Guest
A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
Is that according to only 1970s or 80s research.
Is that according to only 1970s or 80s research.
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
Four things:
1. ETs will not be friendly. The reasons are quite obvious. Star Trek & Star Wars notwithstanding.
2. ETs, should they come here, will be doing so for one, and only one purpose. The reasons are also quite obvious.
3. Any ET with FTL capacities will be sufficiently advanced as to be unlikely to recognize us as intelligent at any level. We will have more in common with a garden spider than any ET will have with us.
4. Any ET without FTL capacities that reaches us - see #2 above.
And, for light & quiet reading, I suggest Fredric Brown: The Wavaries, and
The Fourth Profession by Larry Niven.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
1. ETs will not be friendly. The reasons are quite obvious. Star Trek & Star Wars notwithstanding.
2. ETs, should they come here, will be doing so for one, and only one purpose. The reasons are also quite obvious.
3. Any ET with FTL capacities will be sufficiently advanced as to be unlikely to recognize us as intelligent at any level. We will have more in common with a garden spider than any ET will have with us.
4. Any ET without FTL capacities that reaches us - see #2 above.
And, for light & quiet reading, I suggest Fredric Brown: The Wavaries, and
The Fourth Profession by Larry Niven.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
M
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Guest
On 18/8/2017 12:31 AM, bruce2bowser@gmail.com wrote:
Getting into government conspiracies?
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸ĺ貸! ä¸čŠé¨! ä¸ć´äş¤! ä¸ć交! ä¸ćĺŤ! ä¸čŞćŽş! čŤčć Žçść´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Getting into government conspiracies?
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸ĺ貸! ä¸čŠé¨! ä¸ć´äş¤! ä¸ć交! ä¸ćĺŤ! ä¸čŞćŽş! čŤčć Žçść´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
G
gregz
Guest
<bruce2bowser@gmail.com> wrote:
It's hard enough to communicate with Voyager when two dishes converge.
Horizontally omni broadcast has low energy and complex signals. Forget it.
Greg
It's hard enough to communicate with Voyager when two dishes converge.
Horizontally omni broadcast has low energy and complex signals. Forget it.
Greg
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 07:21:33 +0000, gregz wrote:
I'd always suspected so. But is there any respectable research to back up
this figure of 1.5 light years?
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
I'd always suspected so. But is there any respectable research to back up
this figure of 1.5 light years?
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
A
amdx
Guest
On 8/17/2017 11:31 AM, bruce2bowser@gmail.com wrote:
OH, so they are still in anticipation of the Kardashians.
Mikek
OH, so they are still in anticipation of the Kardashians.
Mikek
S
Sjouke Burry
Guest
On 19-8-2017 12:38, Cursitor Doom wrote:
know a lot about noise received from space.
When the noise is drowning the signal, you cannot receive the signal.
So, yes, we know the reception quality for a given transmitter power
and distance.
To reach twice as far you need 4 times as much power, and as distance
increases, you quickly lose that game.
We know the signal strength (inverse square law), and we
know a lot about noise received from space.
When the noise is drowning the signal, you cannot receive the signal.
So, yes, we know the reception quality for a given transmitter power
and distance.
To reach twice as far you need 4 times as much power, and as distance
increases, you quickly lose that game.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 08/19/2017 06:38 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
The problem with communicating with Voyager is on the uplink side, not
the downlink side. Even at Voyager 1s distance and current power output
of a few 10s of watts, in the appropriate spectrum Voyager 1 is a
blazing beacon far outshining most other objects of interest studied by
radio astronomers.
I think it's possible to do much better than 1.5 light years, if you can
make some assumptions about what area of the spectrum you're looking in,
and what kind of patterns you're looking for. It's not like there aren't
ways to recover periodic signals/signals with structure that have been
corrupted by noise.
The problem with communicating with Voyager is on the uplink side, not
the downlink side. Even at Voyager 1s distance and current power output
of a few 10s of watts, in the appropriate spectrum Voyager 1 is a
blazing beacon far outshining most other objects of interest studied by
radio astronomers.
I think it's possible to do much better than 1.5 light years, if you can
make some assumptions about what area of the spectrum you're looking in,
and what kind of patterns you're looking for. It's not like there aren't
ways to recover periodic signals/signals with structure that have been
corrupted by noise.
N
N_Cook
Guest
On 20/08/2017 00:15, Sjouke Burry wrote:
But these very clever aliens have worked out how to use galactic scale
gravitational lensing to survey the comms of lesser inteligencies.
But these very clever aliens have worked out how to use galactic scale
gravitational lensing to survey the comms of lesser inteligencies.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 08:01:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:
So even if we could do 3 light years, there's still nothing much within
that radius that we could expect to communicate with. Why did all that
effort go into SETI, then? Surely all the nerds that ventured into that,
or granted the SETI nerds spare time on their idling computers to analyse
the data obtained from the world's radio telescopes must have known they
were wasting their time!
