Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Astronomers Hope to Find E.T. in Next 25 Years
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | Tue Jul 16, 6:34 AM ET | By Belinda Goldsmith

Posted on 07/16/2002 7:40:55 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Scientists searching the stars for aliens are convinced an E.T. is out there -- it's just that they haven't had the know-how to detect such a being.

But now technological advances have opened the way for scientists to check millions of previously unknown star systems, dramatically increasing the chances of finding intelligent life in outer space in the next 25 years, the world's largest private extraterrestrial agency believes.

"We're looking for needles in the haystack that is our galaxy, but there could be thousands of needles out there," Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer at California's non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence ( news - web sites) (SETI) Institute, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday.

"If that's the case, with the number of new star systems we now hope to check, we should find one of those in the next 25 years."

But Shostak, visiting Australia to attend a conference on extraterrestrial research, said detecting alien life, like the big-eyed alien in the film E.T., was only the start.

"Even if we detect life out there, we'll still know nothing about what form of life we have detected and I doubt they'll be able -- or want -- to communicate with us," Shostak said.

Since it was founded in 1984, the SETI Institute has monitored radio signals, hoping to pick up a transmission from outer space. Its Project Phoenix conducts two annual three-week sessions on a radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

Project Phoenix, widely seen as the inspiration for the 1997 film "Contact" starring Jodie Foster, which depicted a search for life beyond earth, is the privately funded successor to an original NASA ( news - web sites) program that was canceled in 1993 amid much skepticism by the U.S. Congress.

But the search has been slow. About 500 of 1,000 targeted stars have been examined -- and no extraterrestrial transmissions have been detected.

E.T. NOT ON THE LINE

"We do get signals all the time but when checked out they have all been human made...and are not from E.T., more AT&T," said Shostak.

He said the privately-funded institute was developing a giant US$26 million telescope to start operating in 2005 that can search the stars for signals at least 100 times faster.

The so-called Allen Telescope Array, named after sponsor and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, is a network of more than 350, six-meter (20-foot) satellite dishes with a collecting area exceeding that of a 100-meter (338-foot) telescope.

The Allen array, to be built at the Hat Creek Observatory about 290 miles northeast of San Fransciso, will also expand the institute's stellar reconnaissance to 100,000 or even one million nearby stars, searching 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Shostak said he is convinced there is intelligent life out there -- but don't expect to find a loveable, boggle-eyed E.T..

He said if any aliens share the same carbon-based organic chemistry as humans, they would probably have a central processing system, eyes, a mouth or two, legs and some form of reproduction.

But Shostak thinks any intelligent extraterrestrial life will have gone light years beyond the intelligence of man.

"What we are more likely to hear will be so far beyond our own level that it might not be biological anymore but some artificial form of life," he said. "Don't expect a blobby, squishy alien to be on the end of the line."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: alien; astronomers; et; extraterrestrial; godlessheathens; paranormal; sethshostak; seti; ufo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 501-504 next last
To: balrog666
balrog, baby, I was not the one who presupposed an FTL "signal" first. I spoke of FTL "effects" before that, and I wasn't the first. You either haven't read or haven't comprehended the start of the exchange, and you're doing me a favor now by making that clear. Thanks.
421 posted on 07/20/2002 1:29:23 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Physicist brought up the FTL signal first. Do him a favor now and drop out of this.
422 posted on 07/20/2002 1:30:59 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
If I generate a signal that moves 1 nanometer per year faster than light, and bounce it off a mirror moving at 1/2 c relative to me, and the mirror is located 1/2 light year away when the signal bounces from it, when will it return?

394 posted on 7/19/02 6:38 PM Central by apochromat

423 posted on 07/20/2002 2:01:09 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Go back to the posts before #200. You'll have to dig that one by yourself.
424 posted on 07/20/2002 2:04:59 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
We've had threads long ago on the paradoxes of FTL communications. Physicist is no stranger to the topic. I could probably dig up some of my old posts, but I suspect the atmosphere around here isn't appropriate. Perhaps some other thread.
425 posted on 07/20/2002 2:13:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Hellooooooooo! Still here?
426 posted on 07/20/2002 2:19:30 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
How does that explain you two on me?
427 posted on 07/20/2002 2:21:37 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Hey, if all we are doing is exchanging words and criticizing each other, and I'm the only one with a prima facie rational basis for it, who's the bully?
428 posted on 07/20/2002 2:28:34 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I keep trying to get a sensible stand from this lot, and you and your pals keep trying to knock me off the board for it. Who is the bully again?
429 posted on 07/20/2002 2:33:50 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
I keep trying to get a sensible stand from this lot, and you and your pals keep trying to knock me off the board for it. Who is the bully again?

