Could a lottery help fund the search for ET ?

[toast]

On 17.4.2017 at 11:56 PM, NYCEddie said:

Until we have a public demonstration of a craft landing before a sizable audience and the occupants of such a craft making themselves approachable, we're going to have to wait with useless projects such as SETI which hasn't produced any positive results since its founding in 1984 (and NASA considered it in 1971). They're so ignorant in not realizing that to detect any alien signals the whole planet has to be a receiver and not isolated locations here and there. Similar to looking through a telescope which produces a restricted view.

No "they" are ignorant, its you who is ignorant here. Of course it whould be of benefit for the project if the whole sky would be screened with radio telescopes but such a project isnt possible due to high costs involved so we have to work with the options we have. Furthermore, your comparison with optical telescopes is nonsensical but gives an impression about your lack of knowledge on radio/optical observation technologies and procedures. For example, the Kepler Space Observatory has been build and launched to search for exo-planets, its view covers only 0,25% of the sky and its always pointed at the same spot since it has been put into operation in 2009. Since then,  >3400 confimed candidates have been detected, without screening 100% of the sky.

 

 

[toast]

On 12.4.2017 at 11:56 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

On a related note, have anyone got any experience with SETI@home ? https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/

Look here

 

[rashore]

15 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

OK, If your spouse, children etc. are killed by a guy, and over 200 whitnesses say "this is the man, we had seen it 150m away in a clear sunny day", you would say "this is not conclusively proved".
I think not...

200+ whitnesses are an axiomatic proof.
Therefore, I explicitly wrote "axiomatic."
 

 

Sorry to snip the rest of your comment, but I wanted to address this point specifically...

If 200 people said they could identify a man at 150 meters, I would assume they are all lying or collectively mistaken for some reason. Humans simply can't do that, our vision does not work that far out. It is extremely difficult to almost impossible for us to make a positive ID at 50-60 meters with our naked eyes- distance blur factor, we can't even really make out the eyes on another persons face at that distance. By the time it gets to 100 meters, people look like little more than blobs- if it was 150 meters away, witnesses wouldn't be able to positively identify the family or the killer, and probably not be able to make out what was happening during the killing either. Even seeing something like a car accident with much larger objects loses a lot of detail at that distance- makes, models, and even colors of vehicles get fuzzier with 150 meters distance.

This sort of thing has long been a point of debating and argument in the courts as far as eyewitness testimony goes. This is an interesting study done a few years back on it: http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/busey/temp/statetrace/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf

[Myles]

30 minutes ago, rashore said:

Sorry to snip the rest of your comment, but I wanted to address this point specifically...

If 200 people said they could identify a man at 150 meters, I would assume they are all lying or collectively mistaken for some reason. Humans simply can't do that, our vision does not work that far out. It is extremely difficult to almost impossible for us to make a positive ID at 50-60 meters with our naked eyes- distance blur factor, we can't even really make out the eyes on another persons face at that distance. By the time it gets to 100 meters, people look like little more than blobs- if it was 150 meters away, witnesses wouldn't be able to positively identify the family or the killer, and probably not be able to make out what was happening during the killing either. Even seeing something like a car accident with much larger objects loses a lot of detail at that distance- makes, models, and even colors of vehicles get fuzzier with 150 meters distance.

This sort of thing has long been a point of debating and argument in the courts as far as eyewitness testimony goes. This is an interesting study done a few years back on it: http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/busey/temp/statetrace/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf

It also would not be enough to convict a guy in most cases. 

[Saru]

News thread closed to new comments.