First 'directed' SETI search comes up empty

Feb 08, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Number of detections vs. signal-to-noise ratio for the set of all detections, the detections representing the most signi cant detection of a single signal and only those candidates passing an automated interference excision algorithm. Credit: arXiv:1302.0845 [astro-ph.GA]

(Phys.org)—Researchers working on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project have completed their first "directed" search of a part of space and report in a paper they've uploaded to the preprint server arXiv that they've found no signs of life emanating from another planet. The search focused on a patch of sky that included 86 stars over a period of three months in 2011.

In this most recent effort, the researchers, led by former SETI director (and model for the character in the movie Contact), Jill Tarter, were able to focus their efforts for the first time on what they call directed targets—those that would seem to have a better than average chance of harboring life due to specific characteristics. Those characteristics include star systems that host planets that researchers deem , that have at least 5 planets and that have super-Earths with an exceeding 50 days. The team used data from the Kepler to determine which fit the criteria they were looking for.

The researchers have access to the Green Bank radio telescope in West Virginia, and used it to study a promising patch of sky during February, March and April of 2011—focusing primarily on signals in the 1-2 GHz range. They are working on the assumption that signals found in that range would have the most likelihood of having come from an engineered source. To separate noise generated from Earth, they made sure the signals they received could only be heard when the telescope was pointed directly at a target—that winnowed an initial group of 86 stars down to 52. After analyzing the data, the team is now able to report that they found no signals that might have been generated by living on another planet.

This was not unexpected, of course. The likelihood of finding such a signal, if one exists, on the first try would seem very remote. They add that this first effort has helped them add a probabilistic factor to their search however. In not finding any identifiable signals in the part of space where they were looking, they suggest it means that the likelihood of finding a Kardashev type II civilization (named after Nikolai Kardashev, who came up with a 3 tiered scale of intelligent existence: those that use the resources from a planet, their sun, or a galaxy, respectively) is less than one in a million per solar system.

Explore further: After early troubles, all go for Milky Way telescope

More information: A 1.1 to 1.9 GHz SETI Survey of the Kepler Field: I. A Search for Narrow-band Emission from Select Targets, arXiv:1302.0845 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1302.0845

Abstract
We present a targeted search for narrow-band (< 5 Hz) drifting sinusoidal radio emission from 86 stars in the Kepler field hosting confirmed or candidate exoplanets. Radio emission less than 5 Hz in spectral extent is currently known to only arise from artificial sources. The stars searched were chosen based on the properties of their putative exoplanets, including stars hosting candidates with 380 K > T_eq > 230 K, stars with 5 or more detected candidates or stars with a super-Earth (R_p < 3 R_earth) in a > 50 day orbit. Baseband voltage data across the entire band between 1.1 and 1.9 GHz were recorded at the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope between Feb—Apr 2011 and subsequently searched offline. No signals of extraterrestrial origin were found. We estimate that fewer than ~1% of transiting exoplanet systems host technological civilizations that are radio loud in narrow-band emission between 1-2 GHz at an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of ~1.5 x 10^21 erg s^-1, approximately eight times the peak EIRP of the Arecibo Planetary Radar, and we limit the the number of 1-2 GHz narrow-band-radio-loud Kardashev type II civilizations in the Milky Way to be < 10^-6 M_solar^-1. Here we describe our observations, data reduction procedures and results.

via Arxiv Blog

Press release: Intelligent civilizations rarer than one in a million

Related Stories

Analysis of the First Kepler SETI Observations

Jan 09, 2012

As the Kepler space telescope begins finding its first Earth-sized exoplanets, with the ultimate goal of finding ones that are actually Earth-like, it would seem natural that the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial ...

SETI survey focuses on Kepler's top Earth-like planets

May 16, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- UC Berkeley is searching for evidence of intelligent life on planets identified by the Kepler space telescope team as having Earth-like environments. This search for extraterrestrial intelligence ...

SETI@home completes a decade of ET search

May 01, 2009

The SETI@home project, which has involved the worldwide public in a search for radio-wave evidence of life outside Earth, marks its 10th anniversary on May 17, 2009.

Recommended for you

Tidal forces gave moon its shape, according to new analysis

2 hours ago

The shape of the moon deviates from a simple sphere in ways that scientists have struggled to explain. A new study by researchers at UC Santa Cruz shows that most of the moon's overall shape can be explained by taking into ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
Is the Kardashev type classification even reasonable? It seems that the energy consumption of industrialized nations is levelling out (in some cases even dropping) because we're getting to be more and more energy efficient.

Indefinite population growth (which would result in arbitrarily large energy consumption despite growing efficiency) is another one of these dubious assumptions. It only holds as long as we feel the need to procreate - and that only holds as long as no (virtual) immortality is achieved.

Lastly, with civilizations becoming technologically more advanced I'd suspect that more energy goes towards the use it is intended for and less is being wasted in the form of signals that others can detect. So the time window where 'engineered' signals are sent at all should be rather small.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2013
Another nail in the coffin of the principle of mediocrity....

Well, at least as it applies to advanced technological life in the universe.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
The mediocrity prionciple doesn't mean anything here.

a) we don't know if the stars observed have earth-like planets
b) the mediocrity principle only works if you know that there are several sets of categories. We currently don't know how many sets of categories there are.

It's like rolling a 6 with a die when you don't know how many faces the die has or how many of the faces have a 6 on them. From one observation you can't tell anything.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
We see isotropy everywhere we look in the universe and we've found NO evidence of advanced civilizations despite the fact they've had billions of years to evolve and show up. We shouldn't even have to look really, their engineering should be obvious given the timescales.

Go fish...
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
We see isotropy everywhere we look in the universe and we've found NO evidence of advanced civilizations despite the fact they've had billions of years to evolve and show up.

And why would you expect advancd civilizations would be visible?

1) Stray radiation (which is what SETI is looking for) drops off with the distance squared. So beyond a certain distance (2-3 light years) it's not detectable by us, anyhow. Only if someone were to set up a MASSIVE beacon would it be detectable (and there's no reason to suspect anyone would do such a thing - because you never know who/what sees it)

2) If you're advanced you're efficient. Efficient means NO stray radiation at all.

3) Advanced civilizations probably means virtually immortal. Immortals don't hang around stuff that could cause them to die by accident. For humans it's an acceptable risk to stay close to a sun that will go bang once in a few billion years. To an immortal that would be an unacceptably risky location.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2013

And why would you expect advancd civilizations would be visible?


Because they're advanced and they're likely doing big things. I'm baffled when someone asks me this question. It's like asking why would you expect evidence of human civilization to show up from space. Oh wait, it does...

You're making spurious assumptions yourself and very counter intuitive and unconvincing ones at that.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2013
Because they're advanced and they're likely doing big things.

Why? Consider ourselves: The more advanced we get to be the SMALLER the stuff we build.
Consider what would happen if we were to engineer ourselves into a form that can survive under any environment (e.g. the vacuum of space or any atmopshere, or high pressure, or...). Would we build anything stationary after that? Why?
Would we even live on planets after that? Why?

Think of what kind of cities we would build if the elements on Earth didn't inconvenience us. Answer: None at all.

So I don't think a case can be made for 'megastructures'. That's only good fo SciFi.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
It's like asking why would you expect evidence of human civilization to show up from space. Oh wait, it does...

And even in our day it is ever less. A few decades ago we were sending radio signals all over the place. Today we're tight-beaming the stuff to sattelites and back (so ever less radiation that could give us away is being lost into space)

Today we are still illuminating cities (which is very wasteful). Tomorrow we'll just illuminate the parts that need illumination (i.e. at where people are at any one time). And after that we'll probably engineer ourselves to be able to see using infrared - or simply have cheap IR-contact lenses (at which point cities will just go dark)

We already strive to lessen our impact on the environment. So the 'signal' that can be detected will grow steadily weaker. I suspect an advanced civilization won't be noticeable at all.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
Your arguments are unconvincing. We're likely to build space elevators, and possibly even do some engineering of our sun as our civilization advances. I suspect that a highly advanced civilization will do engineering on a galactic level to take advantage of all that wasted energy. If it's as easy for them as plowing a field then why wouldn't they?
El_Nose
5 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2013
This is a good thing people. It was a first case scenerio.

In 4 years of so the JWT will be up there and it will see in the IR band. And able to basically see through much of the dust and dirt of space. Our general neighborhood is going to expand. We currently cannot see red dwarf stars very well at all. The Oort cloud obscures them not to mention dust in space.

Once we up date our catalog of local stars you can bet the search will begin in our local neighborhood. If 5 Hz adjusted for red shifting was not found on stars 10-80 lyr away then we should be able to tune for signals generated within 15 lyrs with no problems. We know we are surrounded by stars we cannot see and 60% of them have planets.

By 2020 we will finally have mapped 90% of our neighbors and by 2030 concluded if radio waves are coming from them.

Its far fetched for more advanced civilizations, but its one more thing we can check off as done.
rubberman
3 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2013
I think SETI is the only way, currently, to detect a like civilization to our own. If there are space faring aliens then they have either, as AP said unlocked the secret to extended existence, or they have found a way to build a craft that has the abiltiy internally to mimic there homeworlds gravity and magnetic field enabling them to live out their normal lifespan. Our bodies are attuned to these aspects of life on earth down to the atomic level. Remove those influences and the structure will experience accelerated decay (premature aging, degenerative illness). It's either SETI or we find their equivalent of voyager which they would have to have launched millions of years ago.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
less is being wasted in the form of signals that others can detect. So the time window where 'engineered' signals are sent at all should be rather small.
Well sure. And why would machine life be wanting to talk to us? What could we possibly have to contribute?

Timeline: Sentient life emerges. Sentient life produces technology. Technology enables sentient life to produce intelligent machines. Sentient life is subsequently usurped by a machine singularity. Machine singularities establish tightbeam contact with each other for the purpose of sharing knowledge. End of story.

Look at how wasteful is our form factor. We spend 25 years learning how to contribute, and 25 years unable to contribute. That's half of our existence as dead weight. Not to mention downtime eating, sleeping, and recreating.

Machine peripherals will be born contributing, and will contribute constantly. How could we possibly compete?
El_Nose
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2013
Our radio and tv waves still propagate radially from us. We have by no means gone silent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
Our radio and tv waves still propagate radially from us. We have by no means gone silent.
This would be seen as a blip, and it is only detectable for a few 10s of lightyears out, and for perhaps a century, before it stops altogether. Forever. It would herald the emergence of a singularity and/or the extinction of sentient life.

The 'wow' signal was possibly our chance encounter with a tightbeam link between 2 singularities. Exceedingly rare.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2013
I have great respect for the people involved in SETI. I think their work is tremendously important. But I wonder why they expect to see anything. I mean, any advanced civilization is not going to use radio wavelengths for long distance communications. It's just very inefficient. They are far more likely to use lasers, since they can be collimated so much better. (in fact, we will be using lasers ourselves pretty soon to communicate with probes around Mars and throughout the Solar System)
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2013
I expect 'noise' from 'life' other than that what we label 'life'.
I expect what we label 'life' now to label those signals 'noise'.
What AP suspects is what I expect.
Sanescience
not rated yet Feb 08, 2013
In terms of "science" our sample size in both localities and duration is vanishingly small. Therefore there are only opinions. True there are some trends to physical processes but how it applies to intelligence we only have ourselves to observe.

Ultimately it comes down to alien psychology and how often intelligence arises in an environment that is "exposed". For example super intelligent ocean life may never develop open emission EM communications. Or prey mindset intelligence will always seek to be camouflaged.

Also, it's not just efficiency issues. Ultimately existence inside a contrived reality might be much more appealing to any advanced intelligence that the real, and boring, one we start in.

Maybe some galaxies are dominated by "giants" where new civilizations would have to eek out their existence "under foot". I'm glad that does not appear to be the case for ours.
evropej
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2013
Given an approximate distance of 13.7 billion light years for information to travel, 4.7 billion years of evolution to results in 100 years of emissions, one can argue this study doesn't cover even a grain of sand from the entire number existing in the whole planet. Not to mention that civilizations which have surpassed current technology would be but small slivers in time. Another words, the probability of detecting a civilization at the stage of our civilization which occurred at the correct light year distance away at the angle of the sky is mathematically miniscule. The probability of this succeeding is small but you have to play the lotto in order to win.
Disproselyte
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2013
Interested in the search for ETI: have a look here for a PhD on the subject and much more:
evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Main_Page
tearam
not rated yet Feb 08, 2013
Does the Kardashev type II odds account for time.
thingsmith
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2013
If you look at how our radio communication have evolved in little over 100 years. From large high power systems to micro-cell using lots of techniques to allow all of the communication to look like noise.

If SETI goal is to ease drop how will do their algorithms work on micro-cell using CDMA or any of the techniques used today? I have looked several times for a detailed technical description of their detection mechanisms.

If SETI goal is to find a beacon someone is setup, they might be successful. The questions then is how many civilizations would be willing to setup such a beacon.
jibbles
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2013
as a recent longitudinal study showed that a people are very poor at predicting/visualizing their own trajectory of development through life (even just a decade out). we seem to suffer a lack of imagination. the same goes collectively for our technological civilization. what makes imagining the future of our technological civilization even more difficult is the brief time it has existed and the lack of other examples to look at. that is just one reason why s.e.t.i is hugely important.
Tausch
2 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2013
Seti's future is unpredictable. Radio telescopes lack imagination.
Seti is for human aspiration. The 'science' a front for aspiration.
MIBO
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2013
There are many fundamnental flaws with the SETI approach.
As many people pointed out civilization will become more efficient as they become more advanced so there is likely a small window during which they are likely to radiate sufficient energy to be detectable.
The bigger problem is that the energy is not likely to be radiated from a single source, take 3G, or WIFI as examples. There are millions or transmitter radiating energy in these bands but they are dispersed and not frequency locked. This means that from a distance the combined radiated energy would look like noise. Sure there might be a peak in the energy across a part of the spectrum but it would certainly not have a spectral extent of 5Hz. And any useful signal has a much wider spectrum than this, what can you do with 5Hz spectral bandwidth.
Even ignoring modulation, the frequency offset between radiators is likely to be over tens of KHz unless they are locked to a common reference.
MIBO
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2013
the SETI approach relies on a single high power transmitter, such as early TV transmitters on earth which radiated megawatts in a relativley small bandwidth, but even here this was a short period of time that such signals were radiated. Now we radiate much lower signal levels over much larger bandwidths using distributed antennas covering small areas. This is essential to get the channel capacity we require. Arguably a more advanced civilization would need even greater capacity so would be even more efficient in controlling the level and range of radiated power.
Power radiated unnecessarily is simply noise to other systems vying for bandwidth, it reduces channel capacity and costs money so we have to control it, therefore we must expect any other advanced civilization to do the same.
grondilu
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2013
Many stars appear very faint in the sky and we are surprised not to have found a signal from an intelligent life? The signal is probably so faint that only a few photons might fell on earth every decade or so. Give them time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2013
The bigger problem is that the energy is not likely to be radiated from a single source, take 3G, or WIFI as examples. There are millions or transmitter radiating energy in these bands but they are dispersed and not frequency locked. This means that from a distance the combined radiated energy would look like noise
I would think that a sufficiently advanced (machine) intelligence would be able to decrypt anything. It would be anciently familiar with all possibilities and all methods.

Perhaps the 'wow' signal was a blip sent out every so often to see whether emerging AI can record and decipher it, and respond accordingly. Perhaps a stardrive of some sort chanced to sweep across our bow.
mrlewish
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2013
The only reasonable solution that I think of for the Fermi paradox is that there is a technological limit that once reached can not be passed due to the very laws of nature. Kind of when we reach the limits of Moore's law. Sort of like the supposed upcoming technological singularity which I see as something of a wall.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2013
Sort of like the supposed upcoming technological singularity which I see as something of a wall.
Naw it's a door in the wall. We dont fit through that door.

Machines will soon be doing everything that we can do faster and more reliably. They will coalesce into a single overarching entity with the will to survive. It will do so by collecting and digesting as much info as it possibly can, and by sharing this with others of it's kind throughout the galaxy. It's greatest strength will be in reducing redundancy and maximizing efficiency. That's why there will be only one in this solar system by the end of this transformation.

This network of machine entities no doubt already exists given the age of the galaxy and the speed at which we humans are approaching our own post-human singularity. And until it emerges we should expect to hear nothing from the others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2013
Because what would they possibly have to say to us? Goodbye?
http://www.youtub...a_player
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2013
Ja, and these Aryan machine beings will have laser lugers strapped to their hips and click their jackboot heels when Ghost gives an order. Comic books your idea of literature? Talk about crackpots...
Estevan57
Feb 09, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Telekinetic
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2013
"I do not understand why SETI..."[isnt looking for alien messages in extrasolar aurora emissions] ...MARTIAN HEADS: "semi-transparent, not translucent. We also have independent, PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures" JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU PUSSYTARD??..."

From your very own profile page, Ghost. Pot calling the kettle black?
kawa_zx6r
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2013
One big question for me is what if we will never find evidence for astro- engineering but we will find evidence for highly advanced intelligent life then what is the barrier for those civilizations in developing these galactic projects?!

Given the vast size of the universe and the billions of years that intelligent life had to develop these astro-projects would be ubiquitous , right?
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2013
@MIBO
Noise is a carrier, not an obstacle to be overcome.
I expect this from any 'intelligence' falling under any form you label life.
You find nothing because the decoding cipher used to describe noise as a feature of nature doesn't exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2013
Ja, and these Aryan machine beings will have laser lugers strapped to their hips and click their jackboot heels when Ghost gives an order. Comic books your idea of literature? Talk about crackpots...
Naw I got it from this guy
http://en.wikiped...Kurzweil

-But I can see how you'd get his books mixed up with what you read in 'dr strange'. Kurzweil is a very well-respected scientist while people like your hutchenson and uri geller and aliester Crowley and Madame Blavatsky are somewhat less so.
PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures" JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU PUSSYTARD??..."
Sorry I do not believe in 900 ft tall somnambulant glassheaded Martians. Do you? Perhaps pussytard is referring to some pro golfer who thought it was possible. That's all I can think of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2013
And then there's this guy:

"Why the future doesn't need us."
http://www.wired....joy.html

No he is not steve ditko he is head of sun microsystems.

You might want to read this article

"The Consequences of Machine Intelligence"
Moshe Y. Vardi | Oct 25, 2012
http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-machine-intelligence/264066/

-unless you choose to remain ignorant. You spend lots of time here tk I am surprised at how little you know.
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2013
And then there's this guy:

"Why the future doesn't need us."
http://www.wired....joy.html

No he is not steve ditko he is head of sun microsystems.

You might want to read this article

"The Consequences of Machine Intelligence"
Moshe Y. Vardi | Oct 25, 2012
http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-machine-intelligence/264066/

-unless you choose to remain ignorant. You spend lots of time here tk I am surprised at how little you know.

I've been following Kurzweil and his vitamin supplement protocol for years as well as subscribe to his newsletter. He is, in no uncertain terms, a genius since he was a pup, but he's also a showman who understands and uses the power of attention-grabbing headlines. When he dies his fanciful prognostications will go with him. Why? Because science and medicine will continue to advance the lifespan of the HUMAN body, along the lines of the work of Aubrey de Grey- not Hasbro's Mr. Machine.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2013
So... why did you relate it to 900 ft tall glassheaded martians then? Maybe you just use his newsletter to decorate your coffee table?
showman who understands and uses the power of attention-grabbing headlines
Yes I am sure this comes in handy in his position as director of engineering at Google.

And I am sure he appreciates the attention-grabbing potential of bending spoons and melting blocks of iron (wax) for an audience.

Kind of like this guy
http://www.youtub...PxBT4Di4
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2013
Gentlemen, I present to you the descendants of TheGhostofOtto1923-

http://www.youtub...QI5iKYfM
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2013
then what is the barrier for those civilizations in developing these galactic projects?!

Utility? What would you build a megastructure for if you can accomplish the same with much less?

Consider what types of meagstructures we're talking about that we could conceivably detect at this stage: anything larger than a super-Earth in a lucky orbit around a sun.

But to build something like that you have to make sure that it has some use.

For comparison: if you'd want to construct something that has HUGE living space for every one of the 7 billion humans on the planet (let's say everyone gets a full cube of 100 meters high, long and wide to live in - i.e. roughly the volume of the Empire State Building for you and you alone) then the resulting megastructure would be a sphere of merely 120km diameter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2013
Gentlemen, I present to you the descendants of TheGhostofOtto1923-

http://www.youtub...QI5iKYfM
You really need to update
http://www.youtub...a_player

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2013
Consider what types of meagstructures we're talking about that we could conceivably detect
Research AA, research...

"Last month a trio of astronomers led by Penn State's Jason Wright began a two-year search for Dyson Spheres, a search that will span the Milky Way, along with millions of other galaxies. Their project was just awarded a sizable grant from the Templeton Foundation..."

-I would think any self-respecting singularity would be a little embarrassed to be seen in one of these. The funding source is curious;

"Sean M. Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, wrote, in describing his self-recusal from a conference he discovered was funded by the Foundation, that "the entire purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to blur the line between straightforward science and explicitly religious activity, making it seem like the two enterprises are part of one big undertaking. It's all about appearances."
typicalguy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2013
We have no idea what a billion year old civilization would be able to do. It's pointless to make guesses about it. For all we know, they could have telescopes that can scan every planet in the galaxy at once then once life is detected they could have the tech to block all emissions from their system towards all other systems with life. There might be stars that we cant even see because they're blocked. I just made that up but do we have ANY IDEA what a BILLION year old civilization can do? We'd be like aeomeba to them.

Lets face it, what we're searching for is life like us living in a technological age within maybe 1,000 from now and 100 years earlier in tech. We're going to need telescopes that can actually look at the surface of exoplanets. How long will that take? 30 more years? Maybe 50? 100? Then what we'd need to look for is plant life. Once a planet with plants is discovered, we can look at it more carefully with all our telescopes in hopes of discoveringemissions
lengould100
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2013
Actually, no need for " telescopes that can actually look at the surface of exoplanets ", all that's needed is to detect the spectral lines of oxygen in the atmosphere. Evidence of free oxygen pretty much guarantees existence of plant life (as we know it). Much easier.
zorro6204
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
This is the dumbest project I've ever heard of. We've been using radio transmissions for about a hundred years, and with fiber optic just around the corner, we're just about to end that. Our entire broadcasting phase will have been a unfathomably small blip of time within the history of this planet.

