Slashdot Mirror


Why We're Looking For ET All Wrong

StartsWithABang writes: When you consider that there are definitely millions of planets in the habitable zones of their stars within our Milky Way galaxy alone, the possibility that there's intelligent life on at least one of them, right now, is tantalizing. But we're in our technological infancy, relatively speaking, having only been broadcasting electromagnetic signatures visible by an alien civilization for around 80 years. Unsurprisingly, we're looking for exactly the types of signals we're capable of sending, but what if that's totally wrongheaded? Based on how technology is evolving and what the Universe is capable of, perhaps we should be looking not at electromagnetic radiation, but neutrino or gravitational wave signals from the distant Universe to search for alien civilizations.

275 comments

  1. Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the one life we know exists, if we find aliens with a totally different physiology or totally different technology that's nice but we have no idea of what to look for. It's unlikely that aliens expect us to tap into their communications, if they are trying to ping us they probably do it using all possible channels. And we know at least one of them, it's unlikely a civilization that can do what he proposes hasn't invented the radio.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but the real question is, once radio is invented, how long will they keep using it?

    2. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by elwinc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the very least we should be looking for spread spectrum modulation methods. Amplitude and Frequency modulation are so last century. On the other hand, a good spread spectrum signal looks like band limited white noise, so we need better methods to detect it.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    3. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real question is, what kind of ET in possession of advanced tech would look for contact with barbarians like us? Hell, I'm not an ET and I don't want contact with majority of the human race.

    4. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Kkloe · · Score: 2

      They are not emos?

    5. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Radio is very noisy. Why would any advanced civilization think that it would be a great way to communicate over long distances? I would assume that any intelligent life-form would listen to the static in the background and think, there must be something better than this.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    6. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      It's the one life we know exists, if we find aliens with a totally different physiology or totally different technology that's nice but we have no idea of what to look for. It's unlikely that aliens expect us to tap into their communications, if they are trying to ping us they probably do it using all possible channels. And we know at least one of them, it's unlikely a civilization that can do what he proposes hasn't invented the radio.

      Yes yes. Additionally, if there exists a self-aware life form too unlike us, we couldn't understand it, even if it were a bit smarter than us.

      Shoot. For all we know? If the dolphins had developed amphibiously, we'd be scattered about the stars by now.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Interesting
      An interesting paper on xenopsychology by Robert A. Freitas (a senior fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing in Palo Alto, California.).

      See see Sentient Quotient

      At present, human scientists are attempting to communicate outside our species to primates and cetaceans, and in a limited way to a few other vertebrates. This is inordinately difficult, and yet it represents a gap of at most a few SQ points. The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it, but it is evident that messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful. What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

    8. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And further progress seems likely to continue using broader bands, including shorter wavelengths (up to and including visible light), cleverer encoding techniques, more encryption and lower transmission power. All of which will make it harder and harder to detect from interstellar ranges. I think the most likely scenario is that our civilization will only emit detectable radio waves for a couple of centuries, so if we assume a similar progression for other civilizations, what we're looking for with radio-band scanning is a short-term blip emitted by emerging technological civilizations. So we may as well look for the crudest, most easily detected forms, since looking for more advanced forms is harder and doesn't extend the window by all that much.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by davester666 · · Score: 1

      FM!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      The one beacon we have triggered repeatedly is nuclear explosions....
      If the thousand or so tests the US did in the 1945-1996 period did not get anyone's attention, what else would?
      When we started monitoring for the Partial Test Ban Treaty, we noticed unexplained gamma bursts from off planet:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_%28satellite%29
      If all the EMP and gamma we tossed around developing and testing nukes did not get someone's attention, I Love Lucy reruns and America's Top 40 hardly stand a chance...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    11. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 2

      It's the one life we know exists, if we find aliens with a totally different physiology or totally different technology that's nice but we have no idea of what to look for. It's unlikely that aliens expect us to tap into their communications, if they are trying to ping us they probably do it using all possible channels. And we know at least one of them, it's unlikely a civilization that can do what he proposes hasn't invented the radio.

      Exactly. Some form of the OP argument has come up ever since SETI was initiated (usually around the time funding was being discussed, and some brain trust politician asked "You guys find anything yet?"). What I think is important is the core idea around the argument, which is not: "Just because we haven't found anything, doesn't mean it's not there." The core idea is actually to avoid being caught up in the small-minded trap generated by anthropocentrism, which has as its central premise: "Using only the single method we are aware and capable of, we have not found any evidence of intelligent life. Therefore we are the only intelligent species in this galaxy."

    12. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC because I've already used mod points. While interesting, I have a hard time taking a 'paper' so rife with grammatical and punctuation errors seriously. It has some interesting concepts, but sadly suffers from very poor writing and editing.

    13. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      Which is precisely why SETI works in radio frequencies.

      If we turned our best telescopes on Earth, we would only detect ourselves out to about 10 ly (although I bet that's improved). The only hope we have of finding an ET thus requires them to be deliberately signalling back to civilizations like ours. We assume they would do that in the radio frequencies simply because that's what we'd do.

      Sure, these other systems might be useful, but we can't spy on them. So in the meantime...

    14. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The real question is, what kind of ET in possession of advanced tech would look for contact with barbarians like us?

      Hopefully the ones that evolved to be playful sexy catgirls. In a nearly infinite universe, that has to be somewhere, right?

    15. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      But it emphatically is NOT the only life we know exists. Look around you. Aside from humans, the Earth is teeming, crawling, swimming and covered in and by maybe a billion different species. That's life as we know it.

      However, out of ALL of those billions of species, only one has ever invented complicated languages or radio, as far as we know. Us. So when we look out there for signals from ET, we are in fact really looking for signals from another us, just like the article says. The problem is, if One in billions of species here developed radio, then the odds are dramatically against this sort of thing happening here or anywhere else. Life will exist. It's everywhere here. But it doesn't have radio.

      So basically, we are looking out in the cosmos seeking to find an identical situation as the one that ALMOST didn't even happen here, statistically speaking. This is the problem. We are looking for us. But look around: the Earth alone is covered in life "not like us" so the odds are any life out there is probably also not like us. And if life out there isn't into radio or TV, our radio telescopes will never see it.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    16. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by epine · · Score: 2

      This is inordinately difficult, and yet it represents a gap of at most a few SQ points.

      Thanks for embedding a bright red hand print on my forehead. You do know that the difference between ice and water is only a few degrees Celsius? We've barely established that cetaceans even have an oral culture with anything in common with pre-historical human oral culture.

      For all we know, the phase change to a symbolic written culture just might be the largest singular catastrophe in the standard SQ sequence.

      Why why why does this field attract so many extrapolation retards?

    17. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      Nice doggy!

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    18. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all of the chaos and noise in the universe, do you honestly think anything would notice some tiny firecrackers from light years away?

    19. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Don't go near a balloon factory with all that edge. Results would be disastrous.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    20. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    21. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Edge"? What are you, some kind of hipster douchebag?

    22. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      "You look delicious!"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      At the very least we should be looking for spread spectrum modulation methods.

      Why would we do that?

      Look, every time we make major science advances, the engineering quickly follows, and we get better communications tech. Certainly frequency hopping is one of those advances, but it's not even a mid-point to what we'll be using when we have a completely cohesive theory of Physics.

      At least SETI only claims to look for signals intentionally sent out as a beacon to the most possible types of civilizations that could possibly hope to receive it.

      Nobody who would even consider intercepting active alien comms at this point has any clue what form they might take. Maybe in a couple hundred years our decendents will be having this same conversation and know what to look for, but we surely can't even imagine it today.

      If I were the ET I wouldn't send out a beacon for SETI - I'd wait until races got their math figured out before bothering to interact with them. But who knows what thoughts lurk in alien minds.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      A few other primates are close to us, but are a few million years away. What do we have to say to these primates today? Bananas are good. I hurt my foot.In a ten million years when chimpanzees are the current us, what will we have to say to them? 000010010100010101010010000101010010000101010100010100011001010 Maybe the whole universe is talking to us, but we can't relate to what it's saying

    25. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Because unless you have gravity modulation or the ability to shield neutrinos, and thus can use them for communications then you might have something.

      Actually using gravity would suck as every large mass would deflect your signal, and thus it is useless for interstellar comms.

      Neutrinos go through everything so in theory works if you can shield, create, and modulate them.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    26. Re: Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Then again, even if one intelligent species arose within life bearing solar systems, there must be billions of those out there. After running electricity through conductive elements, radio waves are probably the simplest forms of radiation to generate (a byproduct really of electricity through conduits). It is unlikely that a civilization will make the leap from morse code radio to encoded neutron beams without the discovery of the laws governing electromagnetism. So even if they did send out neutrinos now, they probably sent radio together or before that either intentionally or unintentionally.

      Space is so massive and full of stuff that perhaps the only thing we will ever get is the WOW signal every couple of centuries. We've dismissed the WOW signal because it's been unproduced since but statistically, it is likely that it's the only thing we will ever see.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    27. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      As communication becomes more advanced and efficient, it becomes harder and harder to detect, and even harder to decipher. Instead of looking for ET's communications, perhaps we should be looking for the heat signatures of Dyson Spheres.

    28. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Moron, I'm calling the other person an edgy hipster douchebag.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    29. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it's unreasonable at all to consider that some form of EM communication will be used by advanced civilizations. EM radiation is just too easy to produce and detect and it enables very high bandwidths. The other technologies that the author is talking about - like gravitational wave communications or physical probes - have very very low bandwidths by nature of their design. General relativity dictates that it requires HUGE amounts of energy/mass to produce even feeble amounts of gravitational waves.

      The point about detecting neutrinos from fusion reactors is interesting but I don't think there's any way we could separate those neutrinos from background radiation.

      EM is likely to remain the most promising method for detecting ETI. Of course there's no reason that the EM radiation would be limited to the radio/microwave band. It could be based on light, or IR, or UV, or even X rays.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    30. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2

      Right now you are right about not wanting contact with a lot of our fellow citizens. But suppose that one day you are so powerful that no one could possible harm you in any way. Suppose that you could provide them with almost infinite amount of power so that they could build huge areas with a constant temperature of say 70 degrees and 40 per cent humidity. Suppose just by living in those areas that they would be free from the suffering of either excessive heat or cold. Now don't you think you would be welcome as a hero? Now suppose that in your present country you are not considered as anything special. Suppose that you can not even reproduce since it is the law that someone must die for every new birth. Would one do almost anything to get to this new world? I would think that the more barbaric we are the more appealing we would be to someone who hopes to be a hero. It is an appealing thought that one day millions of people would remember my name as their savior.

    31. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Quasimodem · · Score: 1

      There are two types of barbarian. One kind marvels at innovations and honors any being which create them, while the other kind of barbarian is afraid innovations, and tries to destroy any being who can create them. Surely, someone from a truly advanced civilization would realize this, determine that our civilization contains both kinds, and steer a wary course around our rustic little planet.

    32. Re: Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck did I just read?

    33. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot, I'm calling you a hipster douchebag for trying to use the term "edge" as an insult in a pathetic attempt to posture.

    34. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does this site attract so many angry little know-it-all nerds?

    35. Re: Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When trying to reach a broader audience, encryption should not even enter the equation.

    36. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Modulating neutrinos would be tough since they're only affected by gravity and the weak subatomic force.

      Besides, any really advanced civilization would be using subspace for communications.....

    37. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      I don't know, but my cats aren't even as smart as dolphins, but I like talking to them anyway. Sometimes they do seem to understand too.

    38. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by towermac · · Score: 1

      Yeah.And if that's the case, I don't want to meet them either. Ah, it'd be neat at first, and I'm sure I would marvel and honor.

      But basically, they are Pizarro, and we are the Incas. I believe they marveled too, and even honored. But it didn't take long for things to go badly for them. So I should not look forward to that.

      Don't get me wrong, the Incan Empire was fucked up, and they got what was coming to them, probably a thousand years overdue. But still, truly considering your premise, I take less pleasure now in that moral judgement, and I'd rather not get what is coming to me.

      Or, they are not Pizarro, and they don't come. At least not yet. Like you said.

    39. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of technology would be interesting if you want to transform this planet in a kind of human farm
      Otherwise variability seem much more interesting, desserts hot and cold, plains, jungles...can be as beautiful as temperate gardens and the huge variety of species do make our planet more interesting than a mono cultivate field
      Besides all the problems you mention can be solved with a sensible sustainable growth society, we could start solving those problems today if we only had the will

    40. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

      What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      I don't know, but my cats aren't even as smart as dolphins, but I like talking to them anyway. Sometimes they do seem to understand too.

      That is only an act, they see you talking to them as a weakness and will take advantage of that to kill you and get at the food.

    41. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by elwinc · · Score: 1

      Radio is very noisy. Why would any advanced civilization think that it would be a great way to communicate over long distances?

      Because microwaves near the 21cm band pass through dust clouds that would block visible light and various other frequency bands, so its good for really long distance communication. Hydrogen 21cm detectors are also a good way to measure the large scale structure of the universe. See The Watering Hole.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    42. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by towermac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you almost make it bleak.

