I was wondering, the longer we search signals with seti is there a point of time that make the Drake equation no longer valid?

---

I was wondering, the longer we search signals with seti is there a point of time that make the Drake equation no longer valid?

you have also to look here

http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=1295595

this is very interesting, and they say also somethink of the Drake equation

Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli

The eternal question.....

The Fermi Paradox sums it up:
The commonly held belief that the universe has many technologically advanced civilizations, combined with our lack of observational evidence to support that view, is paradoxical. Either this assumption is incorrect - and intelligent life is much rarer than we believe - or our current observations are flawed or otherwise incomplete.

My interpretation of this this that our observations are flawed. Note, I do not say Seti@Home is flawed, but that searching on the hydrogen line, although technically sound, is too restrictive.

On the otherhand, the technology and computing power required to separate out terrestial leakage from extraterestrial sources at non-hydrogen line frequencies may be beyond us at present.

Also, consider that communicating via manufactured electromagnetic radiation may not bear fruit. In this respect we perhaps have to have a small twist on the Drake equation: able and willing to communicate versus mankind able to detect.

---

I was wondering, the longer we search signals with seti is there a point of time that make the Drake equation no longer valid?

Personally, I don't beleive in the Big Bang. Early in 2004, there were a couple of articles about the deep space pictures revealing stars so far out that their existence in that form invalidated the current Big Bang model. I have references for it but not where I am atm. Anyhow, the model is constantly revised and has yet been correct. To get to the point, I beleive in a stable universe where the age is undeterminable. Thus, Drakes Equation holds no water with a possibility of infinite time.

---

TEAM
LL

I was wondering, the longer we search signals with seti is there a point of time that make the Drake equation no longer valid?

Personally, I don't beleive in the Big Bang. Early in 2004, there were a couple of articles about the deep space pictures revealing stars so far out that their existence in that form invalidated the current Big Bang model. I have references for it but not where I am atm. Anyhow, the model is constantly revised and has yet been correct. To get to the point, I beleive in a stable universe where the age is undeterminable. Thus, Drakes Equation holds no water with a possibility of infinite time.

We can't see individual stars anywhere near far enough away to invalidate the big bang model, particularly since massive stars can form over a period of only a couple million years. What we can see are galaxies. I do remember some excitement over an extremely distance fully developed spiral galaxy not too long ago. However, theories of galaxy formation are still pretty speculative; so, seeing something that disagree with them cannot be an indictment of the big bang model.

If you're going to propose a steady state universe of sorts, there are three things you have to be able to explain before anyone even thinks of taking you seriously.

1) Why do we observe a very strong correlation between the distance to a galaxy and the redshift of light coming from it? This is usually taken as direct evidence that the universe is expanding.

2) What is the cosmic microwave background radiation? The CMB is usually understood as the remnant radition from recombination - the time when atoms first formed, making the universe transparent, so that light could freely propage for the first time.

3) Why is the sky dark (Olber's paradox)? In an infinitely old universe, light has time to propage to us from any distance; so do we see most of the sky as dark? The usual answer to this is that light has only been propagating for a finite time, so our sky is only lit by light from the closest 13.7 billion light years.

---

We can't see individual stars anywhere near far enough away to invalidate the big bang model, particularly since massive stars can form over a period of only a couple million years. What we can see are galaxies. I do remember some excitement over an extremely distance fully developed spiral galaxy not too long ago. However, theories of galaxy formation are still pretty speculative; so, seeing something that disagree with them cannot be an indictment of the big bang model.

If you're going to propose a steady state universe of sorts, there are three things you have to be able to explain before anyone even thinks of taking you seriously.

1) Why do we observe a very strong correlation between the distance to a galaxy and the redshift of light coming from it? This is usually taken as direct evidence that the universe is expanding.

2) What is the cosmic microwave background radiation? The CMB is usually understood as the remnant radition from recombination - the time when atoms first formed, making the universe transparent, so that light could freely propage for the first time.

3) Why is the sky dark (Olber's paradox)? In an infinitely old universe, light has time to propage to us from any distance; so do we see most of the sky as dark? The usual answer to this is that light has only been propagating for a finite time, so our sky is only lit by light from the closest 13.7 billion light years.

They take pictures for 10 days or something. They can see fairly far back in time. Anyhow,

Article1

Article2


1) The current model is flawed. There is an answer to this. I'm waiting on my copyright :)

2)The number exists but is possibly misinterpreted as different models point elsewhere, i.e. I don't quite understand what it means yet. My biggest problem is that the background radiation is treated like a blackbody radiation. This is ridiculous because there is no body. i.e. no aether, or other physical piece radiating. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by recombination.

3)Because the redshift correlation is real.

---

TEAM
LL

They take pictures for 10 days or something. They can see fairly far back in time. Anyhow,

Article1

Article2

Okay, this is what I thought you were referring to. As I said above, this doesn't really challenge the big bang model itself, only the models of galaxy and large scale structure formation, which occurred later.

1) The current model is flawed. There is an answer to this. I'm waiting on my copyright :)

No offense, but this isn't much of an answer.

2)The number exists but is possibly misinterpreted as different models point elsewhere, i.e. I don't quite understand what it means yet. My biggest problem is that the background radiation is treated like a blackbody radiation. This is ridiculous because there is no body. i.e. no aether, or other physical piece radiating. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by recombination.

Let me see if I can explain more clearly.

The big bang model predicts that the universe started at an extremely high temperature, and has progressively cooled as it expanded. The initial temperature was so high that what we consider fundamental particles could not exist stably, and instead the universe was dominated by radiation. As the universe cooled, it reached a point where these particles could form faster than they could annihilate. However, bound states between them were still unstable. So, at this point the universe was full of unbound charged particles, with which radiation strongly interacts. It was only when the universe cooled enough for stable (neutral) atoms to form that radiation could propagate long distances without being scattered by free charged particles. This event is known as recombination.

The radiation we see as the cosmic microwave background is radiation that has propagated freely since recombination. The reason we can treat this as blackbody radiation is that the matter in the universe was at a very nearly uniform temperature at recombination; and, since the radiation had been scattering on short distance scales compared with any large variation in temperature, it was thermalized with the matter. Hence, once it could propagate freely, it kept a blackbody spectrum at the temperature of the (now recombined) matter.

Over the time since then, the radiation has been redshifted by the expansion of space by a factor of about 1000. However, when you redshift a blackbody spectrum, you get a lower temperature blackbody spectrum; so we see it as having a blackbody spectrum at about 2.3 degrees Kelvin.

3)Because the redshift correlation is real.

How does this resolve Olber's paradox?

---

There was another one that I was thinking of but I don't have a reference for it. It was a bit more specific.

1) And you're not going to really get a better answer about the model until I get my copyright done. I really want to start spewing my opinions here but I won't allow it.

2) Basically, there is another possible solution to this, I have not been working on it although, I have examined it. I've been concentrating on other bits and pieces that go along with (1). As this goes along with (1), it's not necessarily the most interesting to me. Not to mention, I don't get paid to study this. The last actual physics class that I took was back in '96, I think. The biggest problem that I have with the big bang, is that why was all the energy was concentrated at one spot. For me this would be equivelent to setting up a reaction and the only way to get it to go was to add all the energy of the universe into it or add a catalyst that lets the reaction occur at the energy of 1 electron. Having set up my reaction, I add my catalyst and upon working it up, I obtaining a product. Now, when I sit down and write my paper, I report that it took the full energy of the universe to react. Implausible as it may seem, somehow everyone buys into it because it's neat and clean and requires little thought. It's even a bit facinating even if it happened everywhere at once.

I read one time about why light didn't simply pass matter up, but I forget why that was... I simply seems to me that there might be another more logical source that simply has not been thought of publicly. Truly new and novel ideas are difficult to come by.

3) This befuddles me a bit but I still don't buy into the big bang explanation. I've heard the argument that if it were infinite, then the light would get absorbed and reemitted in all directions and thus it would be infinitely bright. But someone forgot to add infinite space for the light to occupy. How can you limit the size of the box if you make the universe infinite? Classical calculus problem, "which infinity wins, the numerator or the denominator?" Why would an infintely old universe necessarily be infinte in size? If it weren't that would solve the problem. I fully believe in a stable universe, but that aside I also believe in the possibility of multiple universes (not parallel and not in the strictest definition). With multiple universes, it could turn into a boundry problem where size and content are finite. Oih. Universe is everything. The general way I look at it is that it goes: planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. Galaxys have boundries and seperation from one another. Perhaps there is another division between galaxy and universe that provides another boundry. Too many unknowns and the Big Bang model does not perfectly resolve it but does provide one possible explanation.


The world being flat seem logical to most people at one time. It was simple and concise.

---

TEAM
LL

1) And you're not going to really get a better answer about the model until I get my copyright done. I really want to start spewing my opinions here but I won't allow it.

I make no claim to have originally devised what I say below, so copyright won't be an issue for me :-)

2) Basically, there is another possible solution to this, I have not been working on it although, I have examined it. I've been concentrating on other bits and pieces that go along with (1). As this goes along with (1), it's not necessarily the most interesting to me. Not to mention, I don't get paid to study this. The last actual physics class that I took was back in '96, I think. The biggest problem that I have with the big bang, is that why was all the energy was concentrated at one spot. For me this would be equivelent to setting up a reaction and the only way to get it to go was to add all the energy of the universe into it or add a catalyst that lets the reaction occur at the energy of 1 electron. Having set up my reaction, I add my catalyst and upon working it up, I obtaining a product. Now, when I sit down and write my paper, I report that it took the full energy of the universe to react. Implausible as it may seem, somehow everyone buys into it because it's neat and clean and requires little thought. It's even a bit facinating even if it happened everywhere at once.

I read one time about why light didn't simply pass matter up, but I forget why that was... I simply seems to me that there might be another more logical source that simply has not been thought of publicly. Truly new and novel ideas are difficult to come by.

The other way to produce the effect of a Universe that appears to be expanding is to be in a Universe that is contracting. Some models predicted that in the contraction phase of a "Pulse" Universe, time would appear reversed to creatures that rely upon electrochemical reactions to perceive time and memory. Stephen Hawking cites the reason why these models are wrong in his book "A Brief History of Time" (he had originally supported one of those models). Most cosmologists are convinced that we exist in the expansion phase of the Universe (which of course relies upon either the Big Bang or the Pulse model as a starting point).

3) This befuddles me a bit but I still don't buy into the big bang explanation. I've heard the argument that if it were infinite, then the light would get absorbed and reemitted in all directions and thus it would be infinitely bright. But someone forgot to add infinite space for the light to occupy. How can you limit the size of the box if you make the universe infinite? Classical calculus problem, "which infinity wins, the numerator or the denominator?" Why would an infintely old universe necessarily be infinte in size? If it weren't that would solve the problem. I fully believe in a stable universe, but that aside I also believe in the possibility of multiple universes (not parallel and not in the strictest definition). With multiple universes, it could turn into a boundry problem where size and content are finite. Oih. Universe is everything. The general way I look at it is that it goes: planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. Galaxys have boundries and seperation from one another. Perhaps there is another division between galaxy and universe that provides another boundry. Too many unknowns and the Big Bang model does not perfectly resolve it but does provide one possible explanation.

Galaxies are grouped into clusters, and clusters into superclusters. Deep-sky observations indicates that superclusters are arranged in comingled "sheets" that resemble foam or sponge material. Big Bang and Pulse models that cannot predict this large-scale texture are rejected to failing to match observations.

My understanding of the infinity of the Universe is that it is the 3-D surface of an expanding 4-D hypersphere. Whether the hypersphere is "hollow" or not is a completely different matter, and nothing in current science contradicts the idea that more than one of these hyperspheres could exist. No one is sure what would happen if two of them intersected.

For anyone not familiar with hyperspheres, imagine a normal 3-D sphere. The surface of this sphere is a 2-D region. As a 2-D inhabitant on this 2-D region, you can travel for an infinite distance in any direction without meeting an edge... but a finite number of "breadcrumbs" could occupy the entire region. Going up one dimension, a 3-D region that happens to be the surface of a hypersphere would allow 3-D inhabitants to go an infinite distance in any 3-D direction, but a finite number of "breadcrumbs" could still fill the entire space.

In the case of our Universe, it is more than 13.7 billion light-years in circumference, so we see the Cosmic Background Radiation is all directions. Think again of the 2-D inhabitant on the surface of a sphere. Now the sphere is expanding. It started from zero, one hundred years ago, and expanded its radius at lightspeed. The circumference is now 628 lightyears, but the inhabitant cannot see anything beyond 100 lightyears. The limit of his vision extends in all dimensions that he can perceive, but only out to that radius. Our intrepid inhabitant can walk toward that limit (in any direction he chooses), but if he's moving slower than light speed he'll never reach the limit nor will he ever make it all the way around to his starting point. Furthermore, an object 1 lightyear away would appear to be receeding from the inhabitant, and an object 50 lightyears away would seem to be going away faster... redshifts similar to the observed Universe.

The implication for dark skies is that the Universe would eventually fill up with light if space was not expanding. It would take a really long time (light would have to "wrap around" the Universe several times), but if the Universe is infinite in age then it would have happened by now. In an expanding Universe, light would need to be produced at a high enough rate to overtake the expansion. That is, the hypersphere's radius needs to expand at less than c/pi.

The world being flat seem logical to most people at one time. It was simple and concise.

Maps are still flat. It's a "good enough" description for everyday use, but it doesn't match with all observations.

(edit for formatting)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Galaxies are grouped into clusters, and clusters into superclusters. Deep-sky observations indicates that superclusters are arranged in comingled "sheets" that resemble foam or sponge material. Big Bang and Pulse models that cannot predict this large-scale texture are rejected to failing to match observations.

I would really love to see articles or papers that specifically address this. And the publications that the findings are in.

---

TEAM
LL

Galaxies are grouped into clusters, and clusters into superclusters. Deep-sky observations indicates that superclusters are arranged in comingled "sheets" that resemble foam or sponge material. Big Bang and Pulse models that cannot predict this large-scale texture are rejected to failing to match observations.

I would really love to see articles or papers that specifically address this. And the publications that the findings are in.

For starters, peruse the Wikipedia article on the large-scale structure of the cosmos and the linked articles. One of those describes a Quasi Steady State model.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

---

TEAM
LL