I Just Dont understand! Since May 17 1999 they receive 12 million results per Day!!!!! But they have failed to detect any main sequence stars with unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions. Either we are alone,or perhaps SETI uses the wrong method to detect them.

---

please see all the other threads that are started with the same motif for pro and con arguments.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

they have failed to detect any main sequence stars with unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions

They are not looking unusually bright star or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions.
They are searching for artificial stars with radio emission: radiation having a bandwidth more precise.
They have still not found because with the tools they can afford now, they are only looking up to 1000 light years from earth: 1 / 100 of the Milky Way

I Just Dont understand! Since May 17 1999 they receive 12 million results per Day!!!!! But they have failed to detect any main sequence stars with unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions. Either we are alone,or perhaps SETI uses the wrong method to detect them.

It might come as a shock, but the vast, overwhelming majority of those results haven't even been analyzed yet.
The SETI@Home team is working on a process to automate result analysis ("Near-Time Persistency Checker"), but this is still in development and AFAIK probably nowhere near close to done.


Anyway, SETI@Home *ONLY* checks an extremely narrow band in radio around 1420mhz (the so-called "water hole"); this means that if ET is broadcasting at a different frequency, SETI@Home will miss it completely. There is no guarantee whatsoever that ET will broadcast at or near this specific frequency, it's essentiallly a convenient way for the team to make the search easy enough to be within their ability to tackle. Since they scan such a large portion of the sky (wherever Aricebo happens to be looking), even the distributed power of SETI@Home is simply not capable of analyzing the vast potential radio frequencies ET might be broadcasting at, so they narrow it down to a decent guess; the water hole, 1420mhz.

The SETI Institute takes a different approach; they do a narrow, targeted scan (i.e. one star at a time) but they analyze a HUGE range of frequencies.


If ET exists and is broadcasting but is not broadcasting @ 1420mhz, SETI@Home *will* miss it completely no matter how long the search goes on.

If ET exists and is broadcasting, the SETI Institute *will* eventually detect the signal no matter what frequency it's at (so long as it's within microwave range), the downside is that it could much, much longer time since their approach is essentially star-by-star. However, their method is aided by the accelerating advancement of technology, which makes their search exponentially faster as time goes on.

The SETI@Home team is also aided by technology insofar as its ability to thoroughly and quickly analyze results more quickly; but as long as their ONLY looking @ 1420mhz, their method might be doomed to failure if ET is not broadcasting at that frequency.

IF ET is broadcasting to Earth, the SETI Institute and ATA are the best long-term bet for detecting the signal first. SETI@Home's success would just be down to luck.

Of course, the initial premise could be wrong entirely, in which case neither method will ever succeed no matter how much time passes;
i.e. ET is not transmitting a radio signal to Earth.

It is absolutely plausible that ET is not transmitting a radio signal to Earth, in which case the universe could well be filled with et civilizations that might as well be invisible to us.

Another aspect of this (that's been well explored in the past) is whether ET would even sit there broadcasting away their position in the galaxy at all. As we've seen in our own past, more advanced civilizations, when encountering ones less so, tend not to treat them well. Africa, North and South America have plenty of examples of that.

Rachet that up to the galactic scale and would ET, in the very early stages of technological sophistication, begin telling the greater universe "here I am and ripe for the picking?"

I can imagine a public debate here on our own mote of dust kicking up, should we actually encounter the real deal in a SETI signal. Once we had calmed down, would we, as a relatively primitive society technologically, want to be broadcasting our location to the ET pirates of the space/time continuum?!

Remember, vote for Kang!

Regards,

---

[quote]I Just Dont understand! Since May 17 1999 they receive 12 million results per Day!!!!! But they have failed to detect any main sequence stars with unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions. Either we are alone,or perhaps SETI uses the wrong method to detect them.

It might come as a shock, but the vast, overwhelming majority of those results haven't even been analyzed yet.
The SETI@Home team is working on a process to automate result analysis ("Near-Time Persistency Checker"), but this is still in development and AFAIK probably nowhere near close to done.




What is AFAIK?

AFAIK = As Far As I Know

---

.... Sometimes it happens! He was thinking 1420MHz, the frequency of hydrogen, present in most of the universe, could be a common fact that on that frequency could be us and them (ET) if they had had a technological level equal to ours. I see no problem, mistakes are made when errors are.
[/img]

I'm not able to see you a triplets image that i have.Sorry!

---

What is the current research situation? Some time ago one was talking about an important discovery in the center of Sethi at Bologna In Italy.Is my avatar an image of three important signals? Thanks for the attention.

So SETI guys believe that we will have a proof of ET civiliztions between the years 2015-2025.
Do you beleive that this is a realistic timeline?

I'm not certain how you could put a timeline on such a thing. I think we'll find it when we find it and no sooner.

---

It is a timeline based on Drake equation. Seth Shostak said that once.

I think the Drake equation is a) too pessimistic and b) just a guess.

---

Most people dont understand how VAST out universe really is patronangel. Here is a link that i think you should look at. our search has just started !


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100120.html

---

Cyrax_Darkmual@yahoo.com
Cyrax Darkmaul 94th Druid. Mob Killer
life is not measured by the breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath.

The Drake equation needs to be revamped. Mainly added to.

1. What percentage of of planetary systems have an Outer Giant to deflect comets and meteors from the inner planet that harbours life.

2. What percentage of habitable planets will have nearly circular orbits so that seasons will not create excessively hot and cold climates. Highly eccentric orbits may lead to crossing orbits and flinging planets away from the progenitor star.

3. What percentage of habitable planets will have a large moon that will stabilize the habitable planet's spin and create tides.

4. What percentage of solar systems will have a supply of comets to bring water to newly formed planets.

There may be many other conditions essential for life. The problem with the Drake equation used to be the infinite estimation uncertainty of each of the components--these are perhaps slowly being clarified by things like the Hubble and other space telescopes.

I used to think that habitable planets abounded in the universe, Now I am not so sure. With perhaps only 1000 stars within 100 lightyears from earth I am in despair of eavesdropping on that other civilization out there which needs a whole bunch of probabilities to line up in order to do so.

If you had -say-16 requirements for life and each one were -say- 10% probable then one out of every 10 quadrillion stars might be a candidate for life. So we are running out of stars--certainly in our Galaxy. So I ask, how many conditions must exist for the development of intelligent life--then you can add the conditions for detection of same.

It's still fun to listen; but, keep your eyes wide open --after all I still play the lottery--a losing game to be sure.

What do you all think

The problem with adding too many factors to the Drake Equation is that you run the risk of simply trying to work out the probability of getting EXACTLY the Earth, twice.

kinhull

---

Join TeamACC

Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we are not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

they have failed to detect any main sequence stars with unusually bright or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions

They are not looking unusually bright star or meaningfully repetitive radio emissions.
They are searching for artificial stars with radio emission: radiation having a bandwidth more precise.
They have still not found because with the tools they can afford now, they are only looking up to 1000 light years from earth: 1 / 100 of the Milky Way

Wow! Only 1000 light years out. Since this particular universe is 13.7 billion years old, it really hits home how difficult a task it is to find ET. I am delighted to be a part of the search even if my only contribution is to find where ET is not.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

The best reason is "No bucks, No Buck Rogers" from the Right Stuff. Here on earth we have a hard time finding the money to look for ET. Other than a few short transmissions, we are not broadcasting a signal for ET to find. That's why we can look around the watering hole because we are not broadcasting there ourselves. I suspect ET has the same funding issues that we do and would have other things to do with their money. However, we might get luck and find someone who places looking for others high and is willing to spend the money needed to transmit a signal we can detect. They would be interesting to know.

---

Steven Hawking believes there is life out there.

Who am I to doubt him?

---

Fortymile Photo

I believe the Drake Equation was originally created to encourage debate and thinking about ETI and what we might need to detect it. Beyond that I don't think it serves any useful purpose - at the end of the day we can get whatever probabilities we want out of the equation, we would still need to locate life and intelligence (if we are lucky).

The parameters might help us hone in on where and what to look out for, but since we have at the moment no real idea of what they may be like (we don't even have incontrovertible proof of microbes), we are simply going to have to wait until we discover something before we can start plugging numbers in (aswell as changing some of the factors that initially seemed relevant but may no longer be).

In terms of finding microbes, I don't think it matters too much if Martian microbes (for example) turn out originally to have come from Earth (or vice versa), it would show that microbes can live off the Earth - even if temporarily.

---

Join TeamACC

Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we are not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.