A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"white noise" monitoring?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 22nd 05, 09:27 PM
Matthew Ota
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First develop a good bull**** filter by going he

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/evp.html

And do not waste any more time or money promoting this variety of nonsense.

Besides, it is way off-topic.

Matthew Ota

Bob Cruise wrote:
The movie "White Noise" appears to have generated a lot of attention to this
phenomenon lately. The reason I'm bringing it up here is because I have
read of several people hearing messages that have an unidentifiable language
and are believed to come from elsewhere in the Cosmos. I really wonder
about this phenomenon and whether or not it is real? Are astronomical
instruments like radio telescopes, etc able to listen to white noise the way
an apparent noisy tape recorder does? The way the supposed messages are
received almost seems too simple and contradicts, IMO, what radio telescopes
and the like have been trying to accomplish for many years now: the
determination of life outside the solar system. Is this broad white noise
wavelength something that should be monitored on a regular basis
professionally, or is this all someone's great fantasy and doesn't deserve
any more attention than it already has?

Like to read what others think. Personally, I can't say either way as I
have never conducted any white noise experiments myself, but I don't feel
very confident especially when you compare with the enormous sensitivity of
radio scopes which, to my knowledge, have never received any signals
representing intelligence elsewhere.

Thanks,
Bob


  #12  
Old January 22nd 05, 09:36 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:01:21 -0700, Tim Killian
wrote:

Spread spectrum signals can be broadcast at extremely low levels and
they don't alter the spectrum enough to be detectable without tremendous
effort. A receiver with the proper chipping sequence can extract the
signals from what appears to be random noise.


Yes, but I think what is being discussed is _people_ directly hearing or
seeing messages in noise. That's quite different from a spread spectrum
receiver doing it (and as you say, it just appears to be noise in that
case... it isn't really.)

On the subject of anomalous detection, how do you suppose all of those
wild animals detected the imminent tsunami danger last month?


I have seen no convincing evidence at all that any animals detected the
tsunami. In fact, I've seen no convincing evidence that animals ever
routinely sense seismic activity, at least not more than a few seconds
earlier than people. I remember a couple of occasions when living in
California where the cat got spooked before a big earthquake- maybe five
seconds before I first heart them. Nothing too mysterious there.
Certainly, in the areas affected by the recent tsunami, massive numbers
of dead animals are contributing to the disease problem.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #13  
Old January 22nd 05, 11:15 PM
geezer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:27:06 GMT, Matthew Ota
wrote:

First develop a good bull**** filter by going he

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/evp.html

And do not waste any more time or money promoting this variety of nonsense.

Besides, it is way off-topic.


The first appropriate response to this ridiculous post I've read.

Chris et.al., who seem to be attempting a PC correspondence with the
OP: Can you not see this as the troll it was intended? Either this,
or the OP is a true nut case from the Art Bell factory. Let it die.
  #14  
Old January 23rd 05, 12:28 AM
William Hamblen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:16:00 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

I should add that if people are getting "messages" from white noise on their TVs
or radios, the explanation may be much simpler. No TV or radio can be tuned to
unallocated spectrum- what people call static or white noise is almost certainly
a signal, albeit with a very poor signal-to-noise ratio. A bit of discernable
image or sound from time to time is to be expected.


Sadly, I knew a man who was getting messages from his window air
conditioner ... but in his case the cause was alcoholism.

  #15  
Old January 23rd 05, 12:36 AM
Rod Mollise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Sadly, I knew a man who was getting messages from his window air
conditioner ... but in his case the cause was alcoholism.


Hi:

You make this sound like a _bad thing_! :-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html
  #17  
Old January 23rd 05, 01:58 PM
Iceman-Jamie Iceman-Jamie is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2005
Location: Keflavik, Iceland
Posts: 38
Default

I have seen no convincing evidence at all that any animals detected the
tsunami. In fact, I've seen no convincing evidence that animals ever
routinely sense seismic activity, at least not more than a few seconds
earlier than people. I remember a couple of occasions when living in
California where the cat got spooked before a big earthquake- maybe five
seconds before I first heart them. Nothing too mysterious there.
Certainly, in the areas affected by the recent tsunami, massive numbers
of dead animals are contributing to the disease problem.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote]


The reason you have'nt seen any evidence on "the sixth sense of animals" is that there is no evidence we can prove.The human race has become very good at makeing theorys to things we dont understand. Remember what the definition of theory is... an educated guess. That means if we cant prove it in front of other peoples eyes, we make a guess. There are so many things in the universe that we don't, can't and won't ever comprehend. Maybe the forsight that animals have on seismic events is one of these things. Maybe to them its just as clear as our sight, our taste, or our ability to make things up...

And whats up with the dead and diseased animals comment? What, do you hate animals that much that all diseases are their fault? What did that have to do with "white noise" ?
  #18  
Old January 23rd 05, 02:00 PM
Frank Hofmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris L Peterson wrote:

Noise is noise- by definition devoid of informational content. When you can put



That's not completely correct. The very property of noise is a flat spectrum
when averaged over a wide range of wavelengths. But noise carries energy and
therefore signal - in its amplitude.
The point I try to make is that generically, the noise level you observe
(i.e. the "background"), will remain constant (if you manage to eliminate
all noise generators from your detection equipment, it'll come down to
either quantum noise or the 3K radiation), but a change in amplitude (not
in the freqency distribution) is indicative of an "event". Things like
solar flares or supernova explosions in our galaxy, for example, would
raise the "noise level" even on detectors not directly pointed at the source
of that phenomenon.
Not that this carries signals which a TV receiver would decode into a
human-recognizable image. But monitoring noise levels is a true scientific
method that's, e.g. been successful at detecting neutrinos from the SN1987A
in the kamoikande neutrino detector. Or that's being employed at the south
pole Amanda neutrino detector to "fingerprint" supernova explosions. Also,
a lot of solar radio observation is nothing but "listening at noise", i.e.
signal intensity within wide bands of radio emission. Many of those solar
activity reports are nothing but that - reading of a "noise level" in a
certain radio band.

To some it's just noise. To others, it's music


Bye,
FrankH.


  #19  
Old January 23rd 05, 04:12 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Jan 2005 13:00:12 GMT, Frank Hofmann
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

Noise is noise- by definition devoid of informational content. When you can put



That's not completely correct...


Yes, I realize that from a mathematical standpoint, "noise" is a complex
subject. And in information theory, pure noise in a sense represents
maximum information content because of its condition of zero correlation
or redundancy.

But in the context of this discussion, I think the statement is pretty
reasonable.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #20  
Old January 23rd 05, 04:31 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're right, just the other day my electric shaver told me to go out
and wave my GLP in a menacing manner at airplanes and low-orbit
satellites.


Tim Killian wrote:

Now I'm not saying that dead people regularly communicate with us
between AM radio channels, but it appears that sometimes noise is NOT
just "noise".



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Noise Ninja custom noise print- worth the effort for stacked composite? Jason Sommers Amateur Astronomy 1 January 19th 05 08:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.