      Longer wavelength, higher amplitude would have the best chance of cutting through interstellar noise. Like AM. And we have a few stations that really blast it. Is HAM lower than AM? There's something lower that AM right, and they really blast that too, don't they? And we're going to have some people, even if it's just Alaskans, continue to use radio like that that for quite a few hundred more years. It's hard to beat AM for what it does.

      (Well, power lines with control frequencies embedded beat it up pretty good. But that's a signal that could be picked up too. Although that might sound a lot like a noisy star system.)

      Visible light is right out really. How bright would that have to be? You can't even see our star from a few light years off. So shorter wavelengths are not even going to get here. But I see no reason why we wouldn't use radio forever. What else would you do with that bandwidth? The wavelength is too long to make it worth digitizing it. Given the cheapness of analog AM receivers and transmitters, that carry the spoken voice (and a bit of music) just fine the way they are, is what I mean by worth it.

    43. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by towermac · · Score: 1

      "any clue"

      Oh it's not as bad as all that. They wouldn't use amplitude and/or frequency to carry binary? I think they would, and we would see words. Might have trouble decoding it into a readable message. Unless it's easily decoded into the spoken word (which we still wouldn't understand), or video, it could be very very difficult to decode.

      But we would know we had something.

    44. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by towermac · · Score: 1

      Really, yes.

      So we're really just looking for a single planet. And we communicate pretty good on this one without using neutrinos. I think it's a stretch to think even an advanced civilization would just quit using radio. What else is it good for?

    45. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by towermac · · Score: 1

      If they were listening, yeah, they might. It would be the easiest thing to pick up from far away.

    46. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      If they were listening, yeah, they might. It would be the easiest thing to pick up from far away.

      I hope so... because if they get that "I Love Lucy" theme music stuck in their heads (or torsos, or whatever they comprehend with) then they will send a Death Star on general principles...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    47. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the very least we should be looking for spread spectrum modulation methods. Amplitude and Frequency modulation are so last century. On the other hand, a good spread spectrum signal looks like band limited white noise, so we need better methods to detect it.

      srsly? spread spectrum is ancient and rapidly going out of favor for the more efficient (in terms of power, info rate, and bandwidth) OFDM modulation methods. Spread spectrum is the last thing you would want to look for an advanced civilization to be using. Source: I am an RF engineer.

    48. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      This is exactly why aliens wont want to contact us....

    49. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I would think that targeted radio frequencies which have been sent hundreds of millions of times would be a better beacon. Especially since they target specific wavelengths, and are not unfocused and chaotic like a nuclear explosion would be. Unless the extra-terrestrial life was observing from the moon, it is unlikely they would be able to discern a nuclear explosion for what it was.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    50. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The muslims, christians and jews are not the majority. We could deport them all to their respective 'holy land' if we wanted, giving us enough room to breath and build space craft that will allow us to explore the galaxy and leave behind that orbiting rock to the primitives.

    51. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Myria · · Score: 1

      At present, human scientists are attempting to communicate outside our species to primates and cetaceans, and in a limited way to a few other vertebrates. This is inordinately difficult, and yet it represents a gap of at most a few SQ points. The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it, but it is evident that messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful. What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      How about, "Hello"? My cat is sentient enough to say "Hello" in a primitive form that I can understand. Sure, an alien civilization much smarter than us wouldn't be able to discuss topics such as advanced quark interaction with us, but why couldn't they say, "Hello"?

      I don't think that the problem with communicating with alien life is an intelligence issue. It is far more likely to be impossible, or be an issue of the wrong communication medium.

      --
      "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    52. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it, but it is evident that messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful. What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      How about: "Here, have some water and fertilizer. I'll be back in a few of your puny so-called millennia when you are ready for The Harvest. You look delicious, by the way."

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    53. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Grow up. You have the online appearance of a petulant 12 year old desperately trying to seem tough. It's sad.

    54. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the ones that evolved to be playful sexy catgirls. In a nearly infinite universe, that has to be somewhere, right?

      Probably somewhere in the vicinity of Sqornshellous Zeta.

    55. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, no. Just no.

      Our sun, a small yellow dwarf star pumps out the equivalent energy and radiation of billions of nuclear bombs every second. Now think about all of the other stars out there doing the same thing. There is no way a couple of our minuscule nuke tests would ever be picked up by extraterrestrials unless they were somehow in very close proximity (ie. within our solar system) to the planet when they occurred, which is just absurd.

    56. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't just move on from lower frequencies to higher. There's also more communication, more devices talking to each other and while we extend the frequency range we also tend to saturate what already exists.. So one can ask the question whether centuries from now some parts of the frequency band will become unused. Looked at from that way this becomes unlikely and we'll just be using everything for one purpose or another. Which is only a reasoning but one that's as good as the other ones.

    57. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      FYI - the Wikipedia article that you linked indicated that we have been doing so for the last decade.

    58. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dyson Spheres sounds like some sort of futuristic vacuum cleaner

    59. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. Just no.

      This is a phrase that needs to die. It undermines your credibility by making you sound like a little girl. See also: "problematic".

    60. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, let's not forget that you have to start somewhere. Searching for EM emissions seems totally reasonable considering the barriers involved in SETI.

      It's easy to suggest we should be searching for "hard to detect signals", just like it's easy to come up with ideas generally speaking. Unless you can follow through to implementation you are just one of millions of "idea people" who never go anywhere with their ideas.

      Really, gravity waves? Some gravity wave experiments have been running for 20 years and not one gravity wave has been detected, ever. Even when theory suggests they should exist. However that theory is based upon high mass objects orbiting each other (think black holes or neutron stars). How or why would ET create or in any way be involved in that activity, or any activity that would generate gravity waves?

      Neutrino detection? Neutrinos are famous for barely interacting with normal matter. Millions of neutrinos pass through your body every day and they have zero, none, zilch effect upon you. Neutrino detectors are huge, expensive to build and are considered a great success when they detect even one in a gazillion neutrinos that pass through their sensors.

      Why not suggest that we build yeti detectors, complete with a BS theoretical justification of how and why ET placed the yeti here, or even that the yeti are the ET?

    61. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i see that as just a permutation of the anthropic principle.

      it might be equally true that intelligence is nigh inevitable a product of the evolutionary arms race, and is such a leap forward in that regards that practically speaking, there's only ever one species per planet.

      With intelligence, the pace of progress and change is not measured in geologic time.

      Even on earth, people feel bad about hurting things like pigs, dolphins, whales, chimps, crows, they are surprisingly intelligent. Give them another half billion years and one of those groups probably would have developed intelligence. We just hit the "i win" button first.

    62. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?

      I am Groot?

    63. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not until they develop the ability to open cans. When cats evolve can opener ability, we're all in serious trouble.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sound like a small child with your "eww girls" crap.

    65. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful.

      Let's not sell ourselves short. We're capable of transmitting, say, the entire contents of Wikipedia, and that's a much bigger accomplishment than the bleating of a sheep. While a Superbeing may not be interested in receiving that transmission, it's still pretty impressive.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    66. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So what happens when a socially developed species, starts to encounter far more socially advanced species. How do it's governing bodies react to the perceived total loss of control, from being the dominant sentient species to feeling like a species trapped and under observation in an anthropological park and conflict containment zone. What information would it release, likely publicly denial and misinformation about having some control over the relationship. About the only thing they could look forward to is the discovery that their anthropological park is much, much larger than they expected. After all galaxies are not that likely to be advanced sentient species saturated but still the threat of weeding the garden exists, this when you discover you do not own the garden, you just live in it. All in all, still hugely childish to think we are the only sentient life in the galaxy, when life can exist it does. When sentience can dominate due to adaptability to high environmental variance, it will (think cyclic ice ages and fire and the fur of less adaptable species).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    67. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      All in all, still hugely childish to think we are the only sentient life in the galaxy, when life can exist it does. When sentience can dominate due to adaptability to high environmental variance, it will (think cyclic ice ages and fire and the fur of less adaptable species).

      Maybe, maybe not. The conditions needed to form life (as we know it) aren't that common, they require a planet within the "habitable zone" of its star. We're only now figuring out that there's a LOT of planets out there, but almost all the ones we can see are definitely not like ours: smallish, rocky (not gaseous), not too hot or cold. We're just now starting to see ones closer to ours, but again, not usually within the habitable zone. And even if we do start seeing a bunch like ours, how many will have had the necessary chemical ingredients, and how many of those will actually evolve life, and how many of those will evolve intelligent life? And on how many of those will the life create technology like ours, and on how many of those will they advance enough to seek out life on other planets before destroying themselves with nuclear weapons? So you can see, the Drake Equation (plus my additions for technology and peacefulness) are working against you. On the other hand, there's a billion stars in the Milky Way. However, you just said "the only sentient life in the galaxy"; there's a LOT of galaxies out there, billions at least, each with millions to billions of stars. Of course, if there's some fairly-advanced civilization out there (maybe like us in a couple hundred years, building nice rotating space stations and moon bases and such) in another galaxy, the time needed to travel here from there would be absolutely astronomical, unless these aliens have figured out some kind of super-FTL drive. Even at lightspeed it'd take a ridiculous amount of time. I know it's silly and there's nothing in our understanding of physics that allows it, but I sure hope someone figures out a way of traveling between stars at speeds orders of magnitude faster than lightspeed (perhaps through artificial wormholes?), because that's what you need to actually race around the galaxy like they do in Star Trek.

      So what happens when a socially developed species, starts to encounter far more socially advanced species.

      I'd say that depends on exactly what kind of contact the more-advanced species initiates, and what kind of relationship it creates with the less-advanced species. If they just pop in to visit and say hi but otherwise have a hands-off approach, that would definitely create huge changes in our society, but I don't see how that would make us feel "trapped and under observation in an anthropological park", unless we get all paranoid that they're plotting something sinister. (But if they have the technology to easily visit us and say hi, they also have the tech to easily wipe us out if they want, so if they don't, then they obviously don't want to.) I guess the other thing that could happen is it'd be like Star Trek: Enterprise where we get pissed off that the aliens aren't giving us the secrets to their advanced technology, and are making us bumble around at Warp 1.6, taking years to complete trading missions, while they zoom around at Warp 5-6. But that seems a bit silly since if they never bothered to initiate contact, we wouldn't know about their technology anyway.

    68. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Look up "To Serve Man".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    69. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Interesting post.

      I imagine that if they wanted to broadcast "Bang the rocks together, guys", they'd use EM. OTOH, if they want a certain level of tech, they might base it on something else, such as dark energy or whatever.

      If we look at it like most human colonizations, they'll just show up one day and start hanging around. And then more. And more...

      We may want to build a fence.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    70. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Lessee if I can do this from memory...

      VHF is 100 megahertz
      FM is megahertz
      AM is kilohertz
      LR is centihertz(?)
      VLR is hertz

      Something like that.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    71. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      We need a WALL around the Earth! A BIG wall!

      But seriously, there's only one possible reason aliens would ever want to come here and stay, and that's resources (energy, building materials). And if that's what they want, they would simply set up shop and start mining the solar system and, in all likelihood, probably just ignore us. It's not like we could stop them anyway.

      But I think it's very unlikely that aliens will visit us any time soon. For a simple reason. If they are conquering solar systems for resources, the night sky wouldn't look anything like it does now. It would look like a gigantic industrial operation. It would be a fucking impressive sight! There's nothing special about OUR solar system.

      It's perfectly possible - based on what we know about the formation of planets and life - that there isn't any intelligent life within a few hundred light years of Earth. Right now, it looks like we won't be contacting aliens within the next few centuries at least.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    72. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by sysrammer · · Score: 2

      When They Invade, they will come broadcasting "It's a small world, after all".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    73. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      We are now able to deduce the presence of planets due to a minuscule dimming or wobble of the star. Yes, I expect ET to be able to detect all kinds of faint phenomena.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    74. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Right, but the real question is, once radio is invented, how long will they keep using it?

      Not really. There are other uses for EM radiation besides communication. IIRc, the most resent proposal is to search for radar. Long after radio or broadcast TV dies down or off as a form of communication, they will still be using radar to locate and direct planes and spacecraft as well as to survey their own solar system. The wavelengths will be dictated by physics according for what they are used for, so we'll have a good idea of what to look for and be recognizable when we find it.

    75. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      This is something that's always driven me nuts. Life adapts to its environment. Just because we need oxygen and water to live doesn't mean that life on other planets also need it. They'd require whatever their environment has to provide.

    76. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're comparing the influence of a tiny bomb to that of a gas giant planet. You also seem to miss the fact that star wobble or dimming is a regular, repeating occurrence. Nuclear bomb is nothing but pure chaos and noise, with no discernible pattern to it, therefore it would be completely masked by the output of our sun, planets in the solar system and everything between us and them.

    77. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by MyAlternateID · · Score: 1

      Late in commenting (just got around to actually reading this browser tab...) but I wanted to respond. You're absolutely right. Historically, whenever a more technologically advanced civilization meets a less technically-advanced civilization, it really doesn't work out so well for the latter. It's a really consistent pattern, with no question that it isn't random chance.

      Even if they're not hostile, they might have some analog of smallpox that we have little or no immunity against.

    78. Re:Same reason we're looking for earth-like life by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be a hipster to use "edge". meta-monkey was wrong though - you're clearly an Edgelord, not just some edgy peasant.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. looking up genocidal psychopaths on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe our spiritual ally alien friends are just waiting for us to settle our imaginary contrived 'differences', & stop our black hole building machines?

  3. We are looking for things other than EM signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The IceCube Neutrino Observatory in Antarctica is an example. LIGO has been scanning for gravitational waves for over two decades, without success. These observatories don't exist for the purpose of scanning for communications from extraterrestrial life, but they would be able to detect such a signal. I'm not sure what the author wants, since we're already looking for these things for the purpose of testing cosmological hypotheses.

  4. Only one? by tomhath · · Score: 2

    When you consider that there are definitely millions of planets in the habitable zones of their stars within our Milky Way galaxy alone, the possibility that there's intelligent life on at least one of them, right now, is tantalizing

    I'm thinking there might be one under our own feet

    1. Re:Only one? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      intelligent life

      ...cos there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't our intelligence itself (or even our rationality itself), but proper management of the increased consciousness of our existential loneliness and all its associated fears.

      Humans are an intelligent and fully rational species, thanks to our sentience and development.

      The occurrences and coincidences in our history, however, led us to lose ourselves in fear of our past, present and future, to complete insanity.

      It is in no way absolute, and it is (still) largely 'reversible' (at the very least through newer generations), with enough individual and global effort to break the cycle and finally be able to solve our problems with enough distance.

      (Any eventual extraterrestrial/'divine' entity trying to argue we are a primitive low-intelligence species with a 'violent/destructive/selfish/bad' nature, and which... "should just be eliminated"... is still as lost as us on the foundations of the existence).

  5. Why not both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a bunch of us. We can look at more than one thing.

    1. Re:Why not both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming that the current search is "all wrong" leads to a catchier headline leading to more pageviews than claiming that it is "incomplete".

  6. Get back to us on that... by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... when we have neutrino or gravitational wave telescopes capable of detecting such signals. Which we don't. Current neutrino observatories are very crude, and we have yet to detect gravitational waves of any kind.

    1. Re:Get back to us on that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when we have such instruments, these modes of communication will be considered technologically primitive again, and someone will invariably claim that we're looking "all wrong" and propose new fringe alternatives such as looking at superstrings and dark energy waves.

    2. Re:Get back to us on that... by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 1

      SETI versus CETI. I believe the article proposes that gravitational or neutrino signals would be ways for us to detect advanced civilizations as byproducts of their existence, but just detection... not communication. The implication is that it would have a much longer lifespan as a viable detection methodology when compared to radio.

    3. Re:Get back to us on that... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and someone will invariably claim that we're looking "all wrong"

      Proof aliens were in control of Steve Jobs to hide.

    4. Re:Get back to us on that... by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      ... when we have neutrino or gravitational wave telescopes capable of detecting such signals. Which we don't. Current neutrino observatories are very crude, and we have yet to detect gravitational waves of any kind.

      Perhaps the physics we are applying are incomplete. Let us theorize instead. For one, what if there are wave lengths of extreme length, then how do you detect them? Can a wave be of such a great length that the phase change occurs faster than the speed of light and might this be the only form of energy that can bend space as we think of it? If you do the math the phase change of a long wave does happen over the distance of the wave length at speeds faster than C.

      BUT HOW do you detect extremely long waves traveling in the vacuum of space? Certainly a pool of water down in a mine or in under arctic ice is not the answer. IT WILL TAKE very long space based arrays of nodes to detect long wave signals. The wave lengths of extreme long waves in space will be calculated by the speed of light multiplied by the coefficient of the frequency. So there will be resonance nodes that occur at fixed distances relative to the primary wave of long wave signals. These signals will not actually be bending space they will be using the shape of space to move faster than light.

      So until we get our shit together and start to explore outer space again we do not stand a chance of discovering how to communicate over long distances. AND this is why Seti has failed, there is no point in using light speed signals to communicate long distance it is too slow and is like using the pony express to deliver the mail when what is really needed is the telegraph! We will find that the other intelligent life within the cosmos will want to chat but until we unite as a species and learn to live off the planet there is no chance of setting up communications. Perhaps this is our true destiny and we will evolve to live in space if we ever learn to control our passion for killing each other off and learn to communicate with each other as a species!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    5. Re:Get back to us on that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may not be able to detect them so easily, but we can sure make them and potentially oscillate that signal being sent to any destination of our choosing quite easily. Then we can encode in that message we cannot read what we wrote and suggest other methods of communication instead.

    6. Re:Get back to us on that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrinos of course, not GW

    7. Re:Get back to us on that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter, current science supports the idea that gravity is a field and not a wave. If we could find a mechanism to perturb gravity in a manner that is detectable at a distance, then we could have the basis for faster-than-light communications. We do not have a reasonable way to do this, though.

  7. The idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that since electromagnetic waves are a medium employed by nature, at some point in a civilization's evolution, they will do research into what they are and where they come from. They will inevitably realize that they can be used for communication, or they won't.

    If they do, there's a chance we'll find them.

    If not, oh well.

    1. Re:The idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they have moved on to other mediums, which is the point of this discussion.

  8. Worse yet... by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Informative

    While we have been sending radio transmissions for 80 years, the modularion has changed dramatically, which has negative imolications for finding ET, even if they are using our same frequency bands.

    Early on we used FM and AM. Both end up with a strong easy to identify carrier tone. As time has gone one and DSP has become a cheap commodity we moved to more efficient modulations (relative to Shannons's limit). Digital modulations look more noise like and have no carrier as such. GPS is below the noise floor as received due to the energy being so smeared out, and that is from medium earth orbit. Your voice calls are recieved below noise as well in a CDMA system.

    So if ET is similarly good at math, they will have moved on to signals that are similarly noise like and may simply be undetectable. There may only be a 100 year or so window to detect Earth, and similar may be true for ET.

    1. Re:Worse yet... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately due to the inverse square law even our strongest radio emissions are unlikely to be detectable beyond a couple of light years, within which radius there are no signs of civilisation we can see. It's interesting to think about really, an entire civilisation could advance to our level of sophistication, and probably considerably beyond, while being invisible to just about anyone more than a few dozen light years away.

      I'm not saying that's the answer to the Fermi paradox but civilisations of any sort might simply have a far smaller footprint on a galactic level than anyone imagined, and while explorers could have passed by a hundred thousand years ago, five hundred thousand years ago or ten million years ago and found little of interest, there's no reason to believe they might stop by exactly right now and ask to be taken to our leader.

    2. Re:Worse yet... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      It is highly likely that they will need more than one 'greeter'.

      The first one is likely to be outright killed.
      The second will be 'examined' for how it functions why it is alive.
      The third might actually get to meet a military interrogator to try to figure out how it can be exploited.

      Wouldn't surprise me if by the time we get to #3, they decide to either stop trying to interact with us or that it would be better to eradicate the infestation of water-bags.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Worse yet... by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that's the answer to the Fermi paradox but civilisations of any sort might simply have a far smaller footprint on a galactic level than anyone imagined, and while explorers could have passed by a hundred thousand years ago, five hundred thousand years ago or ten million years ago and found little of interest, there's no reason to believe they might stop by exactly right now and ask to be taken to our leader.

      Well ... Earth has supported life for 3.6 billion years, and complex life for 600 million years. So, if ET have been investigating the solar system, they would have noticed life and could feasibly have left a probe behind, relaying information to where ever their local hub is. However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming and yields little more than satisfaction of scientific curiosity, so it is unlikely that advanced ET civilizations would want to commit the expense. Even if we humans manage to avoid a catastrophic collapse of our civilizations over the next 1000 years, I doubt that we will even manage to build a self-sufficient colony outside of Earth.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    4. Re:Worse yet... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Or, there are enough planets teeming with nonsentient life that one more is barely a curiosity. Or, they really did visit and left a probe somewhere in the Oort cloud but it will take thousands of years to send a message home, assuming home even exists anymore.

    5. Re:Worse yet... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      What we've seen of Earth's RF emissions as time has gone on is that they have been decreasing at an almost exponential amount. Today radio transmissions use so little power most cannot even escape the atmosphere and because they are digital they are almost indistinguishable from noise. But those early transmissions in the 40's, 50's and 60's were seriously powerful. They likely were visible above the sun's radiation and carried quite a distance, in addition being analog they would be very easy to spot.

      What SETI and the other programs are looking for is that early use of radio where the power levels are very high to compensate for poor understanding. One thing to keep in mind is that any alien civilization out there will follow a completely different technological track. There very well could be an alien species out there is just discovering radio while having already engaged in interstellar travel. We make a mistake if we assume an alien culture will progress like our own.

    6. Re: Worse yet... by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > There very well could be an alien species out there is just discovering radio while having already engaged in interstellar travel.

      You can't be serious.

    7. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming (...)

      For the crew of an hypothetical alien ship traveling close to the speed of light, the journey would not be time consuming at all [refer to Time Dilation]

    8. Re:Worse yet... by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming (...)

      For the crew of an hypothetical alien ship traveling close to the speed of light, the journey would not be time consuming at all [refer to Time Dilation]

      I was thinking in terms of interstellar trade to generate revenue for the expense of interstellar flight. Even assuming that it would be possible to reach 100% of the speed of light (and that is in itself a huge if), goods from Proxima Centauri would be in transit for 4.2 years from the point of view of the producers and consumers. Assuming physical goods, a more reasonable estimate of 10% of the speed of light as the top speed would result in a 42 year journey. Extrapolating that to even more distant star systems, interstellar trade is on a timescale of centuries, way beyond human life expectancy. My point is that it is very unlikely that it will be profitable compared to local production, which removes an essential reason to explore the option in the first place. Science Fiction writers Ken MacLeod and Charles Stross have explored this issue, from different vantage points.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    9. Re:Worse yet... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      So the only thing aliens will be likely to hear is "Breaker one nine, breaker one nine, we've got a Smokey behind exit 12A..."

    10. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spacefold technology could allow instantaneous travel to any point in the universe.

    11. Re:Worse yet... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming (...)

      For the crew of an hypothetical alien ship traveling close to the speed of light, the journey would not be time consuming at all [refer to Time Dilation]

      As physics is currently understood, achieving relativistic speeds is extremely expensive, with even an antimatter powered ship not capable of achieving it. Not too mention the shielding that would be needed at relativistic speeds.
      Without some sort of major breakthrough, we're basically left with generation ships and even they pretty well require fusion for any lengthy journey, though with work fission may be good enough (fuel deteriorates and would have to be re-concentrated regularly and enough left at the end of the journey to slow down)

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Worse yet... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      What we've seen of Earth's RF emissions as time has gone on is that they have been decreasing at an almost exponential amount. Today radio transmissions use so little power most cannot even escape the atmosphere and because they are digital they are almost indistinguishable from noise. But those early transmissions in the 40's, 50's and 60's were seriously powerful. They likely were visible above the sun's radiation and carried quite a distance, in addition being analog they would be very easy to spot.

      AM and FM transmitters are as strong as ever with some very powerful transmitters. Things like radar also can have powerful transmitters. Then there are transmitters pointed outwards such as those used to communicate with Voyager or New Horizons which I'd guess are quite powerful.
      It's not so much that RF transmissions has been decreasing as much as new types of communications are generally low powered. Most of the transmissions of 50 years ago are still around and some such as TV have become more powerful though harder to decipher.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    13. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think this one out for a second.

      There are dozens of planetoids in the this solar system. Some are extremely big, all of them are amazingly varied and yet one - ONE - has life in any way shape or form detectable easily even from off-planet. Earth is shockingly different to every other planet and by the looks of it with the exo planets stands out like a sore thumb as well. The main fact that a water planet even exists would be enough for a supposed intelligent species to want to look as most planets are clearly gas giant or dead frozen rocks.

      Planets in zones that could support life are clearly rare. Earth would be exeedingly interesting to any supposed aliens just for the fact it's clearly quite different. Any aliens would NOT be just treating it as a curiosity at all.

      So there are three answers.

      1) Einstein cant be beaten, no one has ever been able to come calling and no one ever will.
      2) Aliens have beaten Einstein and are waiting for us to be able to say hi - EXTREMELY dubious, given the rarity of planets that could support multi-cellular life they would have been in a big hurry to find out WTF, thence in this case they havent found us.
      3) Humans are the first and so far only intelligent lifeform capable of looking.

        Frankly option 3 is the most likely. We have glimpses that beating Einstein might be possible, it's just plain dumb that aliens wouldnt care about Earth and if they are hyperspace capable they would have most likely found us.

      We're it. Deal with it.

    14. Re:Worse yet... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      4. All of the other planets are also teaming with life, but not life as we know it.
      By some definitions of life, a planet is alive. Even considering reproduction as a criteria, at some point we may develop ability to colonize other planets, or some single celled bacteria will get blown into outerspace and fortunately may randomly have the ability to survive and will find someplace to colonize. Due to the dependence of life on Earth on DNA, we could eventually see DNA spread across the universe. However, other planets may have other means of replication that are common to it. Perhaps at the atomic level instead of the cellular level as we have. Who knows?
      Just because it isn't 6 feet tall, breathes oxygen, and drinks water doesn't mean it isn't intelligent life.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another post where this inverse square law pops up in a misinterpreted way. The inverse square law is actually a generalisation for radial outward waves from the source, i.e in ALL DIRECTIONS. The law does not apply the same when one collimates the waves into a narrow beam of energy. It's why we can use 1watt on New Horizons to communicate with the deep space network. Inverse square law would have buggered that to bits at that distance. Read the wiki to roughly understand this.

    16. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should further clarify that you said strongest radio emissions, which I am now comparing to Carl Sagans Arecibo message.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

    17. Re:Worse yet... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Earth would be exeedingly interesting to any supposed aliens just for the fact it's clearly quite different.

      Even if there were earthlike worlds nearby we aren't able to see them yet. For all we know there could be a great many, or as tompaulco mentioned life could form in a variety of different environments. Even if there weren't many, earth-pattern life might simply not be all that interesting. I mean what are they going to do with life forms that almost certainly can't survive in their native environment and they're unable to interact with except on the most rudimentary level? Hold gas-masked dinosaur jousts?

    18. Re:Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we've seen of Earth's RF emissions as time has gone on is that they have been decreasing at an almost exponential amount. Today radio transmissions use so little power most cannot even escape the atmosphere and because they are digital they are almost indistinguishable from noise.

      I believe some of the most likely candidates for detection outside the solar system are military radars, which tend to be very powerful, and also highly directional. I don't suppose they've been decreasing in power.

    19. Re: Worse yet... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      There very well could be an alien species out there is just discovering radio while having already engaged in interstellar travel.

      You can't be serious.

      I don't know. In Civilization, you can discover the computer before you discover calendars...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    20. Re:Worse yet... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      or they did visit half a million years ago and crashed their spaceship on the planet and started procreating .

  9. i've been getting their signals all along by turkeydance · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    they say: Stop Slashdot Beta or die!

  10. Well, the signals we are getting are pretty old by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Maybe the 'aliens' went through a period of using RF during their evolution to better methods. Just watch for their version of "I Love Lucy" or "The Honeymooners"

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. Assumptions change and so does technology by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The methods we have been using so far have always been based on our own technology level and therefore an assumption that other civilisations will be using the same methods.

    One such assumption was sensing infra-red emissions, though the problem there is that a civilisation sufficiently advance may be using technology that has low emissions, due to optimisations. Though, at the same time we need to take note of different technology levels that different civilisations may be using for themselves and those they may be employing for their mutual search of 'extra terrestial' life. What I mean by this, is that they may be employing optimised radio technology, such as lasers and high encryption methods (which may be hard to distinguish from background noise, for us) for communication, but still using wide beam/wide spectrum, unencrypted radio in their search?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Assumptions change and so does technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sufficiently advance may be using technology that has low emissions, due to optimisations.

      I suspect Clarkes 3rd law will cloud our judgment. However, if a civ is advanced enough to have broken the bonds of energy, such as zero point, then I suspect low emissions will be only to HIDE itself and not as an optimisation (because we use that for efficiency, our emissions are, to an extent, controlled and not concealed (Only where military nodes are does that exist).

  12. Gravitational waves and modulated neutrino beams by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Well we have been trying to detect gravitational waves and that has been a complete no go.

    So trying to detect alien life via gravity waves will be a little difficult.

    Neutrino modulation well at least we can in principle detect that, though there is no evidence they can be practically modulated for a communication system or that you could in principle make a reasonable detector.

    On the other hand Earth's RF output continues to rise.

  13. Nope by koan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are infants screaming in a forest of wolves.

    That's the truth of the Fermi paradox, the only surviving intelligence is one that's extremely quiet.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, be careful what experiments you try... might wake up the unfriendlies...

      The Ring of Charon- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ring_of_Charon

    2. Re:Nope by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wrong. A conclusion based on ill conceived science fiction.

      Any civilization that can travel between star systems will be so advanced that it will not need to plunder whoever is at their destination. Generally there are two interstellar travel options.

      First, Einstein speed of light restrictions hold, and it takes a minimum of hundreds of years to make the trip. Maybe thousands or more. The technology required means that the travelers can maintain themselves in raw vacuum for very long periods. They have access to power sources that will last as well. If they are going even 10% of the speed of light they have some amazing shielding from the added radiation they encounter from their speed. If they are going slower, 1% or 2% of the speed of light, they have equally amazing biological technology to support themselves and whatever biosphere they need. Same thing for some sort of hibernation. If they have this level of technology, they need nothing from us. Perhaps some raw materials, but those are more easily accessed from rocks and such in the solar system, not down a gravity well. The invasion scenario is ridiculous.

      A similar argument holds for FTL travel. The technology is so advanced from our point of view it might as well be magic. There are one or two speculative models where FTL works under the Standard Model of physics, but they require exotic matter and mind bending abilities over matter and energy. Any technology beyond the Standard Model is ever more mind bending. Magicians need nothing from us.

      The conqueror models is a projection of human history into space. It doesn't hold over interstellar distances. The distance scales and radically different physical environment of interstellar space invalidate any reason for an invasion.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:Nope by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, civilizations may tend to move inward rather than outward once they develop AI and evolve into virtual life forms inside computers. They may back themselves up at a variety of locations within their solar system. If they do still find the inspiration to travel to the stars they will not be doing so for conquest, but rather curiosity. Since they are no longer sentient meatloafs, they won't need so much mass of food, water, air, etc. to put into their starships. Thus, much smaller craft could suffice. Further, they can modulate their experience of the passing of time at will, so the duration of sub-relativistic journeys is little obstacle.

      The Fermi Paradox may be just anthropomorphic projection.

    4. Re:Nope by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Just finished rereading Footfall, a quite realistic alien invasion novel where the authours consider all your points and answer them. Young race that is the second on their planet and get technology from artifacts left by the "Predecessors" rather then learning it themselves and herd animals that fight war differently enough from us that they honestly belief they can conquer another species. They are divided about whether to just stay in space or follow the original plan to conquer the Earth until they realize they need to conquer humanity to learn how to best utilize space.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. A conclusion based on ill conceived science fiction.

      Always amusing when someone lays down the law on a topic that has never happened. Yes, this is the internet...

    6. Re:Nope by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Any civilization that can travel between star systems will be so advanced that it will not need to plunder whoever is at their destination.

      And a civilization capable of this feat would have very little reason to enter deeply into the gravity well of a star in the first place.

      they need nothing from us.

      Very true. In fact, dealing with alien (to them) microbiology might be risky for them, and making us deal with their microbiology is probably deadly for us. So, one a purely rational base, they'd stay away from Earth.

      On the other hand, they might have noneconomical/nonrational reasons for seeking contact. Entertainment, religion, curiosity. Though, they probably have better forms of entertainment, have ditched religion a while ago, and maybe Earth is just one planet of a million similar ones and therefore not really interesting.

    7. Re:Nope by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree with what you're saying, it's possible another species may have a life span of say 1000 earth years. For them, getting to Earth from Zod might be like a year to us (relatively speaking). Thus, they may not need to hibernate or whatever on the journey. They do need the advanced living capabilities though.

      Early Human exploration voyages around the world took many months in many cases. Explorers would drop pigs off on islands so that they had a chance to survive if they ended up getting marooned there later on. It's possible Earth may look like an island on the way to something useful to another civilisation, and they may drop off something more disruptive than even the pigs were to their local environments.

      All that said, anyone capable of coming here is either so incredibly superior to us that no matter what we do we're screwed (if they decide to disrupt us), or else they're so superior to us that they pose no threat whatsoever. Either way, it's not worth worrying about - at least not for some considerable time until we're ready to go elsewhere ourselves...

    8. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about religion? Maybe there are fleets of alien missionaries silently combing the galaxy and converting all sentient life to their religion. Or maybe a less advanced civilization stumbles upon the ruins of an incredibly advanced civilization and find incredible new technologies which they can use to conquer the entire galaxy without the need to completely understand how they work.

    9. Re:Nope by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Wrong. A conclusion based on ill conceived science fiction.

      Any civilization that can travel between star systems will be so advanced that it will not need to plunder whoever is at their destination.

      I propose that your conclusion is also based on ill conceived science fiction. It's similar to primitive humans saying that any tribe or nation that had plenty to eat and the ability to fly through the air and create miracles would be so advanced they would never need to plunder them. Yet it happens all the time for a variety of reasons.

  14. Re:Gravitational waves and modulated neutrino beam by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    P.S. I have to ask just who did ethan blow to get slashdot as his personal PR machine ?

    This guy spouts endless bad navel gazing science.

  15. We're the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one day they will be looking for us. Jeez, I thought all you guys new that already.

  16. Look inward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the aliens really are intelligent then they're probably walking around among us, perhaps for a long time.

    1. Re:Look inward? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If the aliens really are intelligent then they're probably walking around among us, perhaps for a long time.

      Sometimes giggling, often sneering.

      Hey, perhaps hipsters are aliens?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. The RF era by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For most advanced civilizations, this may turn out to be pretty short. Between the discovery of radio and the development of efficient (below the noise floor) methods of modulation, this era may last a few hundred years. So if we are looking for inadvertent radiation, the probability of seeing it must be reduced by this factor.

    The latency problem: Any sufficiently advance civilization will certainly understand the latency problems involved with communications at the speed of light. They might set up a beacon to advertise "Here we are" with no expectation of receiving an answer. But then again, probably not. They might run into the same problems we do with such 'science'. Funds will be better spent elsewhere, so why bother with the gigawatt beacon?

    One possibility: A sufficiently advanced civilization might develop the technology to generate wormholes. Not big enough to physically traverse (due to the energy requirements). But large enough through which to inject photons. And if they can pop them open in the vicinity of candidate solar systems, they could find us in a reasonable (compared to light speed communications) time. So, they've found us. The next step would be to pop open some wormholes where we could actually 'grab' one, observe it for an intelligent optical signal and return one of our own. That would be a useful, two way, low latency link.

    We don't have to understand the physics of how one goes about generating such tiny wormholes. Or aiming them at remote points in our universe. All we have to do is figure out how to detect one, confine it and couple it to optical instrumentation.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:The RF era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh! We should contact aliens using Twitter or Facebook!

  18. Alien motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the aliens want to contact us, they will use all possible means we can think of and then some, so we should receive their radio signals.

    If they don't want to contact us, then either they are, by an amazing coincidence, at the accidentally-spreading-radio-waves level while we are listening for radio waves and we will detect them, or, more likely, they have moved onto another medium and know how ( and want to ) to hide it from us and we will never detect them :-(

  19. Maybe extinction is built in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a bleak thought, but maybe an emergent pattern is that when a species advances on a planet to start developing technology, that that technology allows them to overuse their resources before they learn how to limit themselves, and as such, most species that reach a certain technological level go extinct within a blink of a cosmic eye. If that were the case, we would be looking through a tiny sliver of time trying to detect an event that happened a that also happened within a tiny sliver of time.

  20. We are smelly barbarians by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    I like the idea of some religions that there are gods, but they don't generally interact with mankind because we are smelly, coarse savages, filled with anger, lust and stupidity. I think if there is intelligent and technologically advanced life out there, they have more sense than to contact us.

  21. See "The Final Exam", Outer Limits... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, you'd like it -> https://www.youtube.com/result...

    * It's "right up your alley" & what you're talking about - VERY good episode!

    APK

    P.S.=> One of my all-time favorites personally in fact... apk

    1. Re:See "The Final Exam", Outer Limits... apk by serano · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/result... Thanks.... that episode is exactly what I was saying. Great episode.

  22. Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cases by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 1, Informative

    One day, scientists and their followers will feel like complete idiots, when it becomes obvious aliens have been here all along.

    Citation#1: US presidents have known about UFOs here on Earth, even seen them:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#2: If 200+ NASA, Ex-Military, Ex-US government high ranking employees coming forth and willing to testify before congress isn't enough for you, then your mind is too closed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#3: How many pilot witnesses with radar evidence to back it up does it take before you belive that UFOs are real and here on Earth?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#4: Is 3 Million alien abductions in the USA alone enough evidence for you, or are you waiting around for a nice round number like 10 million?
    http://www.ufoevidence.org/top...

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  23. Contact Avoidance by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any extraterrestrial civilization that has survived into interstellar travel is probably willing to invest a great deal of its time and energy into NOT being discovered by us. What could be more dangerous than a species that has learned some technology yet turns every technological advance into a weapon against others of its own kind? And we've been advertising that aspect of ourselves to the universe ever since we discovered radio waves.

    1. Re:Contact Avoidance by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Professor, what do we know about them?
      We know they're extremely advanced
      technologically... ...which suggests, very rightfully so,
      that they're peaceful.
      An advanced civilization is,
      by definition, not barbaric.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The usual lefty 'love each other, we're all the same under the skin' BS.

      Humans rule the Earth because we wiped out all our competitors. An alien race that has spread across the galaxy wont have done so by being a race of smelly hippies.

    3. Re:Contact Avoidance by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      That's both arrogant and incorrect.
      1. There have been far more technological advances than types of weapon actually used against our own kind (to the extent that 'technological advances' is even quantifiable).
      2. Any extraterrestial civilization engaged in interstellar travel can kick our ass without issue. We're talking about a civilization that has harnessed huge amounts of energy, is highly rational, organized and intelligent. Even if they were peaceful in principle, they would be foolish to not have advanced defense mechanisms other then 'try not to be seen' or would be able to very quickly muster such a defense. If they're hiding, they're not hiding from us, but from a more advanced civilization than their own.

      In the area of interstellar travel, we are currently just a bunch of poop-flinging monkeys learning how to use a stick to catch some ants. Properly advanced civilizations might just drive by in their safari vehicle looking at the silly monkeys.

    4. Re:Contact Avoidance by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 1

      Any extraterrestrial civilization that has survived into interstellar travel is probably willing to invest a great deal of its time and energy into NOT being discovered by us. What could be more dangerous than a species that has learned some technology yet turns every technological advance into a weapon against others of its own kind? And we've been advertising that aspect of ourselves to the universe ever since we discovered radio waves.

      That's only about 80 years worth of advertising. In interstellar distance, that's like posting a really really really small sign on the door of your house. Anyone who cared what the sign had to say would need to notice it first, and only then after having gotten close enough to be aware of its existence. But let us not oversell Human Civilization. I would expect that any extraterrestrial civilization that has managed to break/bypass/generally-work-around the considerable barriers to achieve practical interstellar travel would feel as threatened by us (a species that has barely managed to escape its own gravity well) as much as the pilot of a modern, tactical interceptor would feel threatened by a spear wielding tribesman. Any civilization that has managed to overcome its own destructive urges and harness the almost unthinkable energies to become an interstellar civilization is far beyond our throw weight now and into the foreseeable future.

      I should think it's less a question of avoiding us, and more a question of even noticing us to begin with.

    5. Re:Contact Avoidance by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 1

      > we are currently just a bunch of poop-flinging monkeys learning how to use a stick to catch some ants.

      Yes, and most people probably want to avoid the poop. It's far easier to cause damage than to win.

    6. Re:Contact Avoidance by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Wait, they are super advanced, but they hate anything that evolved in any but a set of totally noncompetitive circumstances? What you just said applies to *every species on earth*. So because of the circumstances of our evolution, they write off every animal on the planet, humans included, as fundamentally evil?

      The fuck?

    7. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey we got Jeebus and also the bibles says I aint descended from no monkey even if I come from Mississippi!

    8. Re:Contact Avoidance by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Yeah no kidding. Take a step outside yourself for a moment and try to see us through extraterrestrial eyes: We treat our own kind like absolute crap. Under pressure, which is when you find out what someone is really like, you discover that we're still mostly animals. We kill each other for stupid reasons. There's a whole list of things I'm not even going to get into here, but the bottom line is, in my opinion, any extraterresttrial civilization that is more advanced than we are, probably is going to avoid us if possible because as a race we're a hot mess. We have lots of potential, but you'd need to come back in a few thousand years to see if we're even still around, and if we've grown out of this atavistic adolescent phase we're going through. Of course on the other hand, I'm not the first (or the last) person to suggest that the best thing that could happen to the human race right about now, would be to discover that there's massive amounts of highly advanced civilizations out there in our own galaxy, and that they've come to introduce themselves to us. Realizing how tiny a speck of dust the Earth is, and how tiny and insignificant the Human race is compared to everyone else out there in the Milky Way, might just scare us straight and make us clean up our respective acts. Or, it might just push us over the edge into apocalypse. Either way we'd get off the fence.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making some pretty stupid assumptions there.

      You're suggesting this:

      Monkeys living in Africa are flinging poop.

      Some people in the US can easily get to Africa, any time they like. No monkeys in Africa are capable of getting to the US to fling poop at the people.

      People in the US are hiding in houses, building garages connected to their houses so they can hide from the poop being flung by monkeys several thousand miles away.

      What possible threat could we pose to an alien species in orbit around another star? We haven't even had a human leave our local orbit, how the hell are we a threat to someone 4+ light years away?

      You presuppose a level of technology that's so far in our future as to be mythological in nature.

    10. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they are not worst than us? or that they have any feelings at all
      what if the prevalent advanced life forms are ant type society

    11. Re:Contact Avoidance by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Don't ignore the rest of what I said. That is terribly weak.

      Also, are you dodging poop on a daily basis? Trying to avoid monkeys from seeing you?
      No. No, you're not.

    12. Re:Contact Avoidance by kheldan · · Score: 1

      In the great likelihood that there is life elsewhere in our Universe there is also a great likelihood that any intelligent life that evolves would have societies of greatly diverse natures, so there's a high likelihood that an advanced civilization would be better 'citizens' (for lack of a better term) than Humans currently are. There's also been more than one great mind that has postulated that any advanced civilization that attained the capability for interstellar flight would also be above things like war. Excuse me for being optimistic!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any beings who have mastered space travel would laugh at what we call weapons. It'd be like an ant trying to attack a tank.

    14. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any species advanced enough to master interstellar travel will have passed through the "destroying themselves" component of the Drake equation. Therefore they will not be the knuckle draggers that you project, or they would have killed themselves off long before they became spacefaring. Similar to what we will probably do to oursleves either through social darwinism or fighting over who's super natural deity is THE BEST.

    15. Re:Contact Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> What could be more dangerous than a species that has learned some technology yet turns every technological advance into a weapon against others of its own kind?

      One that subsequently figures out interstellar travel, and exports those weapons it has finely tuned on itself on any others it finds among those stars.

      Thus, it would be in said civilizations best interest to know what's coming than not. (This is why governments have intelligence services)

    16. Re:Contact Avoidance by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 1

      Genetic competition eventually leads to sentience. That's where things become interesting, and where the previous forms of selection lose much of their power. The sentient species actually supports its weaker members, and values intelligence and, perhaps, compassion. Where intelligence is valued over compassion, wars eventually destroy the species, or reduce it to a point where it no longer is able to operate at scale with the powerful technologies it has found. Where compassion is valued over intelligence, there's a chance for further growth.

      The societies that don't destroy themselves within a few hundred years of developing technologies involving electromagnetism and, say, nuclear power are well worth investigating. Ours may do so, in which case we may be investigated. But, for now, we're just dangerous.

  24. Bah! That's so out of date! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    Neutrinos and gravitational waves? That's so 20th century. We should be looking for quantum signaling and psi emissions! After all, our devices for detecting quantum signals and psi emissions are just as advanced as our devices for detecting neutrinos and gravitational waves!

  25. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ranting of mentally deranged ufologists is not evidence.

  26. Could be by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Unsurprisingly, we're looking for exactly the types of signals we're capable of sending, but what if that's totally wrongheaded? "

    What? No alien 'I love Lucy'? Perhaps they are blind and deaf and just use 'feelies' or 'smellies'.

  27. Interstellar predation? Why? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    How would an existing species gain nourishment from another situated at interstellar distances?

    Bad metaphor, I think.

    1. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe it's just the machines left over from another species.

      But broadcasting where you are without knowing who is listening, stupid.... that's the only word for it.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Maybe the other species is machines and not meat.

    3. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      How would an existing species gain nourishment from another situated at interstellar distances?

      Maybe they just do it for sport.

    4. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by eyenot · · Score: 1

      And also, some babies have been raised on the tenderness of wolves.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    5. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter why they do it, just that if the end state favored them, they would have done it. And the visible state of the universe certainly does not refute that theory.

    6. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with you.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Interstellar predation? Why? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just the machines left over from another species.

      But broadcasting where you are without knowing who is listening, stupid.... that's the only word for it.

      Possibly, but if the listeners had the ability to travel here, they'd probably be or otherwise find us here long before we called to them. It's not like native Americans went to Europe and told them about a new world to explore.

  28. Wrong Direction! by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Increase the sasquatch budget!

  29. The transience of "broadcast signals" by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Informative

    One aspect of the Fermi Paradox is the assumption that "civilization as we know it" necessarily broadcasts a huge amount of information-bearing electromagnetic radiation, and that more advanced civilizations will broadcast more. From a modern perspective, this seems silly.

    A signal recognizable across interstellar distances represents waste. It's energy that's spent without reaching its intended target. One aspect of "advancement" is reducing this waste -- improving modulation schemes, encoding efficiencies, and transmission techniques to minimize wasted power.

    A signal recognizable across interstellar distances also represents lack of diversity, or wasted capacity. If you're using a certain chunk of spectrum to broadcast a signal recognizable across light-years, you're not getting as much capacity out of that chunk as you could by using it for a bunch of geographically localized broadcasts -- for example, by broadcasting separate programs to each of 100 individual square miles within a 10-mile square, rather than one program for the entire 100-square-mile area. Take this idea a bit further, and you see our current cellular networks. From space, their signals would sound like noise.

    It seems to me that the natural signal of a civilization like ours is a pulse of EM broadcast, lasting perhaps a few decades, then going silent or becoming indistinguishable from noise as we move to more localized and more efficiently encoded transmissions. If nobody happens to be listening in our direction during the right interval, brief compared to technological civilization's lifespan, they could easily miss us completely.

    1. Re:The transience of "broadcast signals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alien race far ahead of us would be engineering on a galaxy-wide scale. Detecting them would be like trying to spot technological life in Manhattan from Central Park. The odds that the only technological life other than us in the galaxy would have started spreading a few thousand years ago seem pretty minute.

    2. Re:The transience of "broadcast signals" by pz · · Score: 2

      The counter-argument to all of the broadcast hoo-ha is that when you're standing a gazillion miles away from Earth, you're going to be receiving ALL of the broadcast signals on a given frequency. Do you really think that's going to be indistinguishable from noise even if you know what frequency to look at?

      We aren't going to find ET by looking at inadvertent EM spill. We are going to find civilizations that want to be found and are sending a bright, intentional signal that has characteristics that make it pop out from the background. It might be at high probability targets, like Earth. Earth would have been judged to be a high probability target by its size, distance from Sol, atmospheric composition, and accompanying gas giants (to clear most of the potential impact material away quickly during solar system formation).

      Such a signal may have already been found.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  30. Obligatory XKCD by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1
  31. Wasteful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless an alien race purposefully tries to announce its existence without any purpose beyond vanity, the usage of gravitational waves or even neutrinos would be wasteful. As the riveting television documentaries from the 60s onwards have revealed, it's all about sub space communications. In other words, the songs of the strings to rule them all, the strings to find them, the strings to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

  32. You're welcome, &... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: "When a science is ready people can't help but make the next discovery..." Seth Todman

    * :)

    (I think he's right & I actually think we've done ourselves in before, right here on earth - but we crawl up out of the ashes like cockroaches (see things like "ragnarok" legends as a SORT of 'backing' on this note, & the fused green glass in the areas around IRAQ from ages ago)... I think we've hit a point like he describes, many times. He's probably correct about WHY we don't find any intelligent life out there too...)

    APK

    P.S.=> "The concepts are SO simple: Even a child could make a cold fusion bomb - only they're asking the right question, but expecting the wrong results..." Seth Todman

    ... apk

  33. Re:Gravitational waves and modulated neutrino beam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth's RF output has been declining. What are you smoking?

  34. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by zenith1111 · · Score: 1

    Is that you, the Alien Guy from the history channel? http://paulabrown.net/history-...

  35. I suggest looking for natural "landmarks" by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    Our species has not existed for very long, maybe a few hundred thousand years. Only in the last hundred years have we even begun playing with electromagnetic waves. Our experts consider this feasible. We need to look closer at science fiction and start speculation on technology. We have to assume that faster than light communication is indeed possible if not outright travel.

    There are millions of planets out there that do have life on them. Jungle worlds. How do two species communicate over such large distances. You figure out what other intelligent species ares going to find interesting and you build a monument where they will already be looking. Take in the fact that humans already without ever meeting an alien already have "invasion" fears... It's only practical that you don't build a light house directly in your back yard but rather put it close enough that if you still exist you relay though it. If you've gone extinct then it's still a monument to your existence in a place that other intelligent being were going to look anyway.

    All we are talking about is smoke signals. When we find it it will give us clues to FTL communication though something like that might still take us a hundred years even with outright clues. There is likely a network of living intelligent species out there. But by finding one that has gone extinct may provide clues for contacting other living species.

  36. If I was an alien... by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    If I was an alien sending signals I would send the easiest to detect, like radio, or light.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Neutrinos are Hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who actually works in the field of detecting neutrinos from beyond the atmosphere, it's really, really, really hard. The signal is hard to produce, hard to detect, and the required energy per bit is about 15 orders of magnitude larger than in the radio. Gravitational ways are even worse than this as a communication mechanism. This is for fundamental physical reasons, not technological "crudeness".

  39. On the other hand... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I image that about 1/2 of those civilizations are technologically *less* advanced than us. Perhaps we should try flag semaphore or smoke signals.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  40. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think UFO is synonymous with extra-terrestrial?

  41. Needle in a haystack by eyenot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's admit it, we don't even know what we're looking for. I mean that in the broadest, most philosophical sense. We say we're looking for E.T. but there's no way we can look for something too dissimilar to ourselves so we end up looking for ourselves as an end result.

    As many here have pointed out, the RF era may only last a short while. It would be a pretty heady coincidence if we did receive signals from that era from an exo race just at the time we're spending (wasting?) our time looking for such signals.

    Consider the law of inverse squares. It doesn't take very many light-years for a radio signal to become a whisper. People are talking about compressed and distributed radio that is indistinguishable from background noise. I haven't seen many people offering a similar argument for AM and FM - not very far away (about 120 light years from some things I'm reading) and the same thing happens to even very strong broadcasts from Earth.

    So unless we're really, really blowing on the dice, here, we don't have much hope of finding something this way. We're talking about the coincidence of not only E.T.'s radio era and our listenership, but also the coincidence that E.T. lives extremely, extremely close to our neighborhood. Two coincidences at once, playing out to our whims? I doubt it.

    But think about what we broadcast that doesn't get attenuated so easily. Think about our space probes.

    Surely even the most technologically advanced races have to give up trying to receive propagating radio signals beyond a certain distance. But space probes always stay the same size (don't quote me on that, cosmogony and quantum mechanics experts) so even if they aren't going at the speed of light, they stay detectable across time and space.

    I'm sure it's far easier to pick up a tiny, tiny little pinprick of metal and electrical energy (valuable things in space) for an advanced race than it is to find random signals amidst the background noise of the universe.

    Maybe we should learn to apply a similar technology. Maybe we need to develop "sensor arrays" that can quickly and easily detect artificial satellites drifting through space. For all we know, several have gone through our solar system since the advent of, say, radar, and we don't know it because we're not really looking or don't know how to look properly.

    If we're so certain that there are exo races out there that have lived in an advanced state for long enough that by now their intelligent creation of radio signals is reaching us, then it's just as safe to assume that by now their space probes are reaching us as well. Voyager is escaping the sun at 38,500mph. Light travels at roughly 300,000mph. So this dramatic leap in assumption is simply a magnitude of ten.

    Considering the milky way is 100,000 years across, I think it's okay to play with a magnitude of ten in terms of light years when asking ourselves how big of a "neighborhood" we live in. It's like saying maybe our neighborhood is the size of our subdivision and not just our cul de sac.

    When you take all of this into consideration, it looks actually very silly to spend time looking for radio signals. It makes looking for radio signals seem like a sideshow game that some people just happen to be distracted by.

    Meanwhile, our solar system could be bristling with tiny little space probes that we ignore because we haven't learned how to effectively differentiate them from rocks.

    Maybe that's because we really actually fear the universe. Our biggest concern about exo objects is space rocks because we're so afraid that a big one is going to slam into our planet.

    It reminds me that a lot of people have argued that we should be learning how to mask our signals and to stop sending out calling card broadcasts in the hope of gaining an audience.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:Needle in a haystack by bdubSOv1iKIJ403M · · Score: 2

      Light travels at roughly 300,000mph.

      ERR_INVALID_UNITS. Light travels at roughly 670,000,000 mph.

    2. Re:Needle in a haystack by lgw · · Score: 1

      We do know what we're looking for: aliens who want to contact us, and have tuned their signal to be easily detectable by us. We're not going to see anything else, after all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Needle in a haystack by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Oh, terribly bad on my part. Let's see.

      186,000 miles / sec.

      Let's see if I can extricate myself from this sensibly.

      670mil mph. What was the probe travelling at? 35k miles/ hr?

      So...1.34mil over 7.

      Well that fucks my ratio up. If their probes are moving as slowly as our fastest probe, then the magnitude of "amplifying" or sense of neighborhood from 120 light years becomes 160 million light years.

      Well the Milky Way is only 100,000 light years across. So, hmm.

      If I was to sustain the same argument as I was before, I'd be saying that our neighborhood is actually the Virgo supercluster.

      It just remains to be asked whether it's plausible that any civilizations that may have arisen within the Virgo supercluster could have reached the point were are at, now, between say 160 million years ago minus some "rise and fall of civilization" time period (15,000 years?). Well... a 15,000 year time period is somewhat slim. It's 1 10,666th of 160 million years.

      But, NASA has launched rockets that had better odds than 1:10,666 of failing catastrophically.

      Hmm.

      Well, I sort of makes looking for space probes kind of stupid, as well.

      What's even more stupid is taking several courses in Physics but still not giving enough of a fuck to memorize the speed of light, and then also going online and looking it up only to glance at it and read the units completely wrong.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    4. Re:Needle in a haystack by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Your tired ass also fucked up the ratio.

      120 * (1.34mil over 7) = 23 mil

      Okay so not the Virgo supercluster. But still, it's a larger neighborhood than I expected to justify.

      I guess a larger number like that might mean a higher likelihood of finding probes within our own galaxy. Who knows.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  42. Encryption by Lennie · · Score: 2

    If they are only a little bit more advanced then our civilization they've probably encrypted all their communication, maybe even encoded it in such a way that it will be hard to distinguish from cosmic noise. If they don't want to be found, they'll be hard to find.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
    1. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Information is detectable as information, encrypted or not. There is no way to have communication without it being detectable as same. Encryption doesn't change that. It changes what you're graphing when attempting to determine whether what you have is a communication of some form, but since you never knew the language to begin with, it really matters not. You don't get to read the message either way, you just get to know that there is something "on the page" and that it isn't blank.

    2. Re:Encryption by bjs555 · · Score: 1

      Not so, I think. Read up on spread spectrum communications. My understanding is that spread spectrum techniques make it almost impossible to distinguish signal from noise.

    3. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're wrong.

      The CONTENT cannot be distinguished from noise, but it still has to be carried on a carrier wave. And if that carrier wave is in, for example, the 21cm band (so that it is long distance), the power in the 21cm band WILL be detectable at an intensity far higher than any natural process could manage.

      Similarly if it were in Xray (for high bandwidth, low range comms).

      Remember, we DON'T have to descramble their mobile phone comms and read their messages, we only have to detect that there's signalling going on.

    4. Re:Encryption by Lennie · · Score: 1

      You are thinking about how we encode our data.

      Maybe they've deliberately created a way to be less detectable going up in the noise.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    5. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The signal most likely to be detected by a species like us is not our NPR or today's top 20 POP charts.

      It's military radar you look for.

      Only a paranoid, territorial, aggressive and technological species would need to develop and use constant scans of their horizon with powerful directed energy beams. Even meteorological radars are lower power and mostly getting bounced back by the targets they are attuned to. But a bunch of high-powered directional sweeping beams looking for incoming missiles should sit far above the noise floor.

      (Arguments about radio signal leakage being waste ignore military budgeting: if one is good, ten is better.)

      We'll never see the peaceful species until we can peep in their backyards and compare the size of their swimming pools. But the aggressive ones who discover metal, aircraft and radio will be painting the sky all day and all night with an obviously artificial signal.

      Let's just hope that the priests of their sky wizard don't compel conversion or expunging of the heretics. We're a tad too far away to libertificate for our oil and gold. (Unless there's some galactic premium on Certified Earth Brand body fluids.)

  43. ask the wrong question to follow the wrong questio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We asked the wrong question:
    - lets find other civilizations using Marconi's technology

    Now we are asking a following question
    - what if they don't use Marconi's technology

    I think we are still asking the wrong question.

    What if we ask "what kinds of signals would the kind of civilizations that we want to interact with use".
    - It doesn't do us any good if we signal to interstellar super-predators that we are weak and ripe.
    - It doesn't do us any good if we are able to signal in a way that those we want to detect would ignore.

    So lets figure out what they would do, and something about the how, and look for that.

    My thought - we are more likely to see them talking to each other, than to induce them to come here and get nuked or vivisected.

    Personally - I think we live in an otherwise dead universe. It is too "in" to think that there are "others" out there - who am I to let the same folks who invented modern politics tell me about the nature of life in the universe?

  44. Detectability of "broadcast signals" by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Signal strength drops by the square of the distance, so if the closest possible earth-like planet with a civilization is say, 5000 light years away (about 5% of the distance across the Milky Way), is a reasonable amount of power, say 1 megawatt, 1 mile from that earth-like planet going to be detectable here on Earth after intersteller dust and gas absorption?

    Would Infra-red transmission get through longer distances even better between planets?

  45. Trade one assumption for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets divert our effort from a method that we use to communicate to one that we can't even easily observe. There is nothing wrong with being open to this stuff but its as silly as expecting to see Dyson spheres among the stars. Any civilization that could build a Dyson sphere wouldn't bother.

    1. Re:Trade one assumption for another by eyenot · · Score: 1

      All the better reason we should learn how to detect miniscule space probes within our solar system.

      If we're assuming we have listenable neighbors inside of 100 light years, why not assume we have space-probing neighbors inside of 1,000 light years and start looking for the probes that would have reached us by now as well?

      And space probes are a medium we use to communicate and are gaining importance all the time. NASA has several semi-celebrities, now, who broadcast all the latest news about space probes. You might check our the twitters of Kimberly Ennico-Smith, Emily Lackdawalla, or any of the current or former crew of the International Space Station. All very fascinating daily reads.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  46. No we have not been broadcasting by aepervius · · Score: 1

    "having only been broadcasting electromagnetic signatures visible by an alien civilization for around 80 years"

    Not really, none of our signal went beyond a few au for most signals, and a few hundred au for most others. The reason is simple most signal were not very directional, and propagated at some point in 1/r^2, even if it is a cone rather than hemispherical. So for big r the r^2 gets bigger and you get a signal amplitude which is below the intergalatic noise for that frequency.

    There are about only 4 or so signals which had enough energy to go beyond the solar system. They were intentionally very directional and high powered directed toward M13. They totaled all together 2 hours IIRC.

    But beside those 2 hours or so ? Nothing. An ET could be landed on alpha proxy and NOT hear us in any way shape or form.


    Basically : we would not be able to detect ourselves. Nobody would when the signal amplitude is dwarfed by noise. So unless some ET is continuously sending ginormous amount of energy in a directed radio signal toward us, there is no chance we would catch them.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:No we have not been broadcasting by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Basically : we would not be able to detect ourselves. Nobody would when the signal amplitude is dwarfed by noise. So unless some ET is continuously sending ginormous amount of energy in a directed radio signal toward us, there is no chance we would catch them.

      I think that the current attempts proposed (by Hawking and others IIRC) are to look for evidence of radar and radar astronomy. Such use of radar to keep track of things like aircraft and used to map out their own solar system should be detectable by a dedicated search within quite some distance from Earth even if just used at the levels we are currently using.

  47. Another method by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    You mean the giant sign on my roof pointing up that says "I'm ready to be probed" isn't likely to attract any aliens?

  48. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    You're off your meds again, aren't you?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  49. Fermi Paradox Solution by capitanpiluso · · Score: 1

    Actually the Fermi Paradox doesn't consider that all civilizations are equally stupid: every Earth like planet have their own SETI institution listening for signals. But none of them had the occurrence of sending signals out.

    1. Re:Fermi Paradox Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Fermi Paradox doesn't consider that all civilizations are equally stupid: every Earth like planet have their own SETI institution listening for signals.
      But none of them had the occurrence of sending signals out.

      If only they had someone as smart as you working for them, maybe someone working at Arecibo would have broadcast such a message 40 years ago.

  50. Why would ET use gravity or neutrinos by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    I was of the understanding that current radiotelescopes could not pick up a regular broadcast signal of the type that is sent by commercial transmitters but that the signal would have to be much more powerful and concentrated, intentionally sent for the purpose of detection from another planet. I suppose that I was wrong?

    Secondly, what benefits would a gravity or nuetrino have over EMF for communications? If it was so great why wouldnt be we be using it? How would you create a gravity or neutrino communications device? An expensive, complex communication technique just because it would be hard to use doesnt make it more practical and ETs are likely to be practical.

    1. Re:Why would ET use gravity or neutrinos by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I am not sure about gravity waves but neutrinos will pass through matter- you could communicate right through a planet. Maybe you have a star system on multiple planets and don't want to lose communication with the other planets when they pass behind the star. However it is hard to imagine this would completely supplant easily made EMF.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  51. Re:There is no other life, by eyenot · · Score: 1

    That's like saying an exploration team is "nutter" for keeping a point scout ahead of the exploration party.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  52. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 1

    Oh right, when they held positions in the scientific community, were Surgeons in hospitals, ex-NASA employees etc, in charge of F'ing nuclear weapons facilities they were all sane. All of a sudden they see a UFO and they are all crazy. Nice logic fail there.

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  53. lowest common denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be EM signals. I believe that a technologically advanced civilization would have to be curious, to have developed, thus would be curious about who else is out there. even if they were violent, they could see that other civilizations CANNOT threaten them if anywhere near their capacity, and if they are far beyond and have some sort of close to light speed drive or giant lasers, then trying to hide would be useless. I believe that everyone is currently looking for everyone else, using EM, just to not be alone. we are all in our isolated solar system gravity wells, too far to travel out of, but we could share information, which would be harmless to us if we did. using gravity waves and neutrinos would be costly, just like a dyson sphere is costly. no need for such activities, a planet or 2 and some moons are more than enough space for an ecosystem with intelligence in it. maybe we could push a payload with a laser, but why, if we can just send instructions for whatever is in the payload. think Contact by Sagan. the best hope would be sending the dna sequence of ourselves, so humans could be grown there.

  54. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 1

    It seems to me you are. Your statement contradicts your signature. We call that hypocrisy around here.

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  55. yepper kirk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone in damn eternity gets a laugh out of the star boobs scam its good for catching deserters and runaways in a broken down vimio to give them a horno hog ride other than that if you really want to do pin the crime right Take the female take the male giive them similar crappy mattresses for christmas and a stack of porn let nature take its course in solitude under the black light then swap the mattresses and blow the woe-b-unto this crap you guys go through with pentium 90 fdivs and lock step sparring systems to engineer a promotion is a bit.......i donno. the mattress trick weighs less on the mind.

  56. They Are Already Here... by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    Why look?? From one of the books I read when I was young was one that said a third of heaven had been cast down to Earth as punishment for being a bunch of vain peckerheads. Maybe we should find those bastards and give them the Guantanamo treatment. No fancy rockets or freeze dried food needed. ;)

  57. Gotta look at what you can see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words don't look at all.

  58. ET messages by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't an ET leave a big message that was hard to miss, like, say, a moon? Or even better, a big pyramid in the middle of nowhere? That would be kind of hard to miss, wouldn't it?

  59. Re:Gravitational waves and modulated neutrino beam by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Earth's RF output has been declining. What are you smoking?

    http://www.cybercollege.com/pi...

    Thanks I always say AC posting should be banned because it's usually idiots and or trolls.

  60. look within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the planets any ETs would be from would also be alive -- passing through this 3D universe from the zero of their beginning to the zero of their end all the same -- it is not such a big deal

  61. They must notice us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll fling my poo higher.

  62. Advanced communicators don't "transmit", by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Advanced communicators just flip bits using entangled particle pairs in pre-shared sets. Imagine two identical SSD modules, you give one to your friend who travels around with it and whenever you write data to your copy your friend is able to read the same bit changes off their's. Nothing is transmitted, the link is instantaneous and totally secure. Why wouldn't an advanced civilisation not switch to such a system as soon as they can? So assuming humans are average in their technological development rate you have about a 100 year window where any new civilisation is exposing itself to detection via electromagnetic wave transmission. If you accept that what are the odds of finding anything now? Bugger all?

    1. Re:Advanced communicators don't "transmit", by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that that doesn't work. You can't pass information that way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  63. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day, scientists and their followers will feel like complete idiots, when it becomes obvious aliens have been here all along.

    Citation#1: US presidents have known about UFOs here on Earth, even seen them:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#2: If 200+ NASA, Ex-Military, Ex-US government high ranking employees coming forth and willing to testify before congress isn't enough for you, then your mind is too closed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#3: How many pilot witnesses with radar evidence to back it up does it take before you belive that UFOs are real and here on Earth?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Citation#4: Is 3 Million alien abductions in the USA alone enough evidence for you, or are you waiting around for a nice round number like 10 million?
    http://www.ufoevidence.org/top...

    Right. Now, do you want a tissue to wipe your foaming mouth?

  64. Oooh clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets look for something that possibly doesn't exist. (Gravitational waves), or may be impossible to detect (modulated neutrino flux).

    Somehow I think EM may actually be the good answer here guys ?

  65. There certainly is intelligent life beyond Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk to God by praying, then read the Bible to get His reply. Ask the next person who knocks on your door with a Bible; for a free Bible. You will get a Bible if you ask enough people. Ask for the "New World Translation", 2013 edition. Now you are ahead of the game.

  66. Stupid Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there are aliens, it is logical to assume that they have/will go through highly similar technological advances over time. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that we would "hear' EM signals before any other.

  67. probabilities and physics are not in favour by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    As other commented observed, EM radiation diminishes with a square of distance, rendering it undetectable over interstellar distances, unless star-power emitters are used, Ditto for gravity. Likewise with neutrino-base comms, except it's the probability of catching this one stream of neutrinos that would diminish with square of distance.

    Why would one use any of the C-speed-limited comms through interstellar space (to justify existence of star-power EM for example)r? Other then a species that have very slow time perception (say feel a "day" is 1000 earth years to make such comms usefull to them)...how would they even evolve?

    They (ET) would have to really target us as direction of comms...but how would they know we are even here, per above, and why would they even want to?

    On top of that we have temporal alignment chance...

    IMHO, There is a good chance life did develop on other planets, sadly there is a very slim chance we will ever know about it. But, SETI is like playing Lotto, slim chances of success when you play vs no chance if you do not play and but put your energy elsewhere.

    --
    4wdloop
    1. Re:probabilities and physics are not in favour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " EM radiation diminishes with a square of distance,"

      from a point source

      "unless star-power emitters are used"

      or masers

  68. Uh, we can't see through the firmament... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    So I doubt we'll ever detect life "up there". Which is only in one direction, up; see my signature. I have tested moonlight and it makes things colder (i.e., it was warmer in the shade of the moonlight), so it's definitely not reflected sunlight. If it's not reflected sunlight? Well, then, we need to recognize our preconceptions and test and verify them.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  69. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's called "Argument from Authority," where you present an argument from a figure in power and say "See? Therefore I'm right!"

    This is a logical fallacy because even an expert in a field can be wrong.

    You've also ignored pareidolia, and just out-and-out misinterpretation as sources of this. What about the cops who chased Venus, thinking it was a spaceship? They're trained observers, yet you would accept their testimony that they followed a UFO without question even though it is clearly incorrect.

    Stop being so damned credulous, and stop pretending that you're thinking for yourself; you're looking at a field where you've already decided what you want to believe. A thorough review of the evidence with a skeptical mind, as well as an understanding that people often translate what they see but don't understand into terms relevant to them, and the acceptance that people lie.

  70. Too Advanced To Get by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    So far human communications are based upon a signal traveling along a path. In an advanced culture that may no longer exist. Quantum mechanics is weird enough and just maybe information can be made to appear at a target place without traveling in the physical universe. Obviously we could not detect something like that.

    1. Re:Too Advanced To Get by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      Sure, use uncertainty drive. Localize your momentum really really really really well by getting really really really really cold so your position wavefunction gets big. Then wait for someone to look.

  71. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    It's only hypocrisy if you think he's being snarky. He could be asking a serious question... which, honestly, is a legitimate one.

  72. Communication Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although there is likely to be other life in the Universe, there are other odds that need to be considered if we are going to communicate with it.

    First, life must be complex. The Universe has existed for some 13 billion years or so. The Earth has existed for around 4 billion years. Complex life has been around for a questionable 2 billion years.

    Second, life must be intelligent. Dinosaurs were around for 60 million years, and they never attempted to communicate with aliens (that we know of). It is arguable that there are multiple intelligent life forms on Earth (Humans, Dolphins, and Mice - in that order). However, writing and recorded history have only existed for 10,000 or so years. If an extra-terrestrial were to physically visit Earth before then, only Ancient Aliens on the History Channel would know.

    Third, communication must be possible. The radio has only been in existence for just over 100 years. We have only been listening for 80 years, on and off. We are still not transmitting any signals with enough strength to be picked up light years away.

    Fourth, faster-than-light communication is still not possible for us. By the time our radio signal reaches anyone who would be listening, light years would have passed. More time would have to pass before we receive a response in this manner.

    Fifth, civilizations end. We might not be here to receive a reply.

    Suggesting that we use a communication that we have yet to invent is fantasy. However, that is where the hope lies. Might as well pursue it.

    1. Re:Communication Window by PPH · · Score: 1

      Suggesting that we use a communication that we have yet to invent is fantasy.

      We don't have to invent it. We leave that to the much more advanced civilization. We only have to detect it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  73. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 1

    If it was 2 or 3 different authorities ok, but when it's thousands of pilots and hundreds of air traffic controllers who know the difference between an airplane and somehting that can do a 90 degree turn while going 20,000 miles per hour... and when it's hundreds of insiders in high ranks telling you not just what they saw, but what they know from decades on the job... at some point you have to pull the ear plugs off your ears and have a listen.

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  74. Alien life on the Mandelbulb by Boinske · · Score: 2

    Maybe we're not just looking the wrong *way*, but in the wrong *place*. Maybe *extra-terrestrial* isn't broad enough! Maybe we'll find life other than what's here on Earth in a much broader domain, i.e., maybe we should be looking for *extra-cosmic* life, in other words, life outside our cosmos! How? In the fabric of mathematics itself. Max Tegmark has suggested (and indeed made a career of) speculations that *our* universe is mathematical (he posits the existence of mathematical structures that might be perfectly isomorphic to our own physics and cosmos, thus making them truly the *same* and just as real as our perceived universe). If this is indeed the case, then maybe we should look inside mathematics and see if we can find E.T. there (it does bring up an interesting question of how his phone would work!) This idea first really came home for me when looking at 3D animations (youtube) of the Mandelbulb. Check it out yourself; some of these videos, when you watch them, seem to implore you to just take a closer look to see small organisms or fishes or something even more alien! It sounds crazy, but, if Tegmark is right about any of this, then maybe we should look in the complex (understatement) mathematical multiverse!

  75. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One day, scientists and their followers will feel like complete idiots, when it becomes obvious aliens have been here all along.

    Okay, one can play this game about any widespread "belief." Let's try, shall we?

    One day, scientists and their followers will feel like complete idiots, when it becomes obvious God and Jesus have been here all along.

    Citation#1: US presidents have known about UFOs here on Earth, even seen them:

    Since the beginning of the US, US Presidents have been -- and continue to -- invoke a superior supernatural deity acting on Earth, usually to our country's benefit.

    Citation#2: If 200+ NASA, Ex-Military, Ex-US government high ranking employees coming forth and willing to testify before congress isn't enough for you, then your mind is too closed:

    I can find thousands and thousands of NASA, Ex-military, Ex-US government high ranking employees to talk about how belief in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is not only present in the world, but often is responsible for their entire success in life.

    Citation#3: How many pilot witnesses with radar evidence to back it up does it take before you belive that UFOs are real and here on Earth?

    How many miracles certified by the Vatican does it take for you to believe in an almighty deity? (The Vatican employs lots of actual scientists and doctors to certify these too.)

    Citation#4: Is 3 Million alien abductions in the USA alone enough evidence for you, or are you waiting around for a nice round number like 10 million?

    Yes, and hundreds of millions of people around the world believe that bread or a wafer is magically transformed into the body of someone who lived 2000 years ago, and by practicing ritual cannibalism and consuming his body and blood, they will be saved an afterlife of eternal torment. And hundreds of milions of others think the first group is crazy, but they believe in their own tradition pointing to a supernatural god or gods. Etc.

    Don't get me wrong -- I'm NOT saying God isn't real, nor am I saying definitively that aliens have not visited earth.

    But you have to admit that there are good reasons why many scientists have become increasingly skeptical of religious claims in the past few centuries -- largely due to the nature of the "evidence," which always seems a little fleeting or hard to capture in controlled experiments or whatever.

    It is indeed rational to present a similar skepticism to claims like millions of people in the US are supposedly "abducted." How? When? Don't other people in their families notice? Why would aliens be doing this? How many government officials would have to be in on this conspiracy theory to keep it quiet? Why hasn't anyone been able to produce clear evidence of these things?

    Here's the problem -- there are other explanations. You go back more than a century, and rather than alien abductions, people believed in other kinds of noctural weirdness, from incubi to succubi to various other demons or ghosts or fairies or whatever. There are well-known phenomena of sleep paralysis, which occur when your body's motor control turns off, but sometimes the conscious brain is still a little aware. This has happened to me a number of times in my life -- and I've even had dreams and nightmares that correspond to those times, sometimes where I've "felt a presence" or whatever nonsense... but I recognize these things as nightmares combined with well-known physiological phenomena... I don't blame them on aliens.

    Isn't it interesting that all of these "abductions" started soaring just about the time that UFOs and sci-fi stories became all the rage? And the old stories about demonic visitation, etc. just happen to disappear at the same time?

    Humans have an incredible propensity to look for patterns in randomness, and to try to ascribe meaning to phenomena even if t

  76. Detect Nuclear Power Plants? by transfire · · Score: 1

    If we can't depend on a large enough overlap in radio communications, perhaps we can search for other evidence of intelligence. Would nuclear reactors, for instance, give off any detectable signs -- an increase in neutrino emissions perhaps?

  77. longitudinal waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps they are sending longitudinal waves, such as Nikola Tesla used a century ago --- here are his words:

    "I can never forget the first sensations I experienced when it dawned upon me that I had observed something possibly of incalculable consequences to mankind. I felt as though I were present at the birth of a new knowledge or the revelation of a great truth. My first observations positively terrified me as there was present in them something mysterious, not to say supernatural, and I was alone in my laboratory at night; but at that time the idea of these disturbances being intelligently controlled signals did not yet present itself to me.“

    "The changes I noted were taking place periodically and with such a clear suggestion of number and order that they were not traceable to any cause known to me. I was familiar, of course, with such electrical disturbances as are produced by the sun, Aurora Borealis, and earth currents, and I was as sure as I could be of any fact that these variations were due to none of these causes.“

    "The nature of my experiments precluded the possibility of the changes being produced by atmospheric disturbances, as has been rashly asserted by some. It was sometime afterward when the thought flashed upon my mind that the disturbances I had observed might be due to an intelligent control.

    "Although I could not at the time decipher their meaning, it was impossible for me to think of them as having been entirely accidental. The feeling is constantly growing on me that I had been the first to hear the greeting of one planet to another. A purpose was behind these electrical signals."

  78. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously have no concept of just how large space is.

    I believe that extraterrestrial life exists, but they've never been here for these reasons:

    1) It would be nearly impossible for them to single out our solar system. It would be like me asking you to find one specific grain of sand somewhere on Earth.
    2) If they did somehow randomly stumble across our solar system, they would have to have the means to get here. No small feat.
    3) If they did find Earth, what motivation would they have to come here? They would be so advanced that they couldn't learn anything from us and would have no more interest in us as you would some random amoeba on the ground.
    4) If they did have some kind of curiosity, why would they come here to stick probes up peoples' asses when they could just send undetectable nanobots that could relay everything back to them?
    5) If for some reason they did come here, why all of the secrecy? They'd be more than powerful enough to take what they wanted out in the open.
    6) If for some reason they wanted to collude with our primitive governments, what could our governments possibly provide that they don't already have access to? Why wouldn't they just take what they wanted and fuck the negotiations?
    7) Why is there not a single clear picture or video of an extraterrestrial or their spacecraft despite the fact that the Earth is covered in cameras? Why is there zero evidence to support anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens?
    8) Why are the physical descriptions of these aliens almost exactly like humans? If they were extraterrestrials, they would have arose and evolved in a different environment under different conditions meaning that the chances of them looking anything remotely like us is practically impossible.
    9) The universe is only 13 billion years old. By cosmic time scales, it's a baby. That would take a whole lot of luck for their solar system to be created, the beings to come into existence, evolve to sentience (and just so happen to look nearly identical to us), rise to being starfaring, finding Earth out of at least hundreds of billions of galaxies and for some reason coming here, all within those 13 billion years.

    Sorry, but you're gullible and you watch too many movies.

  79. ET might look familiar.. by psinet · · Score: 1

    My calculations show that from the time life started on earth, planetary ejecta from Earth has had the time to travel across our entire Milky Way.

    I have no idea why I had to work that out myself. It is quite the problem I suspect.

  80. Information Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An interesting result from information theory is that when the noise is Gaussian, the most efficient modulation also is Gaussian. This is seen in the evolution of the modulation methods we use: the more modern ones are more noise-like in their behavior. So the question is how can we tell the difference between noise and an advanced alien signal?

  81. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a fairly skeptical person, and have a pretty keen interest in all things science and fact, but also like to keep an open mind.

    The UFO topic has been of interest for a long time, and this is what I think based on years of taking an interest in the subject.

    First I think a lot of people are either trying to make money out of stories and the coverups, and a lot of people are get caught up in it simply because they want to believe in something. Most of it can be discounted, discredited and debunked. Its easy to call someone a crackpot, but there is a small percentage of events and encounters that cannot, that have been seen and reported by very credible people.

    Second, this is my personal conclusion I have come to my self, I do think we are being visited, agreements have been made with some governments at least, and its being covered up and hidden. I suspect there is a very good reason for it. The mind boggles at to why.

    Anyhow if you take a look at our own evolution of communications technology over the last 500 years, I suspect more advanced civilizations have developed communications technologies that dont use RF/electromagnetic waves, and we're simply looking for something that doesnt exist. Once the square kilometer array in Western Australia and South Africa comes online which in theory could detect an airport radar several light years away, it'll be interesting to see if it sniffs out any leaking RF from nearby stars and their planets.

  82. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely?

    According to what? Drake?

  83. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A clear proof that the aliens prefer munching Americans. Perhaps the copious amount of Internet porn has something to do it. The aliens always go where the meat is.

  84. FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh dear.

    Arecibo sent a message to M13 in Orion.

    In the radio spectrum, our system was orders of magnitude brighter than our sun should or ever could be in the radio waves. If someone was looking at us in the spectrum of our TV carrier waves,they would KNOW that a non-natural event was taking place, worthy of at least a look.

    All the reception of light, Xray, IR and radio waves we pick up from up to 13Bn light years away was EM emissions you insist was impossible to detect more than a few light years.

    I have NO IDEA what made you say that, but it's utterly wrong.

  85. Yeah, easy to make up a fiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you control every aspect of reality and can ignore anything you like, it's easy to make a scenario where your desired outcome is possible.

    It would be VERY hard to make an invasion story if you don't "explain" how it can happen.

  86. Ask Ethan Alert... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I won't read his stuff anymore. I read one article that was just bogus and damn if my Son didn't pass it along to me as well. It's the fact my son believes in what Ethan post, and dumber for doing so.

  87. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've covered it all, or almost. Writing this from Europe, I am always feel amazed on how the crazies always believe the US government and US officials are involved, but seemingly no other nationality. It is unnatural for visiting aliens to limit their activities to a small corner of a planet that has so many wonders everywhere. Rational aliens must have agreements with many powers, and secrets held in many nations are difficult to keep. At best it is simplest to not talk to any official and abduct people at will in the poorer places. The most rational option is actually to avoid developed countries altogether, yet there seem to be no record of mass abductions in the places of the Earth where mass abductions are made easy by high population density and an inefficient police or military organization.

  88. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you have to admit that there are good reasons why many scientists have become increasingly skeptical of religious claims in the past few centuries -- largely due to the nature of the "evidence," which always seems a little fleeting or hard to capture in controlled experiments or whatever.

    Not especially "increasingly" actually -- the distinction that it's not material evidence that causes a belief in creation of the universe by God goes back a very long way. Including in the bible itself. Hebrews 11 (which famously describes faith as "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see") uses as its very first example "By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen." (Heb 11:3)

    It was recognised very early on indeed that we can only draw material conclusions from material evidence, and so materialism would never be able to answer questions about God. It's only recently that people have tended to forget this, and think that somehow there "should" be material evidence for God.

  89. Why is everyone so bad at math? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't even be looking for ET. At all. Because of math. To put the age of the universe or even our galaxy in perspective, finding ET would be like winning the lottery every week for a year straight. Looking for ET is a total waste of time, no pun intended.

  90. Space Elevators by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I wonder if our telescopes will ever be able to find more fundamental ways of detecting the physical modifications made to planets and star systems? One example, looking for orbital perturbations caused by using space elevators.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  91. Easy game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy, just filter out signals that's natural like pulsar , supernovae ecm pulse , etc and focus on the rest.
    maybe we should also look for meteor communication (1 meteor = 1 bit) :)

  92. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    One day, scientists and their followers will feel like complete idiots, when it becomes obvious God and Jesus have been here all along.

    Except that while I haven't seen God or Jesus (that I know of), I've seen quite clearly an "artifact" (for lack of a better word) flying in the sky that bore absolutely no resemblance to any sort of flying machine that the public has knows about. No, I'm certainly not suggesting that it had to be ET... but to rule it out offhand... or equate belief in said possibility with a belief in religion... isn't particularly impressive, intellectually.

  93. Very stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are here, there were here for a long time but then Earth was flat for very long time... now get back to deny all

  94. Re:There is no other life, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we know space is there and other stars planets and galaxies exist. exactly what is nutter about pursuing further knowledge of them?

  95. No one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone thought maybe the interstellar society we are not a part of has deemed us not worthy of communication with them yet? What if their laws state to only respond when the planet does XYZ and is this far along with technology and thought. I know there are intelligent beings out there...doesn't matter if you believe in religion or not the probability of endless is endless and is certain.

  96. Bend spacetime first by tentontoby · · Score: 1

    The problem is our limit on the speed of light containing electromagnetically coherent information traveling through the ridiculous vastness of space: we're still stuck looking further and further into the deep dark past, the further away we look. Until we use our consciousness to bend the Vastness until there *is no* vastness, we won't be finding anything currently alive in the moment with us....

  97. Look at ourselves by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Pretend that you could fully record two full weeks of received signal and whatever fidelity. Record two weeks of the 2.4 ghz spectrum at, say, a large apartment building. Assume that it's all 802.11 b/g/n with wpa2 encryption.

    What's the earliest decade you could hand that recording to a bunch of scientists from, and have them retrieve meaningful communication from it? 2000s? 1990s? 80s? 70s? As you go further back in time, you're not only requiring them to figure out the encryption, but to decode the physical layer, the transport layer, file formats...

    Hell, could you hand a group of scientists from 1980 take an unencrypted .mp4 and get it to play? How long would it take them? The 80s meant Commodore 64s. Say it's a four gigabyte file. They'd need to invent something that they could store the data on, just to start working on it!

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  98. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm completely willing to believe that there have been lots of UFOs, in the sense of objects that appear to be flying that we didn't identify at the time, and still may not have identified. What I really, really doubt is that they were alien spacecraft.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  99. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Actually, there was a time when many Western scientists believed that the Bible was true, and that Christianity was useful in determining scientific facts. It wasn't that many centuries ago. This included a period when lots of people claimed to have "proofs" of God (with an assumption that the existence of God implied the truth of their particular brand of Christianity). Some people still peddle fallacious proofs based on physical evidence.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  100. A reason to beware by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The invasion scenario is ridiculous.

    Sure, they need nothing from us; but being much more highly evolved than humans, perhaps they find us revolting and/or hideous. Some humans, who are much more technologically advanced than spiders, will cheerfully spray a can of Raid to exterminate a nest of harmless spiders.

    Until that scenario can be ruled out, beware.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  101. logically by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    we should be looking for cell phone signals.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  102. Gravatational by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Gravatational waves shoot through the Universe like touching a spider's web. Almost instant.

    You can be sure if we do get an alien signal, it'll be an advertisement.

    1. Re:Gravatational by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      You almost had it:

      Gravitational waves

      shoot through the Universe

      like touching

      a spider's web

      Burma Shave

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  103. Re:Yes, let's ignore 3Million+ alien abduction cas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swamp gas. People see swamp gas at night.

  104. Re:There certainly is intelligent life beyond Eart by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    I prayed to God. I asked about all the war and strife. Then I read the Bible. Genesis.

    Where the favored tribes ran around smiting everyone (per God's will). About a God that sure was cranky. Genocide. Crazy men ready to kill their children because of the voices in their heads.

    And I said "Oh".

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  105. Communication Medium by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    This is more about what is the most suitable medium of communication for a sufficiently advanced civilization. Is it radio? Probably not, if galactic communication does exist, it certainly won't be radio it is way too slow. Even light, is way too slow. Until we figure out some sort of communication medium that transcends these limitations there isn't much point to looking, Heck other worlds could be sending us stuff all the time, we could simply just not know enough to receive any of it.

    A somewhat modern analogy:

    Back in the mid 1990's I worked as a co-op student in a university IT department. What I did most days was access the "internet" or "World Wide Web" and interact and communicate with others via usenet newsgroups and typically argue with other people with similar access around the world. At the time, insofar as the internet was concerned unless you were a government or a university you didn't have access to it. Most people didn't know it existed. I could tell a few people around me about conversations I had but for the most part that was as far as the communication ever got.

    So I guess what I am saying is that the Earth today doesn't know what the "Internet" is, has no access to it, and given distances, is a person standing in a vast plain just listening really hard and hoping for the best. It doesn't mean that others do not have access to that technology, nor that those communications are not taking place. Fast forward to today, just about everyone has the internet, and usenet is archaic, everyone is aware of this type of communication, and in fact now have advanced usage.

    Anyway until we discover whatever exotic physics allows for said reasonable communication, there isn't much point straining our ears in the conventional sense.

    I for one can't wait until our first alien communication amounts to:
    Beatlejuice1234: Hey Earth you suck! Your space is the worst! Ha Ha !111!111! ;p