What is the basis of this scepticism? Theological? Scientific? Given how
little we know on the subject, is scepticism too strong a position?
Respectfully
Jon
"Vandergraaf, Chuck" wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I agree that the argument can cut both ways. I am sceptical that ETL or ET
> exists and would not advocate that we spend much effort on looking for
> something (I wonder how we would recognize it if we came across it).
>
> ETI and ETL raise all sorts of interesting theological questions, some of
> which have been aired in this forum. But, without evidence of ETI and ETL,
> it all seems to me awfully speculative.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Clarke [mailto:jdac@alphalink.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday January 18, 2001 2:42 PM
> To: vandergraaft@aecl.ca
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Is this a signal from aliens?
>
> Hi Chuck
>
> I think we need to be careful of the argument that some people are
> supporters of
> ETI because of a deep fear that humanity. It cuts both ways. One could
> equally
> argue that people argue against ETI because of a deep fear that we might not
> be
> alone.
>
> As to the probability, we don't have the foggiest idea. We are only
> beginning
> to get an outline of the simplest component of the Drake equation, the
> number of
> extra-solar planetary systems. There was also an article in Scientific
> American
> in the last year or so that showed the distances which out to which
> particular
> types of technological civilizations had been excluded. But that is all.
>
> I have noticed a tendency in some Christian circles to poo-poo the idea of
> ET
> life in general and ETI in particular. This would be a risky course of
> action.
> It could create the impression that Christianity and ETL or ETI are
> incompatible, thereby creating a problem for ourselves should they ever be
> encountered. I think we should avoid creating this rod for our backs, even
> if
> some of us belief the probability is low.
>
> Respectfully
>
> Jon
>
> "Vandergraaf, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > Moorad,
> >
> > Considering the low probability of detecting anything remotely intelligent
> > from outer space, one wonders why society spends the time and effort on
> > this. Could it be that, deep down, some are afraid that mankind is "home
> > alone"?
> >
> > Chuck Vandergraaf
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moorad Alexanian [mailto:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday January 18, 2001 7:51 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Is this a signal from aliens?
> >
> > Wednesday, 17 January, 2001, 16:51 GMT
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1122000/1122413.stm
> >
> > Still no sense in signal
> >
> > Is this a signal from aliens?
> >
> > By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
> >
> > A detailed look at the point in space from where an intelligent signal
> might
> > have come has revealed nothing unusual.
> >
> > The Ohio Big Ear detected the Wow signal
> >
> > The observations, using the multiple radio dishes of the Very Large Array
> > (VLA) in New Mexico, US, add to the mystery of what has been called the
> > "Wow" event.
> >
> > In August 1977, radio astronomers detected what could have been a signal
> > from intelligent life in space. But it happened only once.
> >
> > Now, two researchers, Robert Grey and Kevin Marvel, have used the VLA to
> > look at the source location with unprecedented sensitivity. They saw
> nothing
> > strange or anything that could explain the signal.
> >
> > Narrow band
> >
> > The Wow signal as it has become known is often described as our best
> > candidate for a signal from an alien intelligence in space.
> >
> > On 15 August, 1977, a burst of radio waves was detected by the now
> > dismantled Big Ear radio telescope of Ohio State University. The person
> who
> > spotted it, astronomer Jerry Ehman, was so surprised that he scribbled
> "Wow"
> > on the print-out.
> >
> > The event had all the properties that astronomers expected in a signal
> from
> > an alien intelligence. It was confined to a narrow band of frequencies and
> > it was very close to the "hydrogen line", a natural signpost in the
> > spectrum.
> >
> > Because the Ohio telescope cannot move, it was only possible to see the
> > signal as it passed across the telescope's field of view. From the way the
> > signal was detected, astronomers were certain it was coming from a point
> on
> > the sky.
> >
> > Mystery remains
> >
> > It only lasted 72 seconds and although researchers later looked at that
> same
> > patch of sky over a hundred times, they saw nothing. The signal, if it was
> a
> > signal, was a one-off event.
> >
> > The VLA was used for a more sensitive search
> >
> > Some researchers have said it was man-made interference but others pointed
> > to the signal's characteristics and said it definitely came from the sky.
> >
> > Since 1977, other radio astronomers have looked at that spot on the sky in
> > the hope of a repeat performance, but to no avail.
> >
> > The latest series of observations, described in the current issue of the
> > Astrophysical Journal, are more than a 100 times more sensitive than the
> > original Ohio observations.
> >
> > Grey and Marvel see two faint radio sources at the position that Wow came
> > from but both are nothing unusual.
> >
> > So, the mystery of the Wow signal remains.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 18 2001 - 17:10:22 EST