- What Are Extraterrestrials Watching? - 11 Updates
- walkman wm-f23 - 1 Update
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 20 02:17PM -0400 On 08/20/2017 09:46 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote: > or granted the SETI nerds spare time on their idling computers to analyse > the data obtained from the world's radio telescopes must have known they > were wasting their time! I think the idea wasn't to scan for ET's version of "I Love Lucy", it is/was to look for much higher power signals, from more advanced civilizations, broadcast with the express intent of alerting systems like SETI. i.e. not trying to overhear ET's conversations, but listening for trumpet blasts. |
| Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Aug 20 06:18PM On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:54:58 +0100, Mike Coon wrote: > I take your point about the scale over which lensing works. But why is > the effect not similar to using a high-gain aerial, which is common > enough? Whatever. I appreciate N Cook's suggestion was just a joke which some here seem to have overlooked. The idea is a total non-starter if anyone tried to do it in practice, which I very very very much doubt. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition. |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 20 02:28PM -0400 On 08/20/2017 02:17 PM, bitrex wrote: > like SETI. > i.e. not trying to overhear ET's conversations, but listening for > trumpet blasts. A suitably advanced gregarious civilization capable of directing "trumpet blasts" like that probably already has sufficiently powerful space-based imaging to directly look the planetary surfaces of any inhabited worlds within say 50 light years down to maybe several hundreds of meters resolution, evaluate the civilizations they see there, and decide whether they look like a species worth contacting, or not. STILL PRETTY QUIET 'ROUND HERE |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 20 02:47PM -0400 On 08/20/2017 10:15 AM, Sjouke Burry wrote: > and does not make for better reception. > And your lensing works only over millions of light years. > Which leaves you micro-micro-micro watts of received power. If you're going to start using gravitational lensing for your telescope it's probably "easiest" to just directly image planetary surfaces in the area of the visible spectrum. i.e. just literally spy on them visually. And you definitely don't need millions of light years of distance to leverage lensing, you just need to get your telescope up an out of the Sun's gravity well and out to a focal point of the gravity lens of the Sun itself to get enormous amplification; in the visible spectrum we're talking amplification factors on the order of 10^10. About a third of a light-year away is where you'd need to be; to get there in a reasonable time (less than a human lifetime) you'd need an engine that could push the carrier vessel up to an average of around 1 million mph. |
| "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com>: Aug 21 12:26PM +1200 Once upon a time on usenet Sjouke Burry wrote: > and distance. > To reach twice as far you need 4 times as much power, and as distance > increases, you quickly lose that game. So all of those specialist scientists who run SETI are completely wasting their time! You should email them ASAP. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 20 06:09PM -0700 Guys and gals: PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy". Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far. With "Humans" as the objects to which 'feelings' are attributed. This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Aug 20 06:38PM -0700 pf...@aol.com wrote: -------------------------- > Guys and gals: > PLEASE!! Look up "Pathetic Fallacy". ** That must be your other name. > Now. Apply it to any sort of ET from any sort of source, near or far. ** Apply literary term to ETs ? > This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. ** Not one bit arrogant. > Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, ** You have more in common with spider on crack. Wot a pathetic fuckwit. ..... Phil |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 21 04:27AM -0700 On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 9:38:34 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote: Off your meds again? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 21 10:01AM -0400 > This discussion needs to take place on the level of what actually is, not some sort of pseudo-science based on the incredibly arrogant position that any sort of ET (again) from any source, near or far, has the slightest thing in common with humans. Repeat, we have more in common with a garden spider than any conceivable ET, from any source, near or far. > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA There's also the Copernican principle which would say that humanity is more-or-less an "average" technological civilization, in orbit around an average star, at an average point in the Universe's history. If there are many other technological civilizations in the Universe, i.e. intelligent life is common, it doesn't seem unreasonable at to assume that these civilizations would be the product of convergent evolution and would have similar characteristics, at least similar enough to the point that a common understanding could be reached through language. With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise. |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 21 08:57AM -0700 On Monday, 21 August 2017 15:01:31 UTC+1, bitrex wrote: > With a data set of one, there's certainly no scientific justification > for assuming we are either exceptional, or that everyone else are Gods > and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise. I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist. NT |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 21 12:18PM -0400 >> and we are garden spiders. Assume "average" until proven otherwise. > I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist. > NT At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e. theory), either they exist, or they don't. If you assume they don't then there's little more to say. If you assume they do then, currently, the only further hypothesis which is logically justified from your axiom is that humanity is a typical example. None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can currently take you with a data point of one. Regression to the mean is a real science thing, and if it is actually science and holds true for populations on Earth then to be so it should hold true for populations of things everywhere, not just on Earth. There is no reason to assume a-priori that it doesn't. Speculation about how we're just like ants in a Universe filled with inscrutable intelligent beings of inscrutable purpose is at this point philosophy, not science. |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 21 09:01AM -0700 On Thursday, 17 August 2017 10:20:45 UTC+1, jethro tull wrote: > > Dan > so do you have the manual? at least can you confirm the device is indeed > DTA114? Why would you need to know? You know you need low power, low voltage, maybe low noise, maybe high beta, and you should be able to work out npn or pnp from the circuitry immediately around it. NT |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment