- What Are Extraterrestrials Watching? - 7 Updates
- HP 5385A freq counter repair - 2 Updates
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 21 09:42AM -0700 Consider the string of necessary coincidences in assuming we are any sort of "average". Water (hydrogen & oxygen in massive quantities within a specific temperature range). Carbon. Iron. Copper. These four things within a specific set of chemical parameters are what permit life such as ours within our temperature band on our planet. Change any one of the above, or the surrounding chemistry and "we" are not possible Nor is there any reason to believe that the concept of "language" applies. Of course, there will be commonality as required by any 'developed' civilization, one being the periodic table. But how to convey that between identities is the difficulty. We cannot even assume that we might recognize intelligence in an ET, nor they in us. Not suggesting gods vs. spiders. What I am suggesting is that we share much with spiders, somewhere around 50% of our genome. We will not have that commonality with an ET, nor will ETs have a genome to compare. That is the point. Evolution converging is touching and naive. There is no reason for it to do so, and if there is an 'imperative' towards life and/or intelligence, convergence would be counter to that imperative. Where there is free energy, there is a potential for life. It need not be based on water, carbon, iron, or copper, all or any. We have the sun as our source. Might be something else, elsewhere. But, let's assume intelligent life with a similar chemistry operating within a similar temperature range. Meaning that they will want roughly the same things we do, and must go through roughly the same steps to get them. A lot of other assumptions follow necessarily as well. Now, give them FTL drive. How successful have we as a species been at meeting new people 'just like us' but for skin color and environmental development? Not very. Not even with those just like us separated by only a bit of land or water. Now, make that 'other' not even a little bit like us. Perhaps as different as a lemur and an octopus. Now, consider where we are at this moment. The state of the planet. Population. Feeding that population. Natural resources. Clean water. Clean air. We are reaching the point of unsustainability. Will the theoretical ET source be any different. Or, will they need resources. Remember, Lemur & Octopus, Human and Spider. And we share genes with them. They will need resources, and find a the functional equivalent of a bunch of spiders as the only impediment. We certainly do not treat strange humans well. They will have absolutely no incentive to treat us well. Guys and gals, there may well be, and very likely are ETs. But they won't care about us. They may need what we have, and they will take it if they can. Further, if they are not based on water/iron/copper/carbon, we are well-and-truly SOL, assuming that they come here. For sure, they will not be coming 'to us'. Just here. More light reading: Not Final by Isaac Asimov. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 21 11:44AM -0700 On Monday, 21 August 2017 17:18:40 UTC+1, bitrex wrote: > > I don't see any logical or factual basis for any assumptions about extraterrestrials, should they exist. > At the moment you naturally have to start with an _assumption_ (i.e. > theory), either they exist, or they don't. obviously not. Indeed it would be daft to do so > 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. patently illogical > None of the above is non-science, but it is as far as science can > currently take you with a data point of one. Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science. NT |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Aug 21 05:35PM -0400 On 08/21/2017 02:44 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: <snip> > Science does not even begin to take you there with one piece of data. If you think it does you have fundamentally misunderstood science. > NT IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump. |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 21 04:10PM -0700 On Monday, 21 August 2017 17:18:40 UTC+1, bitrex wrote: > 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. you've certainly confirmed you do not understand what science is. Or logic. NT |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Aug 21 04:12PM -0700 On Monday, 21 August 2017 22:35:30 UTC+1, bitrex wrote: > IIRC you're a nobody who also thinks the thousands of climate scientists > with advanced degrees who actually do it for a living "fundamentally > misunderstand" science, too. IOW, get stuffed, chump. Abuse does not remedy the absence of fact or logic. |
| whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>: Aug 21 07:09PM -0700 On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:28:18 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote: > 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 The possibilities of gregarious extraterrestrials have been explored well in fiction. In Clarke's '2001', ...2010, 2061, "3001: The Final Odyssey" he suggests one-way communication to young intelligences, and general encouragement, at the behest of a distant ancient E.T. actor. Stanislaw Lem's "Fiasco" is a more realistic treatment: we've just barely arranged communication with a couple of Earth species, but the long-lived social animals like great whales, elephants, aren't really talking to us. What would they say? |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Aug 22 06:27AM -0700 On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 10:09:05 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote: > The possibilities of gregarious extraterrestrials have been explored > well in fiction. More like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdl24bLAs1k From Damon Knight. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Aug 21 11:32PM -0700 Bob Engelhardt wrote: -------------------------- > > ... the 5V rail would be full of HF switching noise which could trigger > > the SCR. ... > How would the monitoring circuit work, in general terms? ** Essentially, just a 400mW Zener diode rated at 4.7 or 5.6 volts. The SCR has a resistor of say 100ohms from gate to ground and the Zener connects from that to the 5V rail. Takes about 0.8V to trigger the SCR so about 8mA of Zener current. I have added such to several linear & SMPSs to protect digital boards from faulty PSUs. In one case, I had to replace about 100 digital ICs after a linear 5V supply failed to circa 10V DC. Luckily they were all in sockets. .... Phil |
| Bob Engelhardt <BobEngelhardt@comcast.net>: Aug 22 08:32AM -0400 On 8/22/2017 2:32 AM, Phil Allison wrote: > Luckily they were all in sockets. > .... Phil OK ... I was thinking that the AC switching noise itself would have to be detected, but it sounds like you just need to look for the noise peaks, which would exceed the zener htresho0ld. Bob |
| 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 - 9 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment