SETI: Run by charlatans or fools?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dinosaur, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I'm certainly not going over your already answered ridiculous claims.
    You make the outragous claims in the OP.....You need to justify your claims...It is not SETI on trial, it is your silly unfounded claims that is on trial.

    In the meantime take off your blinkers and check out the following.....
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    And perhaps some galaxies are far more fertile and productive and may have one ETI for every 10 stellar system.
    The numbers involved certainly give us plenty to make legitimate claims about.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    It's worth noting that at this time I am in debate in two threads.....
    This one called "SETI: Run by charlatans or fools?" debating with another who claims SETI is worthless and we cannot ever make any contact with any ETL.
    And the other called "what scientists thought" Debate occurring with someone who believes that Earth is and has been visited by Alien craft....

    Both are of course are put by posters that appear rather delusional, and both seem to carry agenda that blinkers both from reality and the way things really are, according to evidence available.

    And both are linked to probably the greatest educator of our time, in Carl Sagan.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trapped Banned Banned

    Just so other posters are aware, he is referring to myself and my thread in UFO discussions. This poster is a usual skeptic charlatan, ie. He is a skeptic crackpot. He'd rather ignore evidence and facts pointed to him and tackling the real issue of unidentified flying objects in our skies. Whether I believe they are alien or not, doesn't denounce in any way that the UFO phenomenon is taken seriously by top officials and has been treated with the up-most secrecy since the early 50's.
  8. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    PaddoBoy: From my Post #169
    Your response to Post #169.
    Check the rest of my Post #169 & tell me what they could possibly know that I do not know.

    Might they have some reason to believe that the inverse square law does not apply to radiation not due to a precisely directed signal? Id est: A signal radiated as a cone.

    Do they have some reason to believe that a technological culture would have reason to create a directed interstellar signal strong enough to be detectable at distances of 4 or more light years?

    If they did generate such a signal what reason would they have to believe that it would hit some planet at the precise place where receiving equipment was active?

    As described in my Post #169, it would be a formidable task to send a directed signal to Earth over interstellar distances if they knew of our solar system & the precise parameters of our orbit. It would be miraculous if such a directed signal happened by chance to be in exactly aligned with our SETI receivers.

    From your Post #175
    Rare is correct: Perhaps some galaxies not having any & very few having more than one. I gave some cogent reasons to support such a frequency of Technological cultures.

    Now given that technological cultures are rare, what are the chances of getting a signal from one of them which is precisely directed so as to be aligned with a SETI receiver? Note that it would be a formidable task to send such a precisely directed signal if they knew of our solar system & our orbital parameters.
  9. Trapped Banned Banned

    Kaku argues that a SETI receiver is a type 1 civilization. If we where to get contact from an advanced civilization, they would need to be a type 2 - type 3 most, meaning that they are probably using techniques to contact other aliens using different methods.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You are a liar of course. And that shows in your fanatical efforts, in posting three threads all covering the same issue.
    Again to illustrate your lies, I have said many times the majority of sightings are explained away logically, the small amount that are unexplained, are just that...unexplained.
    Unexplained does not mean Alien in nature.

    Lies of course are just one of the "qualities"that conspiracy pushers and anti mainstream nutters use to appease their nutty followers.
  11. Trapped Banned Banned

    Of course I am. Because I haven't offered any credible stories of UFO events, not offered any evidence in the way of official papers, documents and memo's. Not been truthful to the facts or events and I am delusional.

    These are the things you want people to consider, not whether you actually have anything constructive to say on the issue of UFO's. Nothing intelligible any way.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Again the rest of your invalid claims and questions have been answered.
    The above would be rare as agreed by all, except of course that rarity still interprets into large numbers by our standards when the vastness of the Universe is discussed.
    And that rarity in chance of ETI elsewhere, would far out number the non zero chance that we are alone.
    That non zero possibility would raise far more questions then any evidence validating ETI existence.
    It would certainly be one the God botherers would latch onto quick smart.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No you offer biased interpretations. The verdict is out....Unexplained UFO sightings remain just that for the time being.
    Live with it.
  14. Trapped Banned Banned

    No actually... I haven't. I have never once integrated what my ''personal feelings'' are on UFO's. I use the term ''UFO'' always in context. I always offer solid story facts. I don't make anything up as I go along.

    But you don't seem to understand that.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Again, I understand it quite well.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    And as much as you want to argue the point here and claim mainstream unsupported conspiracies, the verdict is out.
    They remain unexplained.
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From my Post #169 (paraphrase):
    The above referred to a technological culture sending a directed signal from Proxima Centauri to Earth or vice versa (a distance of circa 4 light years), assuming a knowledge of the receiving solar system & the orbital parameters of the target planet.

    I made the remark in the context of SETI hoping to receive a signal that is not specifically directed to us. I also mentioned that attempting to hit the receivers is even more difficult than hitting the planet.

    In Post #180 Russ Watters Posted the following.
    The above relating to my remark in Post #169

    By my calculations.
    1 Degree = pi/180 radians
    One second of arc = pi/180*3600 radians
    One second of arc = 0.000 004 4814 radians
    For small angles (in radians)[b]:[/b] sin(angle) = angle
    Lightspeed[b]:[/b] c = 299,792,458 meters per second
    Year = 365.242199 days
    Year = 365.242199 *24*3600 seconds
    LightYear = 365.242199 *24*3600*299,792,458 meters
    0.000 004 4814*LightYear = 42 396 424 746 meters
    From the above a directional error 1/3600Degree = 42 396 424.746 kilometers @ 1 light year & 4 times that amount for signals from Proxima Centauri to Earth or vice versa.

    That looks like enough of an error to miss an entire planet. It would be even easier to miss the receivers, which are a lot smaller than a planet.

    Russ: Do you take some time to think or do some calculations before posting?
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Just dumb equations.
  18. Trapped Banned Banned

    I'm glad you understand this. You keep repeating the abused statement ''Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' and that is fine, never, not once, have I denied this.

    What I am saying is that you dismiss the whole UFO ET hypothesis like there is no reason anyone in their right mind would believe in it: I've been trying to show you for the best part of a week that there are plenty, credible, scientific minded people who do believe in the phenomenon and there is plenty evidence to suggest the ET hypothesis, not prove it. Again, I have an entire thread dedicated to Russ concerning the differences, perhaps you would like to go look at it for future reference.
  19. Trapped Banned Banned

    You mean the one where you and another poster botched the true meaning of the gravitational red shift? Yes, you were quite dumb that day and the following week. Took tach to show you, I was right and you were wrong.
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    I posted from a source that I trust that directly disagrees with you. You can easily calculate if their claim is true, but you didn't do that: "wattage" does not appear anywhere in your calculation. All you did was compare some angles you pulled out of the air as if they had relevance. What is the source for your claim of a directional error of 1/3600th degree being required or existing? From the specs on the Aricebo message are you capable of calculating the tightness of their beam or if their claim is true? You need to compare the strength of the signal to the detection capabilities of the receiver, both of which would be in watts or watts/sq m.
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Say we were in the lab trying to prove the existence of God. To run such experiments, we may not only have time and space constraints to deal with, but also the possibility of other materials and emissions (dark matter and energy) and other dimensions (multi-universe); for the sake of completeness. Why are the rules different and why dis these experiments get less funding and end? All that was required to disprove God was a half effort with no excuses or exceptions. The push back reaction was that religious will not accept that lack of evidence, since they believe that all rocks have not been turned over, and that more experiments with better tech will pan out. The paranormal sciences seek their own funding. Since it is was a done deal due to no evidence with an half ass effort, then this is deemed pseudo-science. Why is this different?

    Another similarity is, God is considered conscious and intelligent life with powers beyond human. Aren't intelligent aliens an approximation to this categorical definition? Science is looking for the atheist version of techie Gods, building lab temples, going through rituals, and having faith all with the hope their tech God will appear to them. Their alien gods could solve all the problems of the world. The religious faithful may go to the church laboratory, with towers that reach the sky, and use their neural transmitter (brain/soul) in rituals in an attempt to communicated with God. Do we call the lack of direct evidence faith based mythology? Why the dual standard? (quacks like a duck).
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I have repeated that claim, as it appears you do not know what it means.
    And no, I don't dismiss all UFO of Alien origins outright...I have also said that numerous times.
    I do say [again] that we do have a small percentage that remains unexplained. I have an open mind on those, and that open mind tells me they are unexplained. It does not tell me they are of Alien origin. When the extraordinary evidence comes to light that they are Alien in origin, then great! It will confirm my overwhelming belief that Intelligent life off the Earth does exist.
    I will then die a happy man.
    Until then, that small percentage of sightings remain unexplained.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2014
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Wellwisher, you continually harp on about God, proof, Lab experiments, and generally casting aspersions on each and all the cosmological sciences.
    The first thing you need to do, is check out what a scientific theory is.
    When you accept that, your problems will be over.

Share This Page