radio waves travel at the speed of light. theres nothing to slow them down. they are electromagnetic radiation just like light. Do you think light slows down? no 3x10^8 m/s forever

1/13/2010 10:36:20 PM

it's funny listening to you spout such ignorance. light waves do slow down. What the fuck do you think causes refraction?

1/13/2010 10:44:41 PM

refraction can't happen in vacuum you idiot. We are talking about space here. Light doesn't slow down in space, at all and it doesn't have mass so its unaffected other and gravitational forces.

1/13/2010 10:51:11 PM

maybe you should have qualified that, then... you made the blanket statement that light doesn't slow down. Ever. Which is patently false

1/13/2010 10:52:16 PM

light is definitely affected by gravity

gravitational lensing was predicted by einstein, and when it was observed, was one of the strongest confirmation of his theories

1/13/2010 10:55:39 PM

We were talking about light traveling in space. Its not my fault you had no idea of the context of the conversation.

1/13/2010 11:07:15 PM

How did I miss this thread?

1/13/2010 11:45:20 PM

Light is absolutely affected by gravity. Redshift, gravitational lensing.

Light can scatter off virtual quanta. Vacuum polarization.

This is why we shouldn't let women on the internet.

1/14/2010 12:09:55 AM

1/14/2010 12:14:02 AM

all of those things are so rare its negligible. Its not going to mean the signal is completely gone as originalfag implied since most of the universe is empty. You act as if each wave will constantly travel trhough stuff.

1/14/2010 8:39:06 AM

...such as the interstellar medium.

1/14/2010 8:44:46 AM

mbambambambalamadingdong, do some reading for a change.

This is from SETI, you may have heard of them.

http://www.setileague.org/software/spreadsh.htm

Quote :

"Performs range analysis of an electromagnetic communications system, assuming identical antennas at both ends. The example shows that the range over which a 1 MW hydrogen-line signal can be detected with existing receivers, assuming 100 meter dishes at both ends of the path, is on the order of 9 parsecs (28 LY). This spreadsheet may be used for range comparison of various systems."

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BEAMING RADIO SIGNALS INTO SPACE ARE TELLING YOU THAT THE SIGNALS BECOME UNDETECTABLE BY CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AT 28 LIGHT YEARS AND THESE ARE HIGH-POWERED DIRECTED BEAMS NOT OMNIDIRECTIONAL TRANSMISSIONS.

1/14/2010 9:19:12 AM

Quote :

"can be detected with existing recievers"

1/14/2010 9:25:04 AM

Did someone actually make the claim that light is not affected by gravity if its in outer space?

1/14/2010 9:29:56 AM

should i have said the luminiferous aether

1/14/2010 9:32:14 AM

B-b-b-b-but, mambagrl, you said:

Quote :

"radio waves travel at the speed of light. theres nothing to slow them down. they are electromagnetic radiation just like light. Do you think light slows down? no 3x10^8 m/s forever"

Why the fuck would they be undetectable after 28 LY if they weren't being affected by something?

And your eye rollies are silly. Even assuming some alien technology that has way better receivers and noise cancellation algorithms it is obvious that there is some distance where even our most powerful radio signals will be indistinguishable from background noise.

1/14/2010 9:46:17 AM

because they are crossing so many other waves and its just a compilation of noise after a certain point it doesn't mean the waves have stopped traveling though. We have already deciferred alien signals in space from who knows how far.

1/14/2010 10:50:30 AM

Relative to the observer electromagnetic radiation always travels at c, right?

1/14/2010 10:52:30 AM

In a vacuum.

1/15/2010 9:46:16 AM

Quote :

"We have already deciferred alien signals in space from who knows how far."

Huh?

1/15/2010 11:27:19 AM

will a vacuum work in a vacuum??????

1/18/2010 4:50:52 PM

as long as it has a source of power, sure, it will "work," as in it will run. Now, will it generate suction? absolutely not

1/18/2010 4:58:06 PM

^^^the seti program found distinct signals in the noise

the idea that the rare occasion of gravity slowing down light takes place on a widespread scale is absurd. Its safe to assume that some if not most of our radiation waves never come near any other galaxies before reaching their first. Its not like its crowded out there.

1/18/2010 5:44:40 PM

^ SETI has never found verified ET artificial signals... lol

1/18/2010 5:45:45 PM

ya because verifying them would be lol

1/18/2010 5:59:58 PM

i don't mean verify in the sense of talking to the aliens, i mean verified in the sense that they weren't signals that originated from earth anyway.

The SETI program has NEVER found ANY ET signal that could have been made by an alien intelligence.

1/18/2010 6:01:19 PM

sure they have. just google it.

1/18/2010 6:42:37 PM

No, you're wrong. Why don't you point a link to the article.

Do you realize that news of SETI finding an alien signal would EASILY be the MOST AMAZING NEWS EVER in the history of humanity? Are you seriously suggesting that they have this information, but no one cares?

On every message board, each user gets 1 free pass on saying something dumb and acknowledging it, without anyone making fun of them. I highly suggest you take this opportunity to acknowledge that you made a mistake, and no one here will mock you for it more than what's already been said.

1/18/2010 6:50:51 PM

theres tons of articles and cases which is why i said google it. heres one example.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/31/signals_seti/


^doesn't apply to me since I was mocked from day 1 when they found out I had a nice car

1. i'm decent looking so all female users instantly hated me
2. after not responding to their pms, many male users hated me to try and get in the other female users pants
3. knowing about sports as a woman=hatred from all the guys in st
4. being a bit liberal on a super conservative board gained hatred from everyone else, quick.

Quote :

"They were apparently searching in a spectrum or in an area . . . where they hit the mother lode. The signals were so numerous that they began to have their systems externally jammed by some sort of human agency that did not want them to continue receiving those signals"

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 7:24 PM. Reason : mlk]

1/18/2010 7:17:05 PM

^ haha okay

BTW, The Soap Box isn't super conservative, it's probably the most centrist board i know of.

And that link in no way supports your allegation that SETI has found alien signals. It is an unsubstantiated claim pushed by a known conspiracy-loving radio station, buy a guy with little credibility.

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2010 7:20:58 PM

everyone thinks they are centrist. foxnews thinks they are centrist. don't kid yourself. this is ncstate.

1/18/2010 7:31:20 PM

I'm not saying I'M a centrist, i'm saying TSB is centrist. I'm making this judgement based on other message boards I visit (which I would describe as left-leaning).

TSB is at worst slightly right, but it is definitely not "super conservative."

1/18/2010 7:44:19 PM

if you think most boards are left and tww is slightly right how does that NOT make it super conservative?

1/18/2010 7:47:48 PM

I didn't say most boards are left, I said another one I visit is left. Jeez...

You don't know what a super-conservative board is until you visit the Fox News boards, or the vdare forums or something.

1/18/2010 7:53:05 PM

According to mambagrl, TSB is superconservative.

According to hooksaw, TSB is a nest of moonbats in dire need of execution.

lol

1/18/2010 8:18:19 PM

I'm sure any christian board is more conservative than here but for a group of people on a college-oriented board, this is super conservative.

1/18/2010 8:19:10 PM

The fact you think TSB is super-conservative says a lot more about your politics than it does about TSB's collective political stance. Same for hooksaw.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Greer

1/18/2010 8:32:54 PM

SETI to date has found a single un-usual signal. When they saw the record of it and turned back to where they heard it they could not pick it up again.

That is as close as they have come to anything.

1/18/2010 8:45:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_source_SHGb02%2B14a

1/18/2010 9:08:31 PM

mambagrl is right. The only reason we give her a hard time is she's hot.

Quote :

"If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children"

1/19/2010 10:18:49 AM

I cannot tell if she is trolling or not.

She is so persistent

1/19/2010 11:04:14 AM

It is rather sublime.

1/19/2010 11:08:40 AM

I lead the nation in having quotes taken out of context.

1/19/2010 12:25:41 PM

Quote :

"1. i'm decent looking so all female users instantly hated me 2. after not responding to their pms, many male users hated me to try and get in the other female users pants 3. knowing about sports as a woman=hatred from all the guys in st 4. being a bit liberal on a super conservative board gained hatred from everyone else, quick."

1. i'm not female, but i doubt any of the girls on here really care. this isn't high school, girls don't automatically hate other girls who appear more attractive. i don't have any idea of what you look like so in my head you look like a witch with down syndrome
2. i've never sent you a pm, nor do I care who tries to get in who's pants on TWW
3. you certainly do talk about sports a lot, that doesn't mean you know anything. besides, i love girls who can talk ACCURATELY about the sporting world, but you are not in that category.
4. I am quite liberal by all standards, yet I disagree with most of the shit you say in soap box, because most of it sounds made up and the rest you get from uncredible sources.

my point is, I hate you for being a troll, not for any of the reasons you posted

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : -]

1/19/2010 12:31:07 PM

^.

1/19/2010 12:45:22 PM

Quote :

"I lead the nation in having quotes taken out of context."

Your statements are hardly taken out of context. they are quoted and then evaluated for how nonsensical they may be, and then as a result you stipulate that isn't what you meant and further explain yourself. this further explanation generally proves to be either factually inaccurate or misleading as well and then a resulting field day ensues.

but no quotes are taken out of context.

1/19/2010 1:05:56 PM

Quote :

"Why the fuck would they be undetectable after 28 LY if they weren't being affected by something?"

Assuming isotropic: rays disperse by 1/r^2

Assuming directional: rays are not perfectly collimated and still disperse by 1/r^2 within the solid angle which it is directed in.



The actual quote there made me think that Galileo must be crying in his grave, but I'll suppress my sadness for the moment and address the only slightly less crazy claim made by correctly informed people that SETI should have any expectation of success even if ET does exist.
----

1 / ( 26 ly )^2 = very small

The theoretics of SETI accepts the fact that only a narrow band of radio frequencies could possibly be used to transmit information from one star to another with our level of technology (and reasonable power input). Fair enough. However, generally this still requires that the beam be directionally emitted from star system A to star system B. Now, SETI monitors many star systems, but does so intermittently. We also very rarely emit anything that could be picked up by an alien civilization, and the few efforts we do put into this often quits soon after it starts. You can suspect that other civilizations might be more advanced than us and thus have more resources to put out such signals. However, before even doing any kind of scientific observation we already knew that no aliens were here, sitting on our faces. SETI thus is only good for detecting an extremely advanced civilization that exists point-blank range from us on the galatic scale, but hasn't yet advanced enough to travel to Earth with a physical presence. Oh, and decided to put significant resources into beaming directional signals to arbitrary suns all around them in the hopes that a world they've likely observed for millions of years suddenly sprouted life and chose to do something like SETI. But moving on to the most insane part of the project...

To the question:

"Could SETI detect an identical civilization to us located in the nearest star system?"

The answer is an unequivocal "no".

1/20/2010 5:22:39 PM

Quote :

" but hasn't yet advanced enough to travel to Earth with a physical presence. "

solid logic used here but not so fast my friend...

We are advanced enough to travel to several places but just don't think its worth it. If we suddenly started getting morse code from the inside of one of mars' moons, we would get there fast.

1/20/2010 5:41:40 PM

^ yeah, that's not what he's referring to.

But, we are just now launching probes that look at other stars for earth-like planets. The light from those stars is generally 100s of years old, so we're seeing them as they were hundreds of years ago. That means that even if we DO find an earth-like planet somewhere else, assuming it's say 200 light years away, then we are either looking at them in an undeveloped state, or they are only going to be hearing from us in another 200 years.

No one here is interested in waiting 200 years to hear from them, so the only hope we have of communicating with another civilization within our lifetimes is if we develop faster than light travel.

1/20/2010 5:49:36 PM

ya hes making the assumption that anyone within range doesn't have the technology to travel here because welll, they haven't been here.

1/20/2010 5:52:20 PM