sep 2013, 23:05
Ask Mr Sulu for sublight speed and assume standard orbit.

SilsoeSid
13th Sep 2013, 23:58
I'm guessing 'Assume a standard orbit Mr Sulu' meant something different back then :ooh:

Family Guy - Sulu - Hellooooo (http://youtu.be/ewLLIJypQ20)

ehwatezedoing
14th Sep 2013, 04:39
If I remember well, Stephen Hawking is warning us not to talk to aliens.
"I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America. Which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans."

:E

-----------
About sciences, it kind of started with Archimedes.
Then Newton showed up.
And then Einstein.
Those are the three big ones in my restricted view.

Now we need another Ninja Genius who would go wayyyy further than Einstein himself.
Since it took 200 years after F=ma for the Earth to pop up with E=MC2....

I wouldn't hold my breath for the next stage :p
But something will eventually come up, something that will shatter our foundations. We just won't be there when it will happen.


By the way, fascinating thing this theory about:
Holographic Universe (http://keelynet.com/biology/reality.htm)

SilsoeSid
18th Sep 2013, 10:27
Always amazes me that people think Newton/Einstein are wrong is some respect

There are a cult of wuckfits out there who deny Darwinism.

"In 1850 he (Léon Foucault) conducted a ground-breaking experiment that was viewed as “driving the last nail in the coffin” of Newton’s corpuscle theory of light, when it proved light travels more slowly through water than through air."

Google Doodle celebrates French physicist Léon Foucault's 194th birthday. (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-doodle-celebrates-french-physicist-lon-foucaults-194th-birthday-with-pendulum-tribute-8822360.html)

"Newton's theory remained in force for more than 100 years and took precedence over Huygens' wave front theory, partly because of Newton’s great prestige."

Corpuscular theory of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light)

SilsoeSid
18th Sep 2013, 10:32
In cinemas from Friday 20 Sept

Hawking (http://youtu.be/if4GPgihHnI)