You have mistaken me for someone else. Until this moment, I have never addressed a post to you, nor have I ever taken any action to have you removed from this site. Your presence here is of no interest to me, and right now I see no reason why our paths should cross again.

430 posted on 07/20/2002 2:41:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You guys are all the same. What a waste of good screen names.
431 posted on 07/20/2002 2:55:15 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Physicist
Hey silly, if you are going to say that a bully asks for an apology immediately after I mention asking for an apology, then you know I'm going to criticize you. See around posts #390-400. I never received a satisfactory explanation of why Physicist is telling me, to paraphrase: "Wrong, that's sci fi, and FTL signal nonsequitur blah blah non-sequitur blah blah moving Bob blah blah". You two gems are in denial.
432 posted on 07/20/2002 3:01:27 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: donh
Posted by OBAFGKM to apochromat
#155 of 432

"My understanding is FTL effects need not violate causality."

The problem comes with relativity. Suppose that an observer determines that event "A" is in some way the "cause"
of event "B." If FTL communication is possible, then relativity allows the existence of another observer who sees "B"
as occuring in "A's" past, i.e., as the effect having preceded the cause.

------------------------------------------

(don, I've no argument here with this poster, becuase he's not obnoxious and he's being helpful.)

------------------------------------------

Posted by Physicist to apochromat
#163 of 432

In a Wheeler-Feynman sort of way, I suppose.

No, in a Jack Finney-H.G. Wells sort of way. OBAFGKM already showed you that if Alice sends an FTL signal (event "A")
to an observer Bob (event "B"), and Bob is travelling towards Alice sufficiently fast, event "B" will occur before event "A"
in Bob's frame. That means that in Bob's frame, his line of simultaneity intersects Alice's location at an earlier time than she
sent it. So if Bob bounces this FTL signal back to Alice, it will arrive at her location before she actually sent it.

--------------------------------------

WTH?????? Blah! My leg is wet after that humper.

433 posted on 07/20/2002 3:22:47 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: apochromat; Physicist; RadioAstronomer; balrog666; PatrickHenry
If I generate a signal that moves 1 nanometer per year faster than light, and bounce it off a mirror moving at 1/2 c relative to me, and the mirror is located 1/2 light year away when the signal bounces from it, when will it return?

Arrrggghhhh!!!!!! LOL! I usually go on Free Republic to take a break from my mathematics homework. (currently a Calc I student) :)

Well. anyway, I'll give it a try.

If the signal goes 1 nanometer per year faster than light, then it will presumably be (1/2) light years plus (1/2) nanometers away after 1/2 of a year. If the mirror intercepts the signal when the mirror is at (1/2) light years away, (the signal will be (1/2) light years - (1/2) nanometer away at that point), and sends the signal back, presumably traveling at (c + 1 nanometer/lightyear), then in the round trip it should return to me in (1 year - 1 nanometer/lightyear)?

Well, I gave it a try anyway.

Tell me if I'm right or wrong please.

434 posted on 07/20/2002 5:44:34 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Chicagoan
These atheists can look all they want but they are going to find any UFOs. They don't exist.

Why, if God wanted to create another forms of life, even the rational one, who are we to tell Him not to do it?

435 posted on 07/20/2002 5:48:02 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
That's one of the possible answers I'd thought about, considering that the universe is apparently said by many scientists to be expanding in such a way as to make light travel farther than one light-year per year.

To be quite frank with you, I don't know the answer. I tried to make the problem as simple as possible and could only guess at what parameter values were originally alluded to by the person who brought it up. Perhaps a tachyon must have positive acceleration too.
436 posted on 07/20/2002 5:52:23 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Chicagoan
God created all things and there his no mention of "aliens" in His word.

The Holy Scriptures are intended to be the encyclopedia for all subjects. They contain what is needed for the salvation of souls. You cannot reason that if something is not in the Bible than it is not real.

Such exclusive version of Sola Scriptura interpretation of the Bible is more like Islamic understanding of Koran.

437 posted on 07/20/2002 5:53:36 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Nice try, but we are not told if the mirror is moving toward us or away from us, or what, and I think that would affect the results -- if such a problem even has results.
438 posted on 07/20/2002 5:59:36 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
I see now that those units aren't matching. It would be close to a year, as you imply, if it could be done.

Also, my earlier comment about light moving more than 1 LY/Y because of expansion is probably a poor way of stating it.
439 posted on 07/20/2002 6:06:24 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
And I have still no idea why it should matter that the signal "bouncer" moves. It's hard to imagine what the signal "bouncer" is supposed to be, so I made it a problem with light and a mirror. Who knows what it's about????
440 posted on 07/20/2002 6:10:19 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 501-504 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson