Ceti Revisited: Should we send radio messages to faraway galaxies?

by Risto Isomäki

Concentrating solar power plants as giant radio telescopes.

Ceti revisited investigates the old idea of communicating with extraterrestrial civilizations from a number of new angles. It proposes a new and affordable strategy for humanity's interstellar and intergalactic communication efforts.

Most of our energy will soon come from the Sun. Large fields of parabolic solar concentrators can be connected together and used as enormous radio telescopes. They could also send radio messages to distant galaxies.

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Risto Isomäki is a Finnish environmental activist and author of science fiction and nonfiction books. His 2005 novel Sarasvatin hiekkaa was nominated for the Finlandia Prize in 2005 and won the Tähtivaeltaja award in 2006.

Reviews

[Folkert Wierda · Rating 2 out of 5]

With two stars I am generous. Isomäki seems to have taken all topics that he finds fascinating, put them in a cocktail shaker, poured them out, and connected all shards with the word "also". Furthermore he does not provide significant support for most of his speculative ideas. Finally, though not mist importantly, the author and publisher should have had a native speaker check and correct the text. Too many style errors give a sloppy impression.
Conclusion: though the title invites to read this brief work, the booklet cannot be recommended.

[Lasse Laitinen · Rating 4 out of 5]

With the title "Should we send radio messages to faraway galaxies?" a normal science writer would have written a balanced, well-structured text on the different aspects of the question. When you're Isomäki, that's not necessary. Basically there's only one 4½ page chapter (!) in the book answering to the subtitle.

"CETI revisited" is fireworks of ideas. How can you link solar power, intergalactic radio messages, asteroids, accumulation of waste, animal rights, worm holes and unforeseen risks of nuclear power together? Isomäki can, sometimes by building bridges that only few have thought about before. He doesn't necessarily compare possibilities with each other rigorously, though. When he sees solar power generated through parabolic mirrors as the way of the future, he imagines whole galaxies full of them.

When he states on the opening page right after the introduction that "On our own solar system life seems to have evolved on at least two and possibly several different planets and moons", an analytical reader may be put off by such a blunt statement. Isomäki seems, however, to do a good job with supporting his arguments with fact and research. The biggest strength of this fascinating read is, nevertheless, the creativity with which Isomäki links facts together to give birth to new ideas. He starts with concentrator photovoltaics, but ends with how gathering cosmic dust falling on Earth might, in his view, prove the existence of wormholes. Then there's the rest on the 80 pages in between!

[Teemu · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is well written, but poorly constructed work in my opinion. The title leads one to think that the book is about radioastronomy and whether sending a message to other possible civilizations is a good idea. Instead, the book seems to be part a sales speech or advertisement and part just a propaganda to promote the writers own world views. First part of the book felt that Isomäki is trying to sell solar power and solar panels to the reader and as a side note adds that these can also be used in radioastronomy as antennas. Throughout the whole book it feels that the radioastronomy is just a side note to get people read the book, while in reality the author just wants to write his opinions about nuclear energy, solar energy and eating meat. They might be well constructed thoughts, but they should not be in this book. Or this book should not pretend to be about radioastronomy.

Buy (and read) at your own risk.

[Veli-Jussi Haanpää · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book was (annoyingly) vague about the concepts it explores, wildly speculative, and badly referenced. The author had a preposterous and almost self-centred approach to his writing, and when in the end of the book he describes some scientifically credible calculations as absurd, I think his own words describe the book the best:

“It is more than likely that these wild speculations have nothing to do with reality. There definitely is not a way to test the hypothesis.”