Inner Space meets Outer Space

[Jay]

Been using the SETI screensaver for quite a while now and just realised that it can be extended to run as a Yorkshire Divers Group effort. The program runs as either a screensaver or background service and processes packets of information from telescopes worldwide looking for possible evidence of extraterrestrial life. The project has, so far, accumulated over 1.4 million years worth of computer run-time.

To join the Yorkshire Divers group click SETI @ Home to download the screensaver. Set it up then click here to join the Yorkshire Divers group.

Happy Hunting!

[Dr Stevil]

<font color='#0000FF'>Well I've given it a shot and their server must be down. My 'puta isn't going thru a proxy server so that shouldn't be the problem, don't know if the browser automatic configuration script could be at fault.

Guess ET lifeforms are just about the only topic we haven't covered on here, so I'll start:
given that the speed of light c is the limiting factor, because you can't travel faster than that, or even get near it  if you have any mass because that will increase to the point of &quot;infinite mass and infinite velocity&quot; at c  (which is what e=mc sq is really all about), how likely is it that ETs would actually journey here? how far would they have travelled and at what speed?

The three nearest stars are in a triple system, Proxima and Alpha Centauri 4.2-4.3 LYs, so this is unlikely to support a habitable planet, nearest single star systems would be Barnard's Star (6 LYs) and Wolf 359 in the constellation of Leo (7.7 LYs)

So assuming &quot;They&quot; could attain one-tenth light speed, which is not massively inconceivable (even our Space Shuttle can attain 1/642 th of light speed whilst in low earth orbit)  and assuming &quot;They&quot; travelled from a single star system such as ours, you're looking at a journey of 60 or 77 years (and that's a one-way trip)

We then have to imagine that they have a society which would actually want to engage in such a long term project for no apparent benefit, or imagine beings who would have a massive life span (over 200-250 years) to make a round-trip possible.

And if they're so damned advanced, why do &quot;They&quot; apparently only want to meet straw-chewing Rednecks from Alabama ?



Can you tell I'm bored at work...?

Chee-az
Steve

[Jay]

Dumbass - thats why you fold space! Don't you watch Star Trek, Dune, Star Wars ... ? Bearing in mind that scientific theorums are all based on paradigm shifts, lets learn from past experience and not necessarily accept the e=mc2 (we already know it doesn't in all cases)! ET rules!

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Steve W @ June 04 2003,16:43)]And if they're so damned advanced, why do &quot;They&quot; apparently only want to meet straw-chewing Rednecks from Alabama ?

Can you tell I'm bored at work...?

Chee-az
Steve

They may be the most advanced species in the unverse, but still be stumped as to why straw-chewing rednecks exist  

com on over here boy and say that, me and billy-sue-bob might show you something.

OTOH, I used to do the SETI thing, but the PC at the time coult not number crunch a raffle ticket. I now do the Cancer Research project http://www.grid.org/home.htm maybe not as famous, but probably more beneficial.

Adrian

[Dr Stevil]

<font color='#0000FF'>New Scientist did a Trek issue some years ago, some &quot;septic tanks&quot; worked out the theory for folding space some years ago, they concluded that it would be possible but would require more energy than is calculated to exist in the current universe - back to the drawing board then.

also someone did a piece on the names given to military (PC) servers and found that a very high proportion were named after Trek characters

What was the name of the first Space Shuttle....? Enterprise, but only for earth orbit, it didn't go into space

Live long and prosper...

[Jay]

To be fair I think Enterprise was also the name of an Elizabethan navy ship (now a US aircraft character). &nbsp;You coming to Anglesey Steve? Will have your shirts there matey.

[rasilon]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Steve W @ June 03 2003,19:41)]New Scientist did a Trek issue some years ago, some &quot;septic tanks&quot; worked out the theory for folding space some years ago, they concluded that it would be possible but would require more energy than is calculated to exist in the current universe - back to the drawing board then.

ISTR that Hawking came up with a theory (requiring spinning neutron stars)that was at least theoretically possible. &nbsp;Though you'd need to be my fictional namesake or one of his collegues to manage it.

[MATTBIN]

I think we also need to remember that these theories are all well and good given our current level of intelligence but it wasnt so long ago the Earth was flat. So we might just be able to travel at any speed we like when we gain the knowledge required. How long ago was it thought that physical barriers couldnt be broken in all sorts of things.

Matt

[John Gulliver]

Jeez, Matt, I didn't know you were so philosophical! I'll stick to what seems plausible to me, i.e there ain't no ETs, there ain't no God, there ain't no heaven and I won't ever be going on a spaceship to the stars. It's all here around us to see. Enjoy it while you can, 'cause that's all there is and you won't get another chance.

[Dr Stevil]

<font color='#0000FF'>Jay - yep planning ot be at anglesey - barring any unforeseen occurences

Matt- an excellent point, but in order for the light speed limit to be wrong physicists would need a very weird explanation to show how all the things that are currently believed to be true, could possibly and logically be wrong, yet still function as we see them (which is the essence of scientific advancement).

Einsteins relativity theories (1920) corrected some minor errors on the previous landmark physics text ie Newtons Principia from 1687, so chances are that the next big advancement in this field isn't going to happen anytime soon (mind you, Murphy's law now predicts that something big will be announced just to make me wrong &nbsp; ).

Someone (might have been Richard Feynman, can't remember) went to extraordinary lengths to design and test an experiment to show that Relativity was infact true, they wrote to Einstein with the news and he replied &quot;It is too elegant a theory to be false&quot;. Having said that, it's well documented that an elderly Einstein couldn't hack the ideas of unpredicatability inherent in quantum mechanics, famously quoted &nbsp;as saying &quot;God does not play dice with the universe,&quot;
something contradicted my Stephen Hawking these days.

All this flat earth nonsense, which BTW some people, mostly Americans, &nbsp;STILL believe in &nbsp;(Earth is flat rubbish) predates the beginning of modern science, but ironically it was well known to the ancient Greeks, originally credited to Pythagorus but more so to Ptolomy (mind, he thought the Earth was spherical but stationary) . Also Democritus in ancient Greek times proposed a basic atomic theory which remained lost knowledge for almost 2000 years

Cor blimey Guv, fink thats enuff science for today
Chee-az
Steve