Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Waspie_Dwarf

Hawking backs venture to listen for aliens

215 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

kartikg

If Stephen Hawking is right, then we should listen but not reply. In other words we should not broadcast our existence. What if the equivalent to Stephen Hawking elsewhere in the galaxy is saying exactly the same thing? No one will be sending out messages - so what is the point of listening?

You are spot on. Infact this is stated as one of the reasons that why we haven't received any signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

You are spot on. Infact this is stated as one of the reasons that why we haven't received any signal.

So the situation could be that there are many intelligent species in the galaxy, but because they are all too afraid to send signals they will never know about one another. If that is the case, in my opinion it is tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

If man had any sense at all he would be putting more money into researching whale language. There is plenty of proof that they talk to each other in a series of clicks and whistles. Apparently each pod has it's own dialect generated by the alpha female.

If you had any sense you'd realise Hawking's interests and profession lies in physics and cosmology.

Maybe whales aren't that interesting to him?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

So the situation could be that there are many intelligent species in the galaxy, but because they are all too afraid to send signals they will never know about one another. If that is the case, in my opinion it is tragic.

Yup it's tragic in my opinion too. I would support any project which intends to broadcast signal from earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

Yup it's tragic in my opinion too. I would support any project which intends to broadcast signal from earth.

Me too. If we follow Hawking's advice and don't transmit messages, the conclusion has to be that no other species will transmit messages either. In which case, why is anybody bothering to ask the "most profound" question - i.e. "are we alone in the universe"? If no one is going to have the courage to try and find out, then all that philosophising is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occams Razor

If we follow Hawking's advice and don't transmit messages, the conclusion has to be that no other species will transmit messages either.

No... you can't "conclude" that at all. Another species might think its a great idea to transmit high power messages to other potential technological civilizations.

And, there may be signals not intended for other species that can be detected as our equipment improves.

From the article:

"The team behind the 'Breakthrough Listen' initiative believe that if there is an alien civilization within the 1,000 nearest stars transmitting with nothing more than the power of a common aircraft radar then we should we be able to pick it up using the radio telescopes we have on Earth."

They're looking for general signal leakage... not signals purposefully beamed out into space to attract contact from other "intelligent species".

Edited by Occams Razor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

No... you can't "conclude" that at all. Another species might think its a great idea to transmit high power messages to other potential technological civilizations.

And, there may be signals not intended for other species that can be detected as our equipment improves.

From the article:

"The team behind the 'Breakthrough Listen' initiative believe that if there is an alien civilization within the 1,000 nearest stars transmitting with nothing more than the power of a common aircraft radar then we should we be able to pick it up using the radio telescopes we have on Earth."

They're looking for general signal leakage... not signals purposefully beamed out into space to attract contact from other "intelligent species".

Well in that case, it doesn't matter what Hawking says because we are already inadvertently letting ET know we exist. I'd like to see some figures on the signal strength from common aircraft radar over hundreds of light years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Well in that case, it doesn't matter what Hawking says because we are already inadvertently letting ET know we exist. I'd like to see some figures on the signal strength from common aircraft radar over hundreds of light years.

It doesnt matter one iota what Hawking thinks, he has his theories, sure, but he doesnt make the rules for space exploration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

Ironically won't it be awesome to be invaded by aliens? Think about it we going extinct by global warming, nuclear war or mega quake etc. This is by far the coolest option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

It doesnt matter one iota what Hawking thinks, he has his theories, sure, but he doesnt make the rules for space exploration

I don't give a fig what Hawking thinks, but many UM members seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

If we follow Hawking's advice and don't transmit messages, the conclusion has to be that no other species will transmit messages either. In which case, why is anybody bothering to ask the "most profound" question - i.e. "are we alone in the universe"? If no one is going to have the courage to try and find out, then all that philosophising is a waste of time.

This is blatant ignorance. How does this logic even follow?

"If x thinks it's a waste of time, then it must follow that everybody else thinks it's a waste of time..."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

This is blatant ignorance. How does this logic even follow?

"If x thinks it's a waste of time, then it must follow that everybody else thinks it's a waste of time..."

Had you bothered to read my earlier posting (174) you would have seen that I wrote:

"What if the equivalent to Stephen Hawking elsewhere in the Galaxy is saying exactly the same thing".

Consequently, if that is the case, then logically no one will be sending out messages.

Perhaps before you go calling people ignorant you demonstrate you are not ignorant by reading what people write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

"What if the equivalent to Stephen Hawking elsewhere in the Galaxy is saying exactly the same thing".

Consequently, if that is the case, then logically no one will be sending out messages.

What kind of logic is that???

METI goes on despite the fact what Hawking say. So the logic is: "What if the equivalent to Stephen Hawking elsewhere in the

Galaxy is saying exactly the same thing, its unlikely that extraterrestrial METI is affected by the extraterrestrial equivalents opinion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

What's the difference between METI (deliberately sending messages, a la Pioneer), and the radio and TV signals we've been sending for nearly 100 years? Is there a difference at all in the sense of other intelligences capturing the signals (or craft and the plaque, in the case of Pioneer)? Is it that our radio and TV signals are "weak" from an interstellar point of view, and METI will broadcast much stronger signals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

What's the difference between METI (deliberately sending messages, a la Pioneer), and the radio and TV signals we've been sending for nearly 100 years? Is there a difference at all in the sense of other intelligences capturing the signals (or craft and the plaque, in the case of Pioneer)? Is it that our radio and TV signals are "weak" from an interstellar point of view, and METI will broadcast much stronger signals?

I reckon you can think of it like this... radio/tv signals are meant to be terrestrial... and would have 'leaked' into space... however, a 'targeted' signal to another planet, is another thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

What's the difference between METI (deliberately sending messages, a la Pioneer), and the radio and TV signals we've been sending for nearly 100 years? Is there a difference at all in the sense of other intelligences capturing the signals (or craft and the plaque, in the case of Pioneer)? Is it that our radio and TV signals are "weak" from an interstellar point of view, and METI will broadcast much stronger signals?

The radio signal we are sending are spreading out in every direction, thus only a very weak signal will be recieved in another solar system.

If we target particular solar systems with directional transmissions, a much stronger signals can be sent, but of course the problem is that right now we don't know what solar systems to target, and there is a limit as to how many solar systems we can transmit to at any given time.

In short we can send out an omnidirectional signal that everyone can recieve, but it will be very weak at the recieving end, or we can send directional signals to other solar systems, but risk overlooking the one that has intelligent life !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

What's the difference between METI (deliberately sending messages, a la Pioneer), and the radio and TV signals we've been sending

for nearly 100 years? Is there a difference at all in the sense of other intelligences capturing the signals (or craft and the plaque, in the

case of Pioneer)? Is it that our radio and TV signals are "weak" from an interstellar point of view, and METI will broadcast much stronger

signals?

METI signals are always focussed to an interstellar target, like a cluster or explanet, Radio/TV signals are not. METI signals always

contain a binary-coded message that contains informations about us and our location in the universe/solar system and they are designed

to be (hopefully) understood by ET and it ismore likely that such message can be easier decoded than a TV commercial about panty liners.

And, METI transmitting frequencies are different to the TV/Radio frequencies to the benefit of operating distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

What kind of logic is that???

METI goes on despite the fact what Hawking say. So the logic is: "What if the equivalent to Stephen Hawking elsewhere in the

Galaxy is saying exactly the same thing, its unlikely that extraterrestrial METI is affected by the extraterrestrial equivalents opinion."

The first sentence is a question. If here on Earth we have someone suggesting we don't send messages, then it is perfectly valid to ask whether the same situation might occur with other species.

The second sentence is a logical consequence of that question. If every species follows the suggestions of "Stephen Hawking" then no one will communicate.

What is your problem with the logic in that?

I am using this argument to point out that if every species follows what "Stephen Hawking" says, then no one will communicate with anyone, and - as I pointed out in another posting - in my opinion, that would be tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

The radio signal we are sending are spreading out in every direction, thus only a very weak signal will be recieved in another solar system.

If we target particular solar systems with directional transmissions, a much stronger signals can be sent, but of course the problem is that right now we don't know what solar systems to target, and there is a limit as to how many solar systems we can transmit to at any given time.

In short we can send out an omnidirectional signal that everyone can recieve, but it will be very weak at the recieving end, or we can send directional signals to other solar systems, but risk overlooking the one that has intelligent life !

We could target powerful short pulsed signals - they used to be called Q-packets - in many directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

The first sentence is a question. If here on Earth we have someone suggesting we don't send messages, then it is perfectly valid to ask whether the same situation might occur with other species.

The second sentence is a logical consequence of that question. If every species follows the suggestions of "Stephen Hawking" then no one will communicate.

What is your problem with the logic in that?

I am using this argument to point out that if every species follows what "Stephen Hawking" says, then no one will communicate with anyone, and - as I pointed out in another posting - in my opinion, that would be tragic.

As said before, Hawking just offered his opinion, in the great scheme of things...who cares what he thinks? He has no sway over other astrophysicists...or foreign space agencies

Perhaps he's writing a book about that? And makes such statements as primers for the book? Thats where he earns most money

.

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

As said before, Hawking just offered his opinion, in the great scheme of things...who cares what he thinks? He has no sway over other astrophysicists...or foreign space agencies

Perhaps he's writing a book about that? And makes such statements as primers for the book? Thats where he earns most money

There does seem to be a tendency to think that just because someone is a famous scientist, they are right about everything they say. No one is right about everything (except me :innocent:), no matter how intelligent they might be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

As said before, Hawking just offered his opinion, in the great scheme of things...who cares what he thinks? He has no sway over other astrophysicists...or foreign space agencies

Perhaps he's writing a book about that? And makes such statements as primers for the book? Thats where he earns most money

And as I said before, I don't give a fig for what he says. He is no more qualified to know how we should proceed with SETI or METI than you or I.

He is an astrophysicist, and by all accounts most of his black hole radiation theories are currently being shown to be spurious.

But good luck to him. He has had a terribly difficult life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

There does seem to be a tendency to think that just because someone is a famous scientist, they are right about everything they say. No one is right about everything (except me :innocent:), no matter how intelligent they might be.

This is the problem with the media - and similar discussions have been held here on UM before. Just because someone is famous in a particular branch of science, the media ask his or her opinion on every branch of science. That's like asking a car mechanic his (or her) opinion on carpentry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

Three answers to my question. I feel popular!

thanks guys. I guessed that was more or less it (METI vs TV signals), but as Sagan showed in Contact, depending on how close they were, ET would be able to pick up TV/radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DONTEATUS

The equation is all wrong, Light Speed is only just a "A" speed. We were made to Break the Law`s ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.