h a l f b a k e r yNice swing,
no follow-through.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A central factor in the Drake Equation would be the survival
lifespan of life (and civilization) on a given planet.
We project asteroid hit rates in our own solar system based
on
craterization. But we don't have such data for other solar
systems, and we certainly don't know how often such
impacts
destroy life and or civilization.
Given our relatively new found abilities to scan for
extrasolar
terrestrial planets, we should be searching for how often
such
planets are hit by impacts large enough to register a spark
indicating a catastrophic event.
Similarly, hydrogen bombs should also be generating a
"noticeable" temporary change in brightness.
Searching for dead alien civilizations
https://news.nation...-civilization-seti/
[theircompetitor, Nov 21 2018]
What, this link?
https://goo.gl/BHsCUs
[not_morrison_rm, Nov 21 2018]
[link]
|
| |
Hmm. There's a problem here. First, I'm not sure if current
telescopes could detect a "spark" caused by a large impact
on an extrasolar planet. However, let's assume that they
could. Let's also assume that there are ten telescopes
looking at (or for) extrasolar planets at any one time. In
100 years of observation, you'll have watched for a total of
1000 telescope-years. |
|
| |
If significant impacts happened once every 10 million years
(which is about 10 times more often than on Earth), you'd
still only have a 1 in 10,000 chance of spotting one, over
those 100 years of observation. |
|
| |
but just as with Fermi's paradox, scanning the galaxy
should uncover such events routinely, no? |
|
| |
Yes, if you could monitor the whole galaxy - billions of planets
- simultaneously. But at the moment we can only (possibly)
watch a handful of planets at a time, and the events you're
looking for will only be visible for a few seconds or so. |
|
| |
I'm still waiting for something like a terrestrial
life...ponders on the link of angst to Angstrom. |
|
| |
...ponders on the link between telegrams and nanograms. |
|
| |
...ponders the link between engrams and
anagrams... |
|
| |
//can’t do the ellipsis correctly |
|
| |
I can hardly do a circle freehand |
|
| |
...ponders on the Reuters news story "Singapore to test
facial recognition on lampposts..." |
|
| |
//ponders why people can’t do the ellipsis correctly// I don't
see what's wrong with ... |
|
| |
It's one ellipsi, then another ellipsi, then a final one. |
|
| |
...ponders the link between appointments and
disappointments... |
|
| |
...ponders the link between ponders and responders. |
|
| |
^Tch! Sorted the link - at no extra charge. |
|
| |
I did live in EN2 for a bit |
|
| |
// …ponders why people can’t do the ellipsis correctly. // |
|
| |
Because they're using Windows, probably. |
|
| |
I set up AutoHotkey on my Windows computer so I can type
…, –, and — just like on my Mac, and I use WinCompose
(free, open-source) for other special characters like ø and
μ. |
|
| |
Edit: That was supposed to be a mu. |
|
| |
Just as well: if you utter a mu around here, it can attract
incoming from a certain person packing a suppressed .22 rifle. |
|
| |