--part0_917991030_boundary
Content-ID: <0_917991030@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
--part0_917991030_boundary
Content-ID: <0_917991030@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
From: Fractenna@aol.com
Return-path: <Fractenna@aol.com>
To: seti@sni.net
Subject: Re: SETI Re: Is radio the last word?
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:01:11 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/2/99 2:33:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
n6tx@setileague.org writes:
<<
>This is exactly the kind of non-scientific response that's going to pull
SETI
>down the tubes Paul. Care to recant?
Not really, Chip; it was a non-scientific question. (Or rather, a
Social-Science question, which most physical scientists would do well to
dodge.) You're asking me to guess as to ETI's motives, thought process and
constraints, as well as their technology, and I just can't do that. I
suppose I could say "ETI won't use lasers because Prof. Cohen has proven
that they're not the most efficient medium of interstellar communication."
But how do I know they've read your articles?
OTOH, I can't say "ETI will use lasers because they haven't read Prof.
Cohen's articles," since they may well have their own Prof. Cohen to guide
their actions!
So it's quite frankly anybody's guess whether radio, or lasers, or
anything else, will work. I for one say: do the experiments -- *all* of
them we can afford to do -- and see where they lead us. Arguing about
what ETI might be thinking is fruitless.
And now I need to bow out of the speculative discussion of the day. I
have work to do for our members. (And thanks again, Chip, for including
yourself in that select company.)
73, Paul
------
No Paul; That is not the case. I am not arguing about how ET might think. I am
saying--as I made clear already--that there is no basis for regarding lasers
in cosmic telecommunication. IF you can give a reason why they should
considered, then do so. Show us how they have a better figure of merit than
other modalities that have been considered.
If you are unfamiliar with the arguments, then kindly say so. But please do
not present them unless you can either defend them, or point out a reference
where such a defense is suggested. (Kingsley's page, for example, argues for
point to point laser communication within order 100 LY distances. This type of
argument has an exceedingly low figure of merit because the number of
potential targets is exceedingly small. Thus this is not a defensible position
in SETI unless the number of detectable civilizations approaches the billion
(or more) mark. )
This is not a minor argument Paul; it is a major scientific point. If you do
not feel that your position in the SETI League avails yourself to such an
explanation, then say so; but please do not present this dubious modality as a
viable option (notice I did not bring it up.) It misleads people who do not
have the information resources to make their own judgements.
Regards,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
--part0_917991030_boundary--