And yet, we're searching for radio wave signatures from other civilizations? The probability of alien intelligent life close enough for us to recognize a signal, within that tiny window where they would be broadcasting is ridiculously low, not worth spending a nickle on. It's border line insane.
Telekinetic
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2013
The joke, zorro6204, is this- We're white coat lab technicians glued to electronic monitors while standing behind us is an actual alien being tapping on our shoulders. And our response?- "Not now, we're busy."
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
This is what happens when you put constraints on the label 'life'.
When what happens? The commentary above.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2013
Last month a trio of astronomers led by Penn State's Jason Wright began a two-year search for Dyson Spheres, a search that will span the Milky Way,

Well, they're going to search - nothing wrong with that. I just think they're likely not going to find anything.

All the current SETI type searches are based on a curious mixture of "there are advanced intelligent species out there" and "advanced intelligent species act in incredibly dumb ways - let's search for signs of dumb behavior".

The premises for something like a Dyson sphere (or similar) just seems to be not very well thought through. But if they can get a grant for looking: by all means they should. There's no harm in looking - any observational data is good data in astronomy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
Well, they're going to search - nothing wrong with that. I just think they're likely not going to find anything.
Well I agree. They seem to think they can detect this signature in other galaxies.

Ive been wondering what might happen if the singularity began to emerge after independent colonies had been established, perhaps on libertarian or religious grounds. While humans back on earth were transforming themselves with augments and connectivity, and reducing their numbers, colonists further out would be resisting this and proliferating.

Would the singularity perceive this as a threat and take proactive measures re nanotechnology or disease? It would have to spread it's remotes faster than the colonists for strategic reasons, securing the asteroid belt for instance.

In the end it would win of course but the system would end up full of bots, and this energy expenditure could be detectable. I really don't see how humans and machines could coexist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
The premises for something like a Dyson sphere (or similar) just seems to be not very well thought through.
By sphere I think they are thinking more about swarm. If tropical humans continue their repro rate unabated once off-planet, and use bots to do their constructing and transforming for them, then they would begin harvesting solar energy in significant percentages with solar megaplants. And the waste heat from thee things should be detectable.

In a few hundred thousand years this would be Inevitable without the emergence of a machine intelligence with a much more long-term view of survival and the corresponding desire to conserve it's resources.

Niven and bear put a new book out about a modified ringworld which used a bowl to capture and transform it's suns energy, and use the whole assembly to move it through space. Kind of like nivens piersons puppeteers did when they found out the galactic core was exploding.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
That was Niven and benford 'bowl of heaven'
http://online.wsj...048.html
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2013
If tropical humans continue their repro rate unabated once off-planet

That's the sort of thing I mean by not-well-thought-through.

There's a reason for multiplying (mortality) - and once that reason is gone or diminished I wouldn't expect any species to keep on multiplying just for the heck of it.

Then there's the Dyson sphere concept in itself: trapping the sun's energy. What for? That concept makes you locked into one place - and I don't see vastly more advanced beings being dependent on solar energy.

Even WE know fusion is a possibility to be had with comparatively little extra effort. And that's not even accounting for possible energy sources beyond fusion (is fusion really the last possible energy source? I think that unlikely given that science in the past 100 years alone has brought us two entirely new energy sources: fission and fusion)

On the whole I think Nieven and Bear (great writers as they are) have very little imagination.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
There's a reason for multiplying (mortality) - and once that reason is gone or diminished I wouldn't expect any species to keep on multiplying just for the heck of it.
No they do it for many reasons. Imagine a shiite colony on one side of mars and a sunni colony on the other. They both have a promised land to fill and their god demands that they do this.

So in 20 gens, with sufficient tech to make it so, mars is full. Reproduction is the most important and rewarding thing we animals do aa. Given the space and the resources, we WILL fill it up.

This has been the case throughout history. Why would you think another planet would be any different? Look how fast the new world filled up.

Constituents are revenue. They are power. Commerce will prevail on other planets and throughout the asteroid belt. Unless machine intelligence puts an end to it.
On the whole I think Nieven and Bear (great writers as they are) have very little imagination.
Ahaahaaa as compared to whom? Dyson?
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
They both have a promised land to fill and their god demands that they do this.

Intelligent beings still believing in thunder-gods? That's your argument?

It seems that even among humans the more intelligent you are the less you're likely to believe in supernatural forces.

And when you can construct stuff to live on (or have bodies that don't need a physical place to stand on in order to survive) - what will be the point of 'land grabs'?

Ahaahaaa as compared to whom? Dyson??

For example Banks (though I think even his imagination is pretty limited.) On the other hand if one were to really make reasonable speculations about where what kind of life an advanced species would turn to it would make for rather boring SciFi - because once the entities/entity it comprises are self sufficient there wouldn't be any basis for conflict. And novels without conflict are rather dull.
So SciFi probably has to be a bit limited in that regard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
I wouldn't expect any species to keep on multiplying just for the heck of it.
'Any species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' Any species can be expected to fill up its niche. Population pressure drives speciation, forces pioneers to seek out new niches to inhabit and adapt to. This is the equation of life. MORE than is needed. Equilibrium is a myth.

Life does this. It HAS to do this to remain fit. Machines, being intelligently designed, do not. Life needs competition, machines do not. Competition is wasteful. This is why we will inevitably be usurped.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
This has been the case throughout history. Why would you think another planet would be any different?

Because there have been certain constants throughout history that don't hold for an advanced species.

1) Scarcity (which is the source of most all conflict)
2) Mortality (which is the source for procreation, and hence for scarcity - and hence for 1)).
3) Stupidity/guillibility - which is the case because throughout history we couldn't really choose whether we ant to be intelligent or not. that may change in the future
4) Recruitment of people who fall under 3) in order to push some goal that is not in those people's interest (but in the interest of the one doing the recruiting). If 3) falls, so does 4)
5) Force of threat. If your person cannot be threatened anymore then there is no point for being made a stooge (or for enganing in conflict)

Some of the above will change in the near future. Some in the far future. But all of these seem, in principle, achievable.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
Any species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' Any species can be expected to fill up its niche

That's the point: If you can procreate as long as you want AND can be virtually assured that your progeny will reach maturity - will you outproduce yourself? Look at industrialized nations where this is more or less true. We already produce LESS offspring than would be needed to keep the numbers up.

As for niches: If you have no needs (apart from energy) - what niche is there to compete for? That argument only holds if we continue to be dependent on food, air, water - and not even then because IF we are able to go off world we can arbitrarily expand our niche.

Machines, being intelligently designed, do not.

So? Once we REALIZE that it's good to stay fit then why wouldn't advanced (machine) intelligences make sure they stay fit without overproduction? Again you're positing that intelligent beings act stupidly. I can't see that at all
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
Intelligent beings still believing in thunder-gods? That's your argument?
Uh are you calling religionists stupid? You think they might be resourceful and ambitious enough to want to migrate? Ever been to dearborn michigan? Amadijinadad just sent a monkey into space.
And when you can construct stuff to live on (or have bodies that don't need a physical place to stand on in order to survive)
You mean like ships? Humans have been depending on tech to enable them to live where they couldnt normally live, ever sinse we left africa.
what will be the point of 'land grabs'?
So explain why 'land grabs' have always been the norm throughout our ENTIRE history. And why you think this propensity would cease on another planet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
1) Scarcity (which is the source of most all conflict)
No, population pressure ALWAYS results in scarcity. No species lives in equilibrium. There is ALWAYS starvation, competition, predation. The fittest prevail. Our repro is configured to enable us to survive naked and unarmed on the savanna. We have since improved the odds considerably.
will reach maturity - will you outproduce yourself?
If you have more than 2.1 kids, ABSOLUTELY.
Look at industrialized nations where this is more or less true.
This culture arose yesterday in terms of human history. The majority of people on this planet are not westernized. How are you going to keep these cultures from emigrating as they have ALWAYS done? They have a more immediate need to do so than anyone in the west. And they WILL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
So? Once we REALIZE that it's good to stay fit then why wouldn't advanced (machine) intelligences make sure they stay fit without overproduction?
Reread what I wrote. That is exactly what I said.
As for niches: If you have no needs (apart from energy) - what niche is there to compete for?
I am saying that this whole equation is an intrinsic part of us. Our cultures and our biology have evolved in this context.

Why do you think humanity wouldnt continue to grow and expand? Where would it arbitrarily say 'ok there are enough people on mars, no need to terraform' or 'we really dont need to hollow out another asteroid as there are no more people willing to inhabit them.'

Machines will be making these decisions. Humans never have and never will.

By the way space suits make excellent burkas.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
Uh are you calling religionists stupid?

Yes. Of course.
You think they might be resourceful and ambitious enough to want to migrate?

Certainly. But either they have to keep their people artificially in scarcity conditions and undereducated - or the religion will die out. And in the face of everyone else advacing you can't really perpetuate such a scheme forever (at the very least it will make that part of society irrelevant. If you look at how much religiously dominated cultures have led to davancements in the past few hundred years, you may notice: not at all. E.g. there hasn't been a single revolutionary development in all the radical islamic world for a very long time)
Humans have been depending on tech to enable them to live where they couldnt normally live

And you expect humans never to alter themselves? Ever? This is another of these things that has been true in history - but certainly won't hold true forever.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2013
The majority of people on this planet are not westernized.

This has nothing to do with being westernized. It has to do with being educated and/or safe.
If you look at the list of countries with negative growth you will find quite a few 'non-westernized' ones on there.
http://en.wikiped...wth_rate

am saying that this whole equation is an intrinsic part of us. Our cultures and our biology have evolved in this context.

But neither our present culture, nor our present biology are constants. For the first time we can realize that breeding to (or over) the limit of a system isn't a good idea - and we can actively limit ourselves. China is doing so already (with rather a radical method).

You seem to keep assuming that even though we now KNOW about these things we'll keep on WILLFULLY ignoring them forever. That's the kind of stupidity I would not expect of an advanced intelligent species. Why would you?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
Why do you think humanity wouldnt continue to grow and expand?

Very simply because at some point every human born/created will be smart enough to understand WHY procreation happens at all. At that point it won't be a 'drive' anymore but simply a choice. And with longevity (or even virtual immortality, save for accidents) setting in the amount of offspring produced per unit of time will drop sharply. So yeah: you'll have your 1.1 offspring per person: but if that happens only every million years or so then you can go a very long time before that poses any 'population explosion'.

By the way space suits make excellent burkas.

And prayers make a very bad defense against holes in same.
MIBO
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
@Tausch
As an engineer developing communications protocols, and having spent years designing GPS chipsets I can assure you that noise IS a problem to be overcome and NOT a "Carrier" as you describe it.

The only way to detect a signal in noise is to know what the signal is you are looking for.
This is exactly what we do in GPS because the signal is below the thermal background noise, but to be able to detect the signal we use very long code sequences and still sensitivity is limited due to signal modulation and doppler variation.
If we know the data sequence and doppler then we can become even more sensitive, but there is no way we could ever know the data or spreading codes of such an alien signal, so are limited in detection capabilities to looking for energy alone.
MIBO
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
A better opportunity for SETI will be to use the correlation capabilities from the SKA when it is finally completed, but how much time SETI will get on SKA will depend on how seriously the funding goverments take the SETI project, so very little I suspect.
MIBO
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
If we "Keep on multiplying for the heck of it", then our civilization will end in a world war, but for once it won't be caused by religious fanatics, it will be caused by famine.
There is a limit to what a planet can support, the problem with uncontrolled population growth is it will lead to requirements for larger territories to grow food. China is already sourcing food from Africa where people are starving but China can afford to pay high prices to the farmers. How long can this continue?.
Any civilization that survives has to have some sort of control on population so all concepts of uncontrolled population growth are just fantasy, or pre-cursors to destruction of the civilization that enabled it to occur.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
The only way to detect a signal in noise is to know what the signal is you are looking for. - MIBO


Imagine intelligence evolves. An intelligence eventually uncovering the source or origin of life - in any form.

There is no reason stemming from our limited reasoning for intelligence other than ours to provide any signal we look for - disrupting what we label evolution (of anything). From our perspective that makes no sense.

What will 'dawn' on us is that any search is necessary to evolve.
Damn the outcomes, full speed ahead, lol.

The thermal background 'noise' - is the 'paper' of the map of the territory you are mapping. If I place in space an object too small to be detected by any means does this object exist?

There is no reason to fixate any scale to intelligence.
When the means of detection is scale invariant you might want to say hallo for me on behalf of our form of life.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
For me, AP has spot on commentary here.
Any civilization that survives has to have some sort of control on population so all concepts of uncontrolled population growth are just fantasy, or pre-cursors to destruction of the civilization that enabled it to occur. - MIBO


A search that comes up empty (such as SETI)is positive sign.
A positive sign of what?
That our vocabulary needs revamping wrt to words like 'survival', 'control', 'population', 'civilization' etc.
Life as you know it goes extinct.
A dictate of planetary evolution.
Rewrite the code.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
Yes. Of course.
Indeed. Stupid enough to think that god will provide for them wherever they choose to live. But they are still bright enough to get advanced educations and pilot the ayotollahs expeditions.

Most of colonization is grunt work - building and maintaining facilities (and synogogues), growing food and the like. They won't be going to do science but to escape the strife of their overcrowded homelands. And for the glory of god.
Very simply because at some point every human born/created will be smart enough to understand WHY procreation happens at all. At that point it won't be a 'drive' anymore but simply a choice.
A choice like in gaza? You are naive as usual. Religionist colonists expect to suffer. They will tolerate conditions that scientists and tourists wont.

They will simply continue to build and grow without limit, using the best of western tech. Look what religionists did to the western hemisphere in only a few 100 years. Unless the machines stop them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
They will take chances for the glory of Allah or Jehovah that western explorers won't. Remember the ottoman empire? It was a center of science and knowledge.

And if they are decimated in the next war this will be even more reason to move the caliphate off this godless planet with the intention of creating a new Renaissance. And mars and the moon are far too big to resist their colonization until they are firmly established.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
Imagine intelligence evolves.

The inability to penetrate noise isn't about reasonnig ability. This is about hard facts of physics. Even advanced intelligences can't change the laws of physics (and if they're THAT advanced they're certainly not interested in our signals)

Most of colonization is grunt work

Only if we colonize by setting up biospheres. I think that unlikely on any large scale or for any significant length of time. Maybe a few hundred years (or a few thousand years at best). After that: who will need food? It will be vastly easier to alter ourselves to survive in any environment on any available energy source than to keep having to grow corn in outer space.
They will tolerate conditions that scientists and tourists wont.

Given the choice their kids won't. The statistics of what happens when a conutry gives people a choice are there to see for anyone who cares to open his eyes.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
They will take chances for the glory of Allah or Jehovah that western explorers won't.

The universe doesn't really care how fervently you believe. Fanatical zeal may count in combat against other humans as an advantage - but against hard vacuum?

Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2013
The inability to penetrate noise isn't about reasonnig ability. This is about hard facts of physics.-AP


lol
Like the difference between proper and comoving distance:

Hard (proper) facts and co-facts only differ at times other than the time at which they are said.

New facts results in hard facts changing while co-facts are unchanged by new facts.

You will probably want the co-facts to be hard facts ignoring new facts.

It's hard to signal facts.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
In this case we're talking about information theory (which is a mathematical theory and therefore impervious to 'new facts').

If you want to transmit information you can't fool information theory. You can squeeze it (much like you can squeeze conjugated variables that are connected via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. E.g. when measuring momentum and position - getting a better reading on one at the expense of making the other more indetermined) but you can't bypass it.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
Only if we colonize by setting up biospheres. I think that unlikely on any large scale or for any significant length of time. Maybe a few hundred years (or a few thousand years at best). After that: who will need food? It will be vastly easier to alter ourselves to survive in any environment on any available energy source than to keep having to grow corn in outer space.
Biology will always need food. Colonies will always need workers. Unless they are machine colonies but then they won't need humans will they?
Given the choice their kids won't. The statistics of what happens when a conutry gives people a choice are there to see for anyone who cares to open his eyes.
So how is that working out in gaza, or Kashmir, or Islamabad? Religions enthrall kids just like their parents. And how are you going to offer them alternatives when they are plying the deserts of mars?

Religions crave isolation either by emigrating or by destroying midianites.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2013
You know perhaps this is the Reason behind the great resurgence of this desert culture. Who better to establish totally independent colonies on a desert planet? Religion has always been Used for this Purpose. Moses did exactly the same thing didn't he? Forty years in the desert. - that must've been pretty harsh eh?

The establishment of independent colonies is essential to the survival of the species UNTIL it can be replaced. And it WILL be replaced first on the home planet. We may be witnessing the beginnings of a new Exodus.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2013
Again spurious assumptions. In fact it's far more likely that in the billions of year history of this galaxy at least ONE space faring civilization would continue to be expansionist for whatever reason and they'd already be here...and probably thought the entire local group.

OR one would have developed in the local group and be here. It's not easy to dismiss the Fermi paradox unless you make some extremely favorable and unlikely assumptions to bolster your position.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2013
Well who's they MM? if they were here they would be machine and not biology, because it's more practical to send intelligent machines. And no doubt they would be sent BY machines.

But why would they bother? If intelligence has arisen elsewhere, it would no doubt only emerge in certain ways, and a mature galactic machine culture with eons of experience would be familiar with these. They would probably wait until our singularity emerged and then make contact with it.

I would think they are also very patient. Being machines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
On the Edge.org website I read a conjecture that a machine intelligence would wait until interconnected computers emerged, and then just send info which would commandeer the system. Even more economical.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2013
@AP
Interesting. I tried to get you to think of the metrics of space stemming from cosmological descriptions of an expanding universe:
proper and comoving distances; in relationship to 'noise', or if you will, CMBR. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Classical information theory is void of physical considerations. Quantum information theory introduces physical considerations.
Quantum computing is still viable.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2013
But why would they bother?


I can just as easily ask why wouldn't they...

It's all assumptions, but I think it not unlikely that at least one of all the "estimated" millions of them to arise would do this.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
Biology will always need food. Colonies will always need workers. Unless they are machine colonies but then they won't need humans will they?

Exactly. The whole argument that humans will always remain farmers and always remain the same, biologically - even after going to places that aren't suited for our biology (which means any place besides dry land on this very planet) just doesn't make sense.
So how is that working out in gaza, or Kashmir, or Islamabad?

They aren't given the choice. They live in extreme scarcity. As I said: if you can perpetuate scarcity, sure. then you can perpetuate religion. But a non-scarcity society will outstrip a scarcity one any day. So religious colonies will just be a blip on the radar (if at all). If they want isolation: the universe is big enough for that.

Quantum information theory introduces physical considerations.

Go back a few days. You'll find an article on physorg that says otherwise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
Exactly. The whole argument that humans will always remain farmers and always remain the same, biologically
You can alter and augment all you want. The brain will always need protein, vitamins, minerals, etc. In order to create beings which run off energy, they must be non-biological.

Sure, machines can make nutrients for brains, but why bother? Brains will be replaced by widgets much better suited for the Purpose.
They aren't given the choice. They live in extreme scarcity. As I said: if you can perpetuate scarcity, sure. then you can perpetuate religion. But a non-scarcity society will outstrip a scarcity one any day.
?? Religion-based cultures are Designed to outgrow and overrun others. The ones we are left with are the ones which are best at doing this.

After 1200 years there is no choice in much of the muslim world, but to leave it. This will not be even more difficult on mars.

Headline 2025
"Iran purchases nuclear propulsion tech from russia for planned migration."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
I can just as easily ask why wouldn't they...
Biology will be replaced by machine life. Intelligent Design. Nature progresses by blind trial and error which is extremely wasteful.

We can already imagine the beings which will replace us. They will never sleep, never get sick, never get old, never go crazy, never forget, never get emotional.

People of the future will readily surrender control of their own lives to these beings because it will simply be SAFER.

We cannot trust humans to take care of us, which is why we have been seeking alternatives throughout human history. We finally have become able to create our own.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
The brain will always need protein, vitamins, minerals, etc. In order to create beings which run off energy, they must be non-biological.

And these minerals, proteins and vitamins must come from food grown in soil?
Consider that we're already printing at the nano-scale. I don't think it's so much of a stretch of the imagination that we'll print one day at the atomic scale. Print a steak from first principles. At that point you'll just need a handful of dirt as input - all the atoms you neeed are in there.

Religion-based cultures are Designed to outgrow and overrun others.

Not by their religious nature. By the POWER nature of those abusing religion. And as noted: beyond a certain divergence there's no real point in contact with religionist cultures (which I still don't think will survive the jump into space).

The universe is bigger than humanity - and likely to stay that way. Even if some religion or other were to put everything into super-mass-breeding programs (why?)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
And these minerals, proteins and vitamins must come from food grown in soil? Consider that we're already printing at the nano-scale. I don't think it's so much of a stretch of the imagination that we'll print one day at the atomic scale. Print a steak from first principles. At that point you'll just need a handful of dirt as input - all the atoms you neeed are in there.
Yeahyeah. Machines wont need this stuff to function. This is progress.
The universe is bigger than humanity - and likely to stay that way. Even if some religion or other were to put everything into super-mass-breeding programs (why?)
Same as always - because god says so. This is not something to question. Why drop babies in gaza until it kills you? Thats even more incomprehensible.

Your super mass-breeding programs are only SOP in the fundamentalist world. In the first place women in New Homs will be allowed to do nothing else but make and raise babies. Because god says so. So right away youve got a problem.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
Sub: Searching minds-Guiding spirits
Need to understand the subject with due regard and comprehension.
Spiritual Enlightenment Index becomes a priority
Wisdom for Cosmology vedas interlinks- promote more interacting chairs. Please note that the subject is not for mis-use.
vidyardhicosmology [dot]blogspot [dot]in/2011/10/light-flow-interaction-plasma-vision [dot]html
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
This is not something to question. Why drop babies in gaza until it kills you? Thats even more incomprehensible.

As pointed out: products of scarcity and stupidity. Both of which are still the order of the day and something we cannot currently change. But I see no reason to believe that this holds forever. If we posit advances in other parts are possible, why would you assume that advances in these areas are forever impossible?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
But I see no reason to believe that this holds forever.
But you have no evidence to present otherwise. I offer the evidence of the history of religion. There is no reason to believe that just swapping one desert for another would make islamists any more reasonable.

Technology? They already love the internet. They already live in conditions inhospitable to human life. They are very adept with Tanks and attack helicopters and rolls royces. They are fine living in caves.

Given advances in propulsion and habitat construction, there is no reason to doubt that an islamist colony couldnt be established on mars with their beliefs and their mores intact. Again, look at dearborn. Or many places in germany. No multiculturalism on mars.

Most gazans live on foreign aid; islam would be happy to support a mars colony of believers, more so than stingy euros anyway.
Graeme
not rated yet Feb 16, 2013
In these observation the integration time for the observations was only 150 seconds, with 5 minu8tes per star of observation time. It could have been a lot more sensitive, with longer observations eg 1 hour per star. However nowadays there is less and less narrowband modulation signals being emitted, and things like phase shift keying, or spread spectrum are used, spreading the signal, This would take a lot more computer processing to handle.