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
So even if we could do 3 light years, there's still nothing much within
that radius that we could expect to communicate with. Why did all that
effort go into SETI, then? Surely all the nerds that ventured into that,
or granted the SETI nerds spare time on their idling computers to analyse
the data obtained from the world's radio telescopes must have known they
were wasting their time!
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
S
Sjouke Burry
Guest
On 20-8-2017 15:43, N_Cook wrote:
Lensing more noise/weak signal does not change the ratio,
and does not make for better reception.
And your lensing works only over millions of light years.
Which leaves you micro-micro-micro watts of received power.
Bollocks.
Lensing more noise/weak signal does not change the ratio,
and does not make for better reception.
And your lensing works only over millions of light years.
Which leaves you micro-micro-micro watts of received power.
M
Mike Coon
Guest
In article <59999ab7$0$1718$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>,
burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll says...
I take your point about the scale over which lensing works. But why is
the effect not similar to using a high-gain aerial, which is common
enough?
Mike.
burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll says...
I take your point about the scale over which lensing works. But why is
the effect not similar to using a high-gain aerial, which is common
enough?
Mike.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 08/20/2017 09:46 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
I think the idea wasn't to scan for ET's version of "I Love Lucy", it
is/was to look for much higher power signals, from more advanced
civilizations, broadcast with the express intent of alerting systems
like SETI.
i.e. not trying to overhear ET's conversations, but listening for
trumpet blasts.
I think the idea wasn't to scan for ET's version of "I Love Lucy", it
is/was to look for much higher power signals, from more advanced
civilizations, broadcast with the express intent of alerting systems
like SETI.
i.e. not trying to overhear ET's conversations, but listening for
trumpet blasts.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:54:58 +0100, Mike Coon wrote:
Whatever. I appreciate N Cook's suggestion was just a joke which some
here seem to have overlooked. The idea is a total non-starter if anyone
tried to do it in practice, which I very very very much doubt.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Whatever. I appreciate N Cook's suggestion was just a joke which some
here seem to have overlooked. The idea is a total non-starter if anyone
tried to do it in practice, which I very very very much doubt.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 08/20/2017 02:17 PM, bitrex wrote:
A suitably advanced gregarious civilization capable of directing
"trumpet blasts" like that probably already has sufficiently powerful
space-based imaging to directly look the planetary surfaces of any
inhabited worlds within say 50 light years down to maybe several
hundreds of meters resolution, evaluate the civilizations they see
there, and decide whether they look like a species worth contacting, or not.
STILL PRETTY QUIET 'ROUND HERE
A suitably advanced gregarious civilization capable of directing
"trumpet blasts" like that probably already has sufficiently powerful
space-based imaging to directly look the planetary surfaces of any
inhabited worlds within say 50 light years down to maybe several
hundreds of meters resolution, evaluate the civilizations they see
there, and decide whether they look like a species worth contacting, or not.
STILL PRETTY QUIET 'ROUND HERE
B
bitrex
Guest
On 08/20/2017 10:15 AM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
If you're going to start using gravitational lensing for your telescope
it's probably "easiest" to just directly image planetary surfaces in the
area of the visible spectrum. i.e. just literally spy on them visually.
And you definitely don't need millions of light years of distance to
leverage lensing, you just need to get your telescope up an out of the
Sun's gravity well and out to a focal point of the gravity lens of the
Sun itself to get enormous amplification; in the visible spectrum we're
talking amplification factors on the order of 10^10.
About a third of a light-year away is where you'd need to be; to get
there in a reasonable time (less than a human lifetime) you'd need an
engine that could push the carrier vessel up to an average of around 1
million mph.
If you're going to start using gravitational lensing for your telescope
it's probably "easiest" to just directly image planetary surfaces in the
area of the visible spectrum. i.e. just literally spy on them visually.
And you definitely don't need millions of light years of distance to
leverage lensing, you just need to get your telescope up an out of the
Sun's gravity well and out to a focal point of the gravity lens of the
Sun itself to get enormous amplification; in the visible spectrum we're
talking amplification factors on the order of 10^10.
About a third of a light-year away is where you'd need to be; to get
there in a reasonable time (less than a human lifetime) you'd need an
engine that could push the carrier vessel up to an average of around 1
million mph.
M
~misfit~
Guest
Once upon a time on usenet Sjouke Burry wrote:
So all of those specialist scientists who run SETI are completely wasting
their time! You should email them ASAP.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
So all of those specialist scientists who run SETI are completely wasting
their time! You should email them ASAP.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
Guys and gals:
PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy".
Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far.
With "Humans" as the objects to which 'feelings' are attributed.
This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy".
Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far.
With "Humans" as the objects to which 'feelings' are attributed.
This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
P
Phil Allison
Guest
pf...@aol.com wrote:
--------------------------
** That must be your other name.
** Apply literary term to ETs ?
** Not one bit arrogant.
** You have more in common with spider on crack.
Wot a pathetic fuckwit.
...... Phil
--------------------------
** That must be your other name.
** Apply literary term to ETs ?
** Not one bit arrogant.
** You have more in common with spider on crack.
Wot a pathetic fuckwit.
...... Phil
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
Off your meds again?
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Off your meds again?
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA