3 ms·

We receive information that its radios are still working.

• bmitc 3y ago
  Communication is exchange of information. The sun is not communicating with us, and we know its "radio" is still working. It's a pedantic, and incorrect, argument against the headline. The guidelines actually say not to do this, even when you're right.
  • Jerrrry 3y ago
    >Communication is exchange of information. exchange actually does too much heavy lifting here. This almost passed, but no; communication is the transfer/movement of information. One-way communication can convey (even if requiring a previously agreed upon compression mechanism) information - even a single bit or even the existence of a signal at all can be used - think about using the time between signals as a medium, etc. Heartbeat signals (inverted dead-man switches) exchange information; it doesn't have to be the same type. The beat source explicitly proclaims it's existence in space-time and the receiving end can infer it's existence at a certain time. Like natives' smoke patterns of Morse code of radio waves, using periodicity to convey bit value
  • leptons 3y ago
    >Communication is exchange of information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication#:~:text=Linear%20transmission%20models%20understand%20communication,and%20responding%20as%20simultaneous%20activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication#:~:tex.... One-way communication is a valid type of "communication".
    • bmitc 3y ago
      Not in this context. They are sending commands. The spacecraft is not responding to them. This is exactly a breakdown of the communication, which is exactly what's mentioned in the first paragraph of the article.
      • leptons 3y ago
        Sorry but you're still wrong. You're assuming the spacecraft isn't receiving the commands. You don't know that. Nobody really does. All that is necessary for this to be "communication" is for the transmitter to send and the receiver to receive, and the receiver may well be working but the transmitter on the spacecraft may not be working, making that scenario one-way communication. It takes far less power to receive than it does to transmit, so it would be no wonder if the spacecraft were still receiving commands but unable to send responses. If the spacecraft is known to not be receiving, I think the term "broadcasting" would apply.
        • bmitc 3y ago
          > You're assuming the spacecraft isn't receiving the commands. I didn't say that. The article even mentions that they feel the spacecraft is receiving and processing the commands. There's just no response. The article title and intro are correct. For all intents and purposes, the spacecraft has stopped communicating. Broke down, used in the intro, is better than stopped. Discussing this is pedantic and pointless, which is why the guidelines state not to make comments like the original one. As we can all see. It has led nowhere interesting. And you and everyone keep bouncing around all these side definitions. The definition of communication between earth and a spacecraft like Voyager 1 and 2 is implied and assumed to be standard two-way communication. > It takes far less power to receive than it does to transmit, so it would be no wonder if the spacecraft were still receiving commands but unable to send responses. I don't follow. The spacecraft is known to still be transmitting a signal.
          • leptons 3y ago
            >The article even mentions that they feel the spacecraft is receiving and processing the commands. There's just no response. That is by definition "one way communication". You're saying it's not communication, but it absolutely is. I'm not sure why you can't accept that.
            • bmitc 3y ago
  • mongol 3y ago
    That is information. Without the radios working we would know less. To say stating that is against site guidelines is ridiculous.
  • thowawatp302 3y ago
    The Sun doesn't have a radio, it may produce RF energy, but doesn't modulate the RF energy it sends to Earth, Voyager still is.