h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We continue to scan the skies for signals.
Sure we are sending lots of data into space with our
radio and TV broadcasts, but we've made no statistically
significant attempts to communicate with anyone.
But we're also planning on building a series of
Interferometer telescopes to actually
see planets around
other systems.
Stands to reason that to the extent there are other
civilizations out there, they are doing similar things.
Make sure that they don't only see life and civilization
but immediately see information as well by building
patterns into how we turn lights on and off as day
changes into night.
This way, when they get the signal at first, we're already
communicating -- and their response is going to be to
the point, as opposed to "here we are, want to talk?" or
"Lucille Ball, What were you thinking"?
Looking for Laser ET signals
http://www.ananova....ews.latestheadlines
[theircompetitor]
Earth At Night
http://www.skyimage...om/earatnitlar.html [theircompetitor, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Earth At Night
http://www.skyimage...om/earatnitlar.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 04 2004]
Nasa city lights image
http://visibleearth...bin/viewrecord?5826
[theircompetitor, Oct 04 2004]
Intergalactic Shadow Puppets
http://www.space.co...ngworld_050415.html
[theircompetitor, Apr 18 2005]
Bright Lights, Big ET
http://www.thestate...to-find-alien-life/
[theircompetitor, Nov 04 2011]
Article which looks at this idea from other side
http://www.gizmag.c...intelligence/20409/
[AusCan531, Nov 13 2011]
Alien Nuclear Wars May Be Visible From Earth
http://www.theatlan...-from-earth/404176/
[theircompetitor, Sep 12 2015]
Atypical blinking light patter around star
http://www.theatlan.../?dom=pscau&src=syn
[theircompetitor, Oct 15 2015]
Flashy solar panels
https://www.science...-what-it-might-look
[theircompetitor, Mar 17 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
What do you plan to say with the lights? What rosetta stone do you suppose the aliens will use to translate and then read the morse code? |
|
| |
Techniques for doing this, though obviously untested, :) do exist. |
|
| |
We sure noticed quasars, right? Obviously the level of energy is not available to us, but we noticed them because of periodicity. |
|
| |
You'd probably start by simulating universal frequencies (like spectra), in essence encoding them in the frequency of the flashes. |
|
| |
Cheers [TC].
Are we not doing this already as a planet?. Surely the standard Day/Night cycle would be apparent to any equiv_tech species?. They could make their own minds up about the ER (not the show, obviously!).
Are we talking about the recognition of non-random radiation patterns here? |
|
| |
No -- we're definitely talking signaling -- otherwise, we are already generating lots of data as you point out -- but that in fact does not contain rosetta info as Basil2 points out. So while it's possible they can decipher it, it won't be trivial, because it's not geared for it. |
|
| |
So at a minimum, the point of signaling would be to save the initial roundtrip by ensuring that the reply is coming back as "intelligible" as possible. |
|
| |
Of course a relatively trivial solution might be to add a special explanatory signal packet to all broadcasts -- the FCC could require it, for instance. |
|
| |
But somehow this smoke signal approach seems more halfbaked |
|
| |
I got your train of thought now. I was figuring that we are already broadcasting Prime Numbers et.al. on a good signal strength already so that a degree of communication (or at least a common platform of mathematics) can be established.
If you want to do it with light, then you would need to have a Web connection in every house tied to the house lighting system and be controlled by a common synchronised computer (watch out for dead spots e.g. Lots of Africa etc.!).
We probably have just such a device but then again so do others.
BTW, does inferterometry overcome the problem with the earth's atmosphere? |
|
| |
hmm, I think space based visibility would be based on how good the interferometry is and length of exposure. If Hubble can see the furthest galaxies, I'm guessing a thousand Hubbles strategically positioned can see a shitting fly. Though I'm no optics expert. |
|
| |
I wasn't thinking individual houses btw, I was thinking street lights, airports, skyscrapers. But I suppose it could include houses. |
|
| |
Yeah, but Hubble is outside of our atmosphere. This has always been the main optical problem in that the atmosphere seriously stops any resolution of light based telescopes (sodium noise etc. as you are probably aware). Also, 1000 Hubbles in a line will not increase resolution per se. |
|
| |
Strategically positioned doesn't mean a line :) |
|
| |
Granted! but the atmosphere is still aproblem, no? |
|
| |
gnomethang -- see link -- I think this is a non-issue |
|
| |
Hmm - NOt convinced. Where was this piccy taken from, bearing in mind that it is not a straight photograph but clearly a composite?. I am not dissing the idea here, but I think that the atmosphere is the main problem for any long range transmission. |
|
| |
OK, I see that it is from some orbiting satellites but they are still DAMN close to the Earth!. |
|
| |
Why do you assume that if there are other civilizations, they are trying to get in contact with us? It doesn't automatically stand to reason that. |
|
| |
Correct [yabba], but we base the premise on the assumption that a civilisation with an equivalent technology base and development will be thinking in a similar way and will at least ask the question. Given the assumption that they are at a similar equiv_tech then we can only try to communicate in the same way.
Its sort of an extension of the Weak Anthropic Principle: The Universe can support other life because we are here to perceive it. Very Weak, I know!. It is an assumption , as well! |
|
| |
yabba: it's like yelling "Stella(r)" -- wow, that's weak -- Brando doesn't know if she's coming down. But he has to yell. |
|
| |
gnomethang, see additional (NASA) link. I think close or far then becomes issue of just how well you can "interfere" |
|
| |
Yeah, there's probably other life out there. But I just think it gets really hard really quickly to categorize similar levels of technology, as one idea spawns another in quite a chaotic manner. |
|
| |
I imagined this idea was similar to the morse code signalling at sea, with the shutter and the light. |
|
| |
Except using the Sun instead. |
|
| |
The problem is how to build a shutter that could block the light from the Sun? |
|
| |
You don't really need a shutter that big. Instead, just use a largish mirror to reflect the light and a similar-sized shutter. Granted, not as powerful, but you can't have everything. |
|
| |
If you also store location in [gnome]'s web-controlled lights, you can show the aliens home movies. Well, monochrome home movies (unless each house is required to have red, green, or blue lights?)(oh wait, we don't know the color sensitivity of their eyes). |
|
| |
ha! Or at the very least, demo Pong :) |
|
| |
Welcome aboard Flight 72, nonstop to Houston. Our movie tonight will be Charlie Chaplin, in..." |
|
| |
Or you could use lasers to make animations, maps, and other such things.That would probably be easier to understand. |
|
| |
// a special explanatory signal
packet// |
|
| |
Shouldn't that be a special ex-
planetary signal packet? |
|
| |
//The problem is how to build a
shutter that could block the light
from the Sun?// |
|
| |
Build it a long way away from the
Sun, in a far Lagrange point or
something. Then it only has to
cover a small arc to block the view
of the sun from a distant star. Use
a huge transmissive LCD or
thousands of small, synchronised
actuated shutters. |
|
| |
Oh wow, how wrong can you
be? Of course a Lagrange point
is going to be an infinitesimal
fraction of the distance to even
the nearest star, so you still end
up having to build a sun-sized
shutter. |
|
| |
I could also imagine a ring of
segments, slowly and distantly
orbiting the sun. Gaps in the
ring pulse out a repeating
sequence. |
|
| |
I would expect that intelligent lifeforms might be able to tell if the light is pulsing in amplitude, so the total Sun wouldn't need to be blocked out. Fortunately, the further from the Sun, the smaller the blocking system needs to be, but unfortunately, the more directional the signal will be. |
|
| |
By the way, I like the pulse idea. Like a rotary encoder, or paper tape system from old computer systems. |
|
| |
Originally named Intergalactic Morse Code, Idea just
renamed to Bright Lights, Big ET, see link |
|
| |
<Classic SF dilemna> This rather pre-supposes that we want somebody to notice us, doesn't it? </CSFD> |
|
| |
As noted earlier, [DrBob], Lucille Ball sealed our fate
:) |
|
| |
During these sorts of discussions I always recall a phrase I
once read saying "that we may well be a canary chirping
loudly in a silent forest full of hawks". |
|
| |
I'm not naturally pessimistic on this topic but the thought
can still give me the willies. |
|
| |
The thing that makes me skeptical about our
ability to communicate with aliens is this: weird
people. |
|
| |
What I mean is, it only takes one or two dud genes
to create a weird person. The sort of weird
person that invariably sits next to you on the bus.
