NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far

On Jan 14, 8:32*am, Rich wrote:

The worst part of all this is the unending, unceasing anthropomorphizing
of aliens. *Try to get away from that.

I wouldn't mind a spot of anthropomorphizing of some some (supposed)
humans. ;-)

"Chris.B" wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:

The radio noise from Earth will diminish as communication relies more and
more on lasers cables and short range digital radio transmissions.
Satellite communications will be more tight-beamed.
Radio signals detectable from other solar systems may have a short life in
a technological civilisation.

How do we separate human traits from alien? Perhaps our technological
streak is a result of our own genes? What are the basic motives for
technology? The ease of doing something beyond normal human strength,
increase our natural senses or speed? Idle curiosity? Laziness?

Our warmongering, nationalism and imperialistic ambitions have driven
a great deal of our science and mechanics. How do we separate our
greed and aggression from the universal norm? It's odd how we give
aliens aggressive instincts well beyond our own. Perhaps this is a
reflection of our own fear of each other's potential for doing each
other harm?

Our genetic inhibitions are remarkably weak. Any cause, or even too
much beer, dumps our natural inhibitions in the nearest bin. To be
recovered later when it suits our needs. Or the odds, or conditions,
become too much to allow our bad behaviour to continue unchecked.
Perhaps we are the laughing stock of the universe. Or the most feared.

I'm not trying to anthropomorphise aliens. I'm just assuming that the
technological constraints of efficient digital communication will be
similar.
Using efficient radio technology means that broadcasts into interstellar
space will be weaker.
So the failure of SETI do far, despite the large number of exoplanets is
not likely to be due to the short lifetimes of technological civilisations.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:32:40 -0600, Rich wrote:

The worst part of all this is the unending, unceasing anthropomophizing
of aliens. Try to get away from that.

What anthropomorphizing is that? In the context of SETI, we are
looking for technological species. The natural constraints created by
physics makes it likely that technology and technological evolution
will be similar in all such species, so looking for them as we might
look for ourselves is a reasonable approach.

In article
-septemb
er.org,
Mike Collins wrote:

snip

The radio noise from Earth will diminish as communication relies more and
more on lasers cables and short range digital radio transmissions.

I imagine that transmissions of compressed digital data would also be
considerably harder to recognize as artificial signals than would the
older analogue broadcasts.

If SETI finds anything I'd expect it to be a beacon of some kind,
designed to be clearly distinguishable from natural sources over great
distances; the odds seem to be against its coming from 'leaky' local
communications.

--
Odysseus

On Jan 11, 4:51*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Jan. 11, 2012

NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar system so far:
a red dwarf star with three rocky planets smaller than Earth.

FULL STORY athttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/11jan_small...

Most stars either have or once had a solar system of planets, because
it's where most of that original molecular metallicity which the star
spun-off actually went. It would be a little odd for a main sequence
star not to have planets.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 1/14/12 8:48 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Most stars either have or once had a solar system of planets, because
it's where most of that original molecular metallicity which the star
spun-off actually went.

Spun-off? Heaver elements don't spun-off.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:48:51 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Most stars either have or once had a solar system of planets, because
it's where most of that original molecular metallicity which the star
spun-off actually went. It would be a little odd for a main sequence
star not to have planets.

We only know much about one star system- ours. And in our system, the
overwhelming majority of heavy elements are in the Sun, not in the
planets. Certainly, the planets contain a much higher ratio of heavy
to light elements than the Sun, but in terms of absolute quantity of
heavy elements in the Solar System, the planets are insignificant.

Nothing gets "spun off" when a star system forms. Material moves
inward, not outward, and denser material settles in the middle of
bodies... including the Sun.

On Jan 15, 5:12*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:48:51 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
Most stars either have or once had a solar system of planets, because
it's where most of that original molecular metallicity which the star
spun-off actually went. *It would be a little odd for a main sequence
star not to have planets.

We only know much about one star system- ours. And in our system, the
overwhelming majority of heavy elements are in the Sun, not in the
planets. Certainly, the planets contain a much higher ratio of heavy
to light elements than the Sun, but in terms of absolute quantity of
heavy elements *in the Solar System, the planets are insignificant.

Nothing gets "spun off" when a star system forms. Material moves
inward, not outward, and denser material settles in the middle of
bodies... including the Sun.

In 1990 I was working with evolutionary stellar processes because of
the geometry I was handling required something of that nature and
because it involves volume/density ratios with geometric limits it
indicated a structure with two large external rings with a smaller
intersecting ring ,something like this which eventually showed up in
1994 or 4 years later than the only copyright I took out,oh,did I
mention it was a copyright.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astron...es/sn1987a.jpg

You see,the highest probability for the elements that comprise a solar
system ,including ours,may require a transition phase of the central
star and that phase is called a supernova as a star evolves from one
state to another .In short,there is a possibility that you are looking
at the forge for solar system elements every time the Earth turns
round to that central object with each rotation.

Many make assertions as you are doing about inward falling material
and that is fine but much better is stellar evolution in tandem with
solar system evolution within a transition phase that is explosive,I
like it in that it works so well with the encompassing geometry that
brought me to that possibility.Like differential rotation, planetary
spherical deviation and crustal evolution/motion,the picture fits in a
neat and smooth manner as oppose to those who lunge at a conclusion
without any thought whatsoever.

On Jan 15, 7:56*pm, verb o'bosity wrote:
without any thought whatsoever.

Self praise is no recommendation!

The curator of Harrison's clocks had it right -

"Essentially, we are decoupling the rotation of our planet from the
measurement of time for the first time in human existence. That is
quite a big step to take." Jonathan Betts,Greenwich observatory.

No IAU empirical shell to handle the dumbest thing humans have ever
done in a hopeless attempt to diminish the AM/PM designations which
contain all the information between timekeeping averages and the
planetary cycles from which they emerged.It is good that at least one
other person has a sense of what is happening and that some have an
uncomfortable sense that it is really a blind leap in the dark.For me
it isn't and the consequences will become clear enough with time as a
type of slavery that I wouldn't wish on anyone.Just go outside and try
enjoy the cause behind sunrise or twilight with a right ascension
based imbalance of 1465 rotations/1461 days to get the point.

The biggest technological step was in 1969 as a man set foot on the
moon,the step this week is a step into intellectual oblivion for
everyone here and the chances are that most already know that it is
conceptual suicide.I have my heritage and will do what I can where I
find genuine people who love the common experiences of the planetary
cycles.I have nothing to say about participants in this forum as
their fate may be one I just don't wish to consider,at least not
openly.