C2C - June 04 2005 - David Sereda & John Hutchison

Here's a part from a very interesting interview with Ufologist David Sereda and John Hutchison hosted by Art Bell...Listen what David has to say about "Why the SETI telescopes can't locate a signal?" (01:24/09:56)

>>> Link

So, what do you think?

C2C - June 04 2005 - David Sereda & John Hutchison

Here's a part from a very interesting interview with Ufologist David Sereda and John Hutchison hosted by Art Bell...Listen what David has to say about "Why the SETI telescopes can't locate a signal?" (01:24/09:56)

>>> Link

So, what do you think?

Gee, and here I was thinking it was that we haven't analysed the data yet, when really I should have been talking to my mustard with microwaves...

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Gee, and here I was thinking it was that we haven't analysed the data yet, when really I should have been talking to my mustard with microwaves...

I don't know...maybe? :] I've heard about the 'WOW Signal' but were there any others? I'm kinda new to SETI, I run it on my computer everyday since I learned about SETI@HOME so I don't really know if you guys found something interesting before that. :)

I don't know...maybe? :] I've heard about the 'WOW Signal' but were there any others? I'm kinda new to SETI, I run it on my computer everyday since I learned about SETI@HOME so I don't really know if you guys found something interesting before that. :)

In my limited understanding:
For seti@home it breaks down to, yes we have been crunching workunits for years, however limited funding has meant potential signals sitting in the database haven't been really examined for more candidates to be further investigated. So seti@home users may have crunched and located many extraterrestrial intelligent signals, or none.

Hopes are that in the not too distant future the 'Near Real Time Persistancy Checking' will come online meaning interesting areas of the sky will grab attention sooner.

I am slightly dubious about anyone claiming seti projects cannot succeed on 'scientific grounds' that base their hypothesis on that we have looked and found nothing. In essence we haven't even properly looked yet. IMHO There simply hasn't been enough of the sky closely and completely examined over time to come to those conclusions, and such signals may infact have already been 'found' but not investigated yet.
[For example: If you went to a main road near me and left an automatic camera, and examined a small portion of the photos taken at night, you could quickly draw conclusions that there are no such thing as cars, or we have no hope of ever finding cars in the optical range. It's better to have a complete data set, or at least a statistically significant population of data, and analyse it against hypotheses before drawing conclusions]

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

On the other hand, what is the likelihood of receiving a signal versus the likelihood of ETI's capabilities to travel interstellar distances?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

On the other hand, what is the likelihood of receiving a signal versus the likelihood of ETI's capabilities to travel interstellar distances?

Well some might argue that receiving a signal still lies within the bounds of physics as we know it, while [FTL] interstellar travel does not. Yet the very physics bounding that travel, yields paradoxes and singularities that must be 'ironed out' before it could be considered complete... so for now it seems anything is still possible :D

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Without taking ten minutes to listen to that guy talk (I aint got time for that - they couldve printed it out where one couldve gotten the gist in a minute) I can give a possible explanation: There aren't any aliens out there. Or, they're so far away that their signal is just too weak to get here. The distances are almost inexplicably large and those signals have to be powerful, narrowband and focused to reach us. The chances that a civilization has its beacons directed to us, at the right frequency, and we detect them is almost infinitesimally small. Still, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to put out many beacons of many frequencies if it keeps shooting them out. Maybe it doesn't want to waste its time shooting beacons, because the people, animals, or whatever sending them out would be dead before they would receive any (highly improbable) response. Maybe that's the reason we're not sending any space signal out (at least yet).

---

Maybe that's the reason we're not sending any space signal out (at least yet).

Well, we are, and have been since the mid 30's. Yes, granted, not very powerful and not aimed in any particular area, but we've been transmitting ever since.

---

Maybe that's the reason we're not sending any space signal out (at least yet).

Well, we are, and have been since the mid 30's. Yes, granted, not very powerful and not aimed in any particular area, but we've been transmitting ever since.

Hitler was our first ambassador to outer space.

C2C - June 04 2005 - David Sereda & John Hutchison

Here's a part from a very interesting interview with Ufologist David Sereda and John Hutchison hosted by Art Bell...Listen what David has to say about "Why the SETI telescopes can't locate a signal?" (01:24/09:56)

>>> Link

So, what do you think?

Gee, and here I was thinking it was that we haven't analysed the data yet, when really I should have been talking to my mustard with microwaves...

This Link is unworthy of serious scientific thinking. On the topic though--We probably have to conclude that there are no spurious emissions from intelligent civilizations out to 10 and probably beyond light years --perhaps as far as 100 light years. There really aren't that many stars out to this distance.

What about a beamed beacon --perhaps if there were one it could be detected out to another order of magnitude of distance. I suspect that, at the realities of antennas and probable maximum power transmission, we are now essentially listening only for such beacons. I say this because we have not heard (detected ?) any spurious signals --radar, TV, Radio etc.

Yet here we sit on earth not beaming any beacon information at promising targets. It seems to me that it may be that we have to do this and then wait a few 100 years or so for a beamed response back. So when do we start? What do you think? --Am I right in my numbers on how far out we can detect mega watt radars and TV stations ?? Comments please--

---

I don't think any unfocused signal's gonna get very far. It would take divine intervention to detect "I Love Lucy" signals, now out at some 46-56 light-years out (Oct 1951- Sept 1961). Besides their being almost omnidirectional, they were weak and relatively broadband. We'll have to plan the best signal and never expect a response, especially in our lifetimes.

---

This article, What Are We Looking For? by the The S.E.T.I Research & Community Development Institute Limited has some details on radio transmissions and distances.

The only high power transmissions I know of where for the DEW line and ACE High, who used tropospheric scatter. Ace High used transmitters up to 10kW and 18m {60ft) parabolic reflector antenna with mid frequency gain of 43 dB (20,000 times) over isotropic antenna. With tranmitter to anttena loss taken into account the max ERP would be less than 100 MegaWatt. These operated from early 60's to early 90's.

Andy

I keep saying it on this forum, the BIG key factor on looking for radio signals to do with SETI is not just where we look, or our technical abilities to receive detect and decipher what we might receive, but WHEN we look, which just happens to be now.

The length of time we have had access to technology is infinitesimally minuscule compared to the life of the galaxy and nearby detectable stars.

It's really down to luck at this stage.

---

*** Those who know, don't speak,
those who speak, don't know ***

I keep saying it on this forum, the BIG key factor on looking for radio signals to do with SETI is not just where we look, or our technical abilities to receive detect and decipher what we might receive, but WHEN we look, which just happens to be now.

The length of time we have had access to technology is infinitesimally minuscule compared to the life of the galaxy and nearby detectable stars.

It's really down to luck at this stage.

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.


If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.



Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).



Bill

I keep saying it on this forum, the BIG key factor on looking for radio signals to do with SETI is not just where we look, or our technical abilities to receive detect and decipher what we might receive, but WHEN we look, which just happens to be now.

The length of time we have had access to technology is infinitesimally minuscule compared to the life of the galaxy and nearby detectable stars.

It's really down to luck at this stage.

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.


If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.



Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).



Bill

As for signals that haven't been picked appart yet, if provided software tools to do so....I would be happy to work on the signals, I have plenty of experience doing such work.


Bill

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.

If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.

Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).

Bill

(My background is in satcom.)

Excellent summary. I don't even begin to speculate on alien multiplexing, let alone modulation, though. Like you said, it is a lottery game that we will stumble across a signal that doesn't appear to have originated from any natural phenomena as we currently understand them. Key phrase being, "as we currently understand them". Even if a NB "beacon" were discovered, it will still be argued whether it could have been caused by natural phenomena. Unless, of course, the second lottery is won and intelligence is able to be extracted out of the signal.

How could they be representing intelligence on such a carrier? Maybe through one of the mechanisms that we are familiar (prejudiced) with or could be something completely, pardon the pun, alien!

If they are doing any "multiplexing" or "encoding" (for efficiency) on top of that then we are in even more trouble.

My main "problem" with SETI is exactly the same as you listed: the vast distances involved. Even if they were compensating for doppler (meaning they were "targeting" their audience), they still have to deal with the ISL.

Unless they found some sort of Holy Grail with either power generation or receivers, I find it hard to believe that any civilization (no matter how advanced) would generate the amount of power necessary to "broadcast" across interstellar space only to "waste" it.

I find it easier to believe that they (Class II+ civilizations) may take advantage of naturally occurring sources of tremendous energy (pulsars, GRB's, quasars, etc). Could something be embedded within them?

Or perhaps they are using some sort of propagation that we aren't entirely familiar with yet, such as gravitational waves.

Who knows...

Fun stuff to chew on, but don't hold your breath...

--------
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!

If I were to hazard a hunch....I would suspect that if they were attempting to contact other intelligence on purpose.....I would look for an especially powerful start/stop signal. Think of morse code on crack. Though, I wouldn't try radio waves but light. I think that visible light is the most likely form of transmission.



Even with that, I feel that the possible interception of communication signals not meant for our ears to be the most likely source.


Think of our planet. If you pointed a radio telescope from a neighboring system, I think you would pick up quite a bit. Sure I believe that someone has a repeating signal setup for that purpose, but I mean all the RF that we send up.


Every time you talk to a satellite some of the uplink signal carries far beyond the satellites dish. That signal will continue until it hits something that completely absorbs said signal.


It might be bounced, weakened, sapped of strength...But I have a feeling that it carries on for quite sometime. It would be an interesting experiment to have the next NASA probe visiting pluto to carry some radio equipment. Glancing back at earth and taking a spectrum picture from far away would allow you to hazard a guess as to how much of our communications gets out of the solar system.


From this knowledge you could further study which forms survive the best the farther you go. I explained my theories in the previous posting.

Then, taking the results of that project you could tailor SETI monitoring to those frequencies. (They most likely are, but my knowledge of SETI targeting information and directions are none at all.)



Honestly, i'd like to help further. I'm currently on Camp Al Qaim Iraq fixing computers for the Marine Corps. I would like nothing better then to poke my nose in some signals and look for patterns. Even if just to converse with the experts sometime would be a great experience.


Satcom. I had some friends who used to work that in the navy/marine corps. Never did it myself, I was strictly a signals analyst.



Bill

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.

If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.

Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).

Bill

(My background is in satcom.)

Excellent summary. I don't even begin to speculate on alien multiplexing, let alone modulation, though. Like you said, it is a lottery game that we will stumble across a signal that doesn't appear to have originated from any natural phenomena as we currently understand them. Key phrase being, "as we currently understand them". Even if a NB "beacon" were discovered, it will still be argued whether it could have been caused by natural phenomena. Unless, of course, the second lottery is won and intelligence is able to be extracted out of the signal.

How could they be representing intelligence on such a carrier? Maybe through one of the mechanisms that we are familiar (prejudiced) with or could be something completely, pardon the pun, alien!

If they are doing any "multiplexing" or "encoding" (for efficiency) on top of that then we are in even more trouble.

My main "problem" with SETI is exactly the same as you listed: the vast distances involved. Even if they were compensating for doppler (meaning they were "targeting" their audience), they still have to deal with the ISL.

Unless they found some sort of Holy Grail with either power generation or receivers, I find it hard to believe that any civilization (no matter how advanced) would generate the amount of power necessary to "broadcast" across interstellar space only to "waste" it.

I find it easier to believe that they (Class II+ civilizations) may take advantage of naturally occurring sources of tremendous energy (pulsars, GRB's, quasars, etc). Could something be embedded within them?

Or perhaps they are using some sort of propagation that we aren't entirely familiar with yet, such as gravitational waves.

Who knows...

Fun stuff to chew on, but don't hold your breath...

--------
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!

Oh yeah, just incase you wonder what a signals analyst is doing outside of satcom.. I used to do signals intelligence.

Bill

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.

If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.

Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).

Bill

(My background is in satcom.)

Excellent summary. I don't even begin to speculate on alien multiplexing, let alone modulation, though. Like you said, it is a lottery game that we will stumble across a signal that doesn't appear to have originated from any natural phenomena as we currently understand them. Key phrase being, "as we currently understand them". Even if a NB "beacon" were discovered, it will still be argued whether it could have been caused by natural phenomena. Unless, of course, the second lottery is won and intelligence is able to be extracted out of the signal.

How could they be representing intelligence on such a carrier? Maybe through one of the mechanisms that we are familiar (prejudiced) with or could be something completely, pardon the pun, alien!

If they are doing any "multiplexing" or "encoding" (for efficiency) on top of that then we are in even more trouble.

My main "problem" with SETI is exactly the same as you listed: the vast distances involved. Even if they were compensating for doppler (meaning they were "targeting" their audience), they still have to deal with the ISL.

Unless they found some sort of Holy Grail with either power generation or receivers, I find it hard to believe that any civilization (no matter how advanced) would generate the amount of power necessary to "broadcast" across interstellar space only to "waste" it.

I find it easier to believe that they (Class II+ civilizations) may take advantage of naturally occurring sources of tremendous energy (pulsars, GRB's, quasars, etc). Could something be embedded within them?

Or perhaps they are using some sort of propagation that we aren't entirely familiar with yet, such as gravitational waves.

Who knows...

Fun stuff to chew on, but don't hold your breath...

--------
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!

Keep your ideas coming, Free. I am understanding your stuff better and better. You have mentioned some things that I am reading about. If I am understanding you correctly, what you say is right on with speculations from "scientists" in the field. After all is said and done, it is a lottery game. Did you happen to see my reply to your "prediction" in another thread?

---

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. --- Enrico Fermi ---

I keep saying it on this forum, the BIG key factor on looking for radio signals to do with SETI is not just where we look, or our technical abilities to receive detect and decipher what we might receive, but WHEN we look, which just happens to be now.

The length of time we have had access to technology is infinitesimally minuscule compared to the life of the galaxy and nearby detectable stars.

It's really down to luck at this stage.

Let's see, my professional take as a signals analyst. If I were to, without research on the subject, put out my guess as to why we aren't intercepting a signal...

1. Signal Strength, distance, and frequency..Completely random.

2. Even if you had a frequency somehow, adjusting for the Doppler effect.

3. Bits and pieces of said signal would be chipped at over insane distances.

4. Think of modulation as well, if it's a digital signal or analog. Personally it depends on what you are targeting.


a. A civilization that is emerging, and picking up their excess traffic not meant for our ears. "Think TV and Radio signals".

b. Signals meant to be sent out would mean at least an equal level of technology "give or take 20 years" and would lead me to watch for digital forms of modulation. Perhaps a Pulse Code Modulated Signal.

c. Some forms of signals drop below the noise floor, such as spread spectrum signals. As well as the sheer size of the spectrum when compared to the size of the universe. It will be hundreds if not thousands of years to pick a good chunk of it appart.


If I were to pick an area to concentrate on. Given the distances involved, the possibilities that can scatter the signal, and guessing that other life would do the same...

a.
I would search for high frequency pulse and/or FDM/TDM based microwave signals.

b.
I would also look for HF signals that could be bounced off objects in space. Though it might not be possible to locate said signals origins, any confirmation of such a signal is the first step. Sadly, such a search would be best conducted by a radio telescope version of the hubble space telescope. As such frequencies tend to hug the ground.



Just thinking in the open here, I haven't read most of what's in the forum yet. I haven't had time,(still in iraq).



Bill

Good stuff, Duncan. I like #3 especially, content and the way you said it.

---

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. --- Enrico Fermi ---