And they can be so weird that any question of a
meaningful conversation is just out of the
question. |
|
| |
So, our plans to converse with aliens in a universal
language of prime numbers completely fall apart
even when dealing with a very slightly altered
human. |
|
| |
[MB] if you've been attempting to strike up
conversations, on the subject of prime numbers,
with strangers sitting next to you on the bus, and
having difficulty ... well, have you considered the
possibility that the person sitting next to you is, in
fact ... normal? |
|
| |
//considered the possibility that the person sitting
next to you is, in fact ... normal?// |
|
| |
I would disagree, MB. While we've not translated Shakespearean sonnets to dolphins, we do pretty
well in training them. |
|
| |
Any life, even a non carbon life would have
metabolic processes -- and that pretty much
guarantees some sort of primitive feels good/feels
bad, hungry/sated binary feeling, which would
then be the basis of future signal interpretation. |
|
| |
Training dolphins and striking up conversations
with
strangers on a bus differ importantly from
interstellar communication: With dolphins and
bus weirdos, however ignorant you
may be about your interlocutor initially, you learn
something in the course
of
the conversation because it is *two way* |
|
| |
Much harder to invent a message which will be be
comprehensible on the first try. |
|
| |
(//East Anglia// the opposite of Lake Wobegone:
everyone there is *below* average.) |
|
| |
Let's start with the premise of the idea (and linked
study) -- effect on environment, in a sense, is a
sure sign that something is there. |
|
| |
We have to separate engineering challenges
(i.e. if we know they're there, but messaging them
and back exceeds the lifespan of a civilization that
cares) from computational -- i.e. if we sit across
from ET in a room, will we be able to develop a
vocabulary. |
|
| |
I would posit there maybe intelligence we don't
recognize, but we will some subset, and that
subset can be communicated with, before they
start eating us. |
|
| |
Unless eating us _is_ their attempt to communicate. |
|
| |
Than which I can imagine no more convincing
evidence supporting your claim to be an author of
science fiction. |
|
| |
Thank you very much. We strive to imagine the
unimaginable. |
|
| |
Not finding the quote on the spot, but as they say,
no one wants to write, everyone wants to have
written. I had simply assumed everyone here is a
science fiction writer :) |
|
| |
// as they say, no one wants to write, everyone wants to
have written // |
|
| |
Who says that? _I_ want to write. I do it almost every day.
Actually, I find the act of writing far more enjoyable and
satisfying than the state of having written. |
|
| |
I enjoy coming up with ideas and plots, but scene
exposition has always seemed tedious to me. I will
become a bestseller the minute they can just take
the visions from my head onto an experience matrix
that others can absorb directly. |
|
| |
If you're serious about writing, and I think you should be,
you'll get good at it by building up your weaknesses rather
than playing to your strengths. I used to go overboard with
exposition, but struggle with
dialog. I practiced by listening to how people converse
naturally and balancing that with the intent of the
passage. I sat down and wrote a few experimental shorts
that were nothing but dialog. It worked, eventually.
If you're having trouble with objective exposition, start
looking at things around you and how they relate to one
another. Try starting with something unrelated to the plot
and working your way around to the point. And read
William Gibson; he's a master of that technique. |
|
| |
That said, here's an easy way to handle exposition: don't
bother with it. Dump your reader into the middle of a
scene with no explanation whatsoever; let the important
details naturally find their way into the narrative flow, be
it action, dialog, what have you. Done well, it's captivating
and fun to read. For study material on this technique, I
suggest Joseph Heller. |
|
| |
// take the visions from my head onto an experience
matrix that others can absorb directly. // |
|
| |
Alas, how I have dreamed of such a spectandulous device.
Alas, I say! |
|
| |
//let// There's the rub. You dont "let" you "make." |
|
| |
That's more difficult than straight exposition. The
definitive send-up of en-passant SF exposition, for
my money, is Swanwick's _Stations of the Tide_ |
|
| |
// //let// There's the rub. You dont "let" you
"make."
// |
|
| |
Au contraire. If you'll forgive a bit of soppy metaphor, the
story is a living thing. It grows and evolves. You can no
more force it into a pre-conceived framework than you can
make a baby elephant grow up to become an adult
hedgehog. You may create it, but if that process of
creation leads to unexpected changes, it's very important
to stop and carefully examine those changes; they may be
the story you intended to tell all along. |
|
| |
// Swanwick's _Stations of the Tide_ // |
|
| |
I'll have to read it, then. Any other reccomendations?
(please don't say Stanivslaw Lem) |
|
| |
I'll stick to writing games, thx :) |
|
| |
As to writers, not surprisingly, I like ideas that
stretch more than necessarily style. Stephenson is
by far my favorite writer of SF, George R. R. Martin
a
close second, but my tastes have changed a lot
over
the years. Certainly liked Zelazny a lot at the
time. I
like Stross, but in streches. I recently read and
truly
enjoyed The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi |
|
| |
I read Lem in Russian, I wonder how much better
(if at all) that translation may have been than
English. |
|
| |
Recommendations for *formal* inventiveness?
Zelazny. Though it seems likely you know that
already. |
|
| |
What's your beef with Lem, by the way? |
|
| |
Neal Stephenson is one of the gods in my personal
pantheon. |
|
| |
BTW, I may have accidentally misrepresented myself as a
SF writer; I'm a frothingly rabid SF fan, but I actually write
whatever genre a story happens to fit. My last three
submissions, for example, were a western, a present-day
war-aftermath, and one of those experimental dialogs I
mentioned. I'm not trying to brag, I just dislike
misconceptions. I'm also dropping clues. |
|
| |
// The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi // |
|
| |
I find Lem conceptually brilliant, but pedantic, plodding,
overly-narrated, and utterly snooze-inducing in execution.
Kind of like Hemingway after his editors turned chicken
and stopped reining him in (this statement excludes his
later short works). |
|
| |
I actually have only passing familiarity with Roger Zelazny.
Perhaps I should go back and read more of him. |
|
| |
Most people are surprised to find out that I'm not really as
well-read as most serious writers, which I'm (sort of )
working to correct. My problem is that when I start reading
somebody else's fiction my own creativity dries up (with
the bizarre exception of Dan Abnett). I do my best work
when I've been reading non-fiction, history and theoretical
physics (or at least the lay version thereof) being favorite. |
|
| |
I don't know, I recall reading the Cyberiad and
laughing just as much as I did later when reading
Hitchhiker. It could be culturally it resonated more
to those with Iron Curtain experience. |
|
| |
Unforgivably, I omitted Dan Simmons above -- in
terms of being both a generator of mindfuck ideas
and incredible, literate prose, especially in his best
work, he is unequaled in my opinion. |
|
| |
//I do my best work when I've been reading non-
fiction, history and theoretical physics// Hmm ...
and you like Stephenson. Read much Pynchon? |
|
| |
// It could be culturally it resonated more to those with
Iron Curtain experience. // |
|
| |
Could be. That's one I never read, but I sometimes got the
impression that many of Lem's concepts were altered by
translation, which I now realize is subtly ironic. Also, he
came from the Russo-Caucasian* 'school' of writing, and my
comments concerning Lem pretty much sum up my opinion
of that entire era of literature. It's just not my glass of tea,
I guess. |
|
| |
*my own terminology, don't ask me to cite. |
|
| |
Just 'Gravity's Rainbow', like everybody else. Loved it, of
course. Genre-wise, it's right up my alley; alternate-history
WWII with a pinch of existentialism and seasoned to taste
with social satire? Yes, please. I have an old
copy of V in a box somewhere, but I've never managed to
crack the cover. |
|
| |
//Russo-Caucasian school of writing// |
|
| |
That explains everything! Going over everything,
inserting some proper aint's, crossing Russian and
replacing it with American, and generating the Great
American Novel, see you on the bestseller list :) |
|
| |
Yeah, that's pretty much my method in a nutshell, although
you forgot the motorcycle chase sequence. |
|
| |
// see you on the bestseller list // |
|
| |
Tarantino I ain't. About the only things he and I have in
common is that we both love 'Kelly's Heroes' and we're both
complete assholes. |
|
| |
For me the absolute pinnacle of an exquisitely constructed
SF short story is "The Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang with
his "The Alchemist's Gate" in 2nd place. I swear that man
had me thinking like an alien by the time I finished the
story. (As if I'm not odd enough.)
Too bad his offerings are so rare. Anyway, Chiang's work is
highly recommended by me - an anonymous person on the
Internet. |
|
| |
Send us (or just me) where to find your work [alterother].
And thanks for the tips about Hannu Rajaniemi and some
others i wasn't familiar with [TC] and [MP]. Off to order
some SF! |
|
| |
If you like Chiang, check out his short story 'Exhalation'.
Mind-blowing. I've read it eight or nine times and I'm still
reverse-engineering it. Apparently, he's made a very good
career as a technical writer, which is why his fiction is
infrequent. |
|
| |
As for finding my work: A) I'm just starting out, with only
two short pieces published so far, and thus I am still
masked by obscurity, and B) some clever Halfbaker is going
to have to figure out who I am based solely on information
divulged on HB compared to my author's bio and subject
material (this is on the honor system; no cheating please*).
There will be prizes. I was planning to make this a formal
HB event ([jutta] willing, of course) with the publication of
my first novel, but that's a way off yet, so why not start
early. |
|
| |
*those few who already know my secret identity are
ineligible, but may claim consolation prizes if they wish. |
|
| |
I just figured out Alterother is Stephen King :) |
|
| |
Yes, I've got Exhalation in print and audio book. I've never
came across a better nontechnical description of the
concept of entropy. It seems to me that his stories are not
so much written as crafted. Can't expect him to churn them
out like sausages I guess. Better to have a few jewels than
a lot of gravel. Looking forward to tracking down your
creations. |
|
| |
[The Alterother] is not Stephen King, though the two have
met a time or three. |
|
| |
He lives about two hours east of me, is a couple-three
decades older, and has written approximately two
thousand more books. |
|
| |
// Looking forward to tracking down your creations. // |
|
| |
Glad to hear it, and when you find them, I hope you enjoy
them. I'll keep dropping clues, though I expect it will be
some time before I earn my name as a writer. |
|
| |
Be forewarned, however, that my work is not as deep,
philosophical, and thought-provoking as that of our
favorite authors, or if it is, I tend not to see it that way.
That's not to say that they aren't intricately-woven,
captivating tales of intrigue, wonder, and pathos, but to
me, my stories are just stories. If they have any deeper
meaning, I applaud the reader for discovering it, but it
probably wasn't intentional. |
|
| |
Now I'm off to go sort the jewels from my heap of gravel. |
|
| |
//has written approximately two thousand more
books.has written approximately two thousand more
books.// |
|
| |
55-2000 = -1.6 (in logarithmic units). So quite close.
Approximately. |
|
| |
My point was that Stephen King has written dozens of
novels and published most of them, whereas I have written
(coincidentally) about 1.6 novels and, to date, published
none of them, which
could be important data when determining whether or not
I am Stephen King. Obvious exaggeration when specificity is
not crucial is part of my MO. I thought you all knew that. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, you failed to factor in my specificity
requirements clause. When speaking of novel-length works
that I have written but have not yet had published, I
require definite specificity. Unlike virtually everything
else, I take my writing very seriously and do not brag. |
|
| |
Nice try, though. It made me chuckle. |
|
| |
"To see nighttime city lights as bright as Earth's on a world
in the habitable zone of the closest star, you would need a
telescope with optics at least 100 times wider in diameter
than the Hubble Space Telescope's.". This is from article
[Link] about scientists examining this very idea. The quote I
chose gives me pause as to viability but it is still nothing I'd
see as a deal breaker given the rapid advances in imaging
technology. |
|
| |
If you were Stephen King I'd be hitting you up for $100 back on 'The Gunslinger'. |
|
| |
If I were he, I'd give it to you. |
|
| |
If someone invented an unnatural light source, one that was purely designed, it would be very bright as it would stand out relative to all that nature. Make that motion rather than source. |
|
| |
//a telescope with optics at least 100 times wider in diameter
than the Hubble Space Telescope's// I agree, that's not a deal
breaker at all. We should have that within 50 years. |
|
| |
Presumably the "100 times" is for resolution more than light-
gathering? If so, then a swarm of several Hubbles spaced
apart would give you the same result, no? |
|
| |
Or a linear telescope, which I've been meaning to post. |
|
| |
That sounds cool. Make it so. |
|
| |