SETI

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by mistermack » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:23 pm

Mysturji wrote:The program with the slightest chance of the greatest reward.
:geek:
Discuss.
I think the only ones who would get a great reward would be Hollywood.
We would be in for some really shit films for the next ten years.
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:40 pm

New analysis - we may be alone after all...
Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) work under the assumption that there is, in fact, intelligent life out there to be found. A new analysis may crush their optimism.

To calculate the likelihood that they'll make radio contact with extraterrestrials, SETI scientists use what's known as the Drake Equation. Formulated in the 1960s by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute in California, it approximates the number of radio-transmitting civilizations in our galaxy at any one time by multiplying a string of factors: the number of stars, the fraction that have planets, the fraction of those that are habitable, the probability of life arising on such planets, its likelihood of becoming intelligent and so on. [10 Alien Encounters Debunked]

The values of almost all these factors are highly speculative. Nonetheless, Drake and others have plugged in their best guesses, and estimate that there are about 10,000 tech-savvy civilizations in the galaxy currently sending signals our way — a number that has led some scientists to predict that we'll detect alien signals within two decades.

What is Quantum Jumping? www.QuantumJumping.comDiscover Why Thousands of People are "Jumping" to Change Their LifeSolar Energy schneider-electric.comLearn about saving energy from the experts. Enterprise wide savings!Is Jesus God? Y-Jesus.comDiscover the Evidence From Scholars About Jesus' Claims to be GodAds by Google
Their optimism relies on one factor in particular: In the equation, the probability of life arising on suitably habitable planets (ones with water, rocky surfaces and atmospheres) is almost always taken to be 100 percent. As the reasoning goes, the same fundamental laws apply to the entire universe, and because those laws engendered the genesis of life on Earth — and relatively early in its history at that — they must readily spawn life elsewhere, too. As the Russian astrobiologist Andrei Finkelstein put it at a recent SETI press conference, "the genesis of life is as inevitable as the formation of atoms."

But in a new paper published on arXiv.org, astrophysicist David Spiegel at Princeton University and physicist Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo argue that this thinking is dead wrong. Using a statistical method called Bayesian reasoning, they argue that the life here on Earth could be common, or it could be extremely rare — there's no reason to prefer one conclusion over the other. With their new analysis, Spiegel and Turner say they have erased the one Drake factor scientists felt confident about and replaced it with a question mark.

While it's true that life arose quickly on Earth (within the planet's first few hundred million years), the researchers point out that if it hadn't done so, there wouldn't have been enough time for intelligent life — humans — to have evolved. So, in effect, we're biased. It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we're able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early. This requisite good luck is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.

"Although life began on this planet fairly soon after the Earth became habitable, this fact is consistent with … life being arbitrarily rare in the Universe," the authors state. In the paper, they prove this statement mathematically.

Their result doesn't mean we're alone — only that there's no reason to think otherwise. "[A] Bayesian enthusiast of extraterrestrial life should be significantly encouraged by the rapid appearance of life on the early Earth but cannot be highly confident on that basis," the authors conclude. Our own existence implies very little about how many other times life has arisen.

Two data points rather than just one would make all the difference, the researchers say. If life is found to have arisen independently on Mars, then scientists would be in a much better position to assert that, under the right conditions, the genesis of life is inevitable.
http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-r ... -seti.html

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:41 pm

Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Atheist-Lite » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:46 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
It's like timetravel. A neat yet impossible dream. Any alien species with technology would do what we're about to do and destroy itself. :smoke:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:52 pm

Crumple wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
It's like timetravel. A neat yet impossible dream. Any alien species with technology would do what we're about to do and destroy itself. :smoke:
You base this on a huge sample of one.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:52 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
Nope. There is no clarity. Basically, the probability of life like ours in the universe may be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1000 to the 100th power. We just do not have the information from which to calculate that probability.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:59 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
Nope. There is no clarity. Basically, the probability of life like ours in the universe may be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1000 to the 100th power. We just do not have the information from which to calculate that probability.
1 + x + y + Z = A1

Hard data is thin. :bored:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:23 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Or we may not. The above doesn't clarify shit.
Nope. There is no clarity. Basically, the probability of life like ours in the universe may be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1000 to the 100th power. We just do not have the information from which to calculate that probability.
1 + x + y + Z = A1

Hard data is thin. :bored:
We are in solid agreement.

User avatar
Mysturji
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Mysturji » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:22 pm

While it's true that life arose quickly on Earth (within the planet's first few hundred million years), the researchers point out that if it hadn't done so, there wouldn't have been enough time for intelligent life — humans — to have evolved. So, in effect, we're biased. It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we're able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early. This requisite good luck is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.
You're forgetting several mass-extinction events that set the clock back millions (up to a billion or more) years each.
And anyway, who says this "genesis" happened on Earth? Comets contain the building blocks of life, perhaps just waiting for the right conditions.
Yes, it's all speculative, but no more than your "analysis".
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
IDMD2
I am a twit.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SETI

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:30 pm

While it's true that life arose quickly on Earth (within the planet's first few hundred million years), the researchers point out that if it hadn't done so, there wouldn't have been enough time for intelligent life — humans — to have evolved. So, in effect, we're biased. It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we're able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early. This requisite good luck is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.
Weird claim. The planet idled along with nothing but cyano-bacteria for about one billion years.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests