Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO043.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 05:02:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #043
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 28 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 043

Today's Topics:
                     Calendar and Zodiak (5 msgs)
                                Delta
                            ETs and Radio
      Innumeracy: Won't You Please Help?(was Re: Whales (SETI))
      Inverse Ephemeris (time as a function of position) Wanted
                   Latest on DCX and call to action
                     Methods for meteor avoidance
                        NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
                           Other life-forms
                    Relativity in science fiction
                           Space probe data
                      Star Trek Realism (2 msgs)
                        Whales (SETI) (3 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:32:47 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was just reading that the Earth precesses at a period of 26000 yrs.
This means that over the past 2000 years, we have precessed about
30 degrees or one month.  If the vernal equinox was in March back then,
how do we account for the missing (or extra) month in our calendar?
To reiterate, the vernal equinox is occurring 2000/26000 sooner than when
it occurred 2000 years ago in a solar system coordinate system.  In another
2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
somehow in the calendar?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:32:41 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>I was just reading that the Earth precesses at a period of 26000 yrs.
>This means that over the past 2000 years, we have precessed about
>30 degrees or one month.  If the vernal equinox was in March back then,
>how do we account for the missing (or extra) month in our calendar?
>To reiterate, the vernal equinox is occurring 2000/26000 sooner than when
>it occurred 2000 years ago in a solar system coordinate system.  In another
>2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
>somehow in the calendar?

This is an interesting question.  I just looked in my desktop database
(actually the paperback 1991 Information Please Almanac, 10Mb equiv,
$7.95 cheap) and on the subject of calendars it deals only with drift
due to the solar year not being a whole number of solar days, and the
various systems for correcting for that, adding days under various
rules.

This being the case, I will stick my neck out and say that the length
of the solar day must be governed by three things: the Earths rotation
period, its orbital speed (which causes a shift of the Sun's apparent
position in the sky) and the rate of precession of the rotation axis.
Thus a calendar based on the solar day must automatically be corrected
for precession.

I'll stick it out even further and assert that the sidereal day (which
is not affected by the orbital speed) also incorporates precession.

P.S.  Don't make those nooses too small: I've a size 17 neck.


--
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:07:16 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>I was just reading that the Earth precesses at a period of 26000 yrs.
>This means that over the past 2000 years, we have precessed about
>30 degrees or one month.  If the vernal equinox was in March back then,
>how do we account for the missing (or extra) month in our calendar?
>To reiterate, the vernal equinox is occurring 2000/26000 sooner than when
>it occurred 2000 years ago in a solar system coordinate system.  In another
>2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
>somehow in the calendar?


No, the calendar stays the same, but the sky changes.
The yearly calendar until @1950 was defined as the time between extremal
positions of the sun: furthest north or south of the year etc.
However, the position of sun with respect to the stars at the extremal point
moves slightly each year- about the diameter of the moon per 36 years.
The vernal equinox (spring) now occurs when the Sun is in the constellation
Aquarius.  During the Roman Empire the sun was one constallation over in Pisces
during the equinox.
After 1950 the length of the year is defined in terms of vibrations of cesium
atoms which are ten million times more stable than the length of a year.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 92 00:19:03 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:


   The vernal equinox (spring) now occurs when the Sun is in the constellation
   Aquarius.  During the Roman Empire the sun was one constallation over in Pisces
   during the equinox.

Actually, whether we have entered the "age of aquarius" depends on
where you place the constellation boundaries, which are necessarily
a little arbitary - by one popular reckoning equinox moved into
Aquarius either last year or this spring, but I've seen claims that
it will not happen till about 2010 or so... note that when calendars
were first made the equinox was in Aries, as a glance at a horrorscope
should reveal!

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
|[e-mail]|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 92 01:15:53 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
this year.
--

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 23:14:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:{

>    The HL Delta is a neat vehicle concept...

It sure is. If they had been putting money into this instead of NLS
we would have a heavy lift vehicle now.

>years to qualify it.  He was figuring an order of magnitude
>less expensive and eighteen months.  Probably optimistically,
>but nonethelessvery reasonable. 8-)  I had a chance to talk to
>him for a while ... he knew it could be done quick and dirty and wanted
>to do it that way, dammit. 8-)

for a lot buy of 20 flights they offered $500 million for the first flight
$250 million for the second flight, and $150 million for the remaining
flights.

>[name escapes me entirely, and I may
>not have written it down... sorry].

Could it be Larry Stafford or Michael Rendine?

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 92 17:10:00 GMT
From: Derek Wee <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

  Granted that Alien LGMs have the apparatus to detect radio waves......

  Radio transmissions started in the early part of this century. So we've
had
radio waves going everywhere and, especially into outer space at lightspeed
for at least seventy years.
  Indeed, I see it that in a sphere of seventy lightyears radius, any
intelligent life form either isn't advanced enough or won't receive radio.
Or
they don't want to speak to us. Or our early radio messages just got to them
 and they're just broadcasting back.

 Even so, leaving 5 years for time to think up of a message, we should have
received messages from stars within a 30 lightyear radius.

If extraterrestrial intelligence exists, then they must not be very popular
with God, although some say that intelligence will almost certainly be
developed by some lifeforms, who will use their sentience as their defense
and  weapon, so it is inevitable that a planet that can support life will
soon have  an intelligent species.

Anyone have any good arguments FOR the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligence?

---
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 20:36:14 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Innumeracy: Won't You Please Help?(was Re: Whales (SETI))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>
>Yes.  It's an affliction suffered by billions.
>
>Or was that millions?
>
>Anyway, "many."
>
>Bill Higgins                           | Every so often, Innumeracy

Hrair.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 19:06:30 GMT
From: Mike Melnyk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inverse Ephemeris (time as a function of position) Wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Hi Folks,

I am in need of an inverse ephemeris for the sun. That is, I am
looking for function that returns the time of year, given the position
of the sun in geocentric ecliptic coordinates and a year of interest
(e.g., 1994).

This function only need be accurate to 1' from 1994 - 2000.

Yes, yes, I know that I can use a true solar ephemeris (e.g.,
Van Flandern and Pulkkinen's formulae) to iteratively solve for
the time of year, but I'd rather not take the time to write and test
the code if an inverse ephemeris exists.

Please reply by email.

Thanks for any info you can provide.


Cheers,


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Melnyk                                         [e-mail]
Infrared Processing and Analysis Center
JPL/Caltech

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:58:08 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest on DCX and call to action
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

TO: DC-X Proponents
FROM: Tim Kyger
SUBJECT: DC-X -- What Should Now Be Done

Cross-posting of this message is _STRONGLY_ encouraged!  Please get
this up on Compu$erve, and Prodigy, and any and all BBSs or systems!
Memorandum

Friday, July 24th, 1992

1. The House Appropriations Committee ("HAC") and its Defense
Subcommittee Chair, Representative John Murtha, will take the position
in conference with the Senate on the FY '93 Defense Appropriations
Bill (H.R. 5504) that SSRT funding should be restored (said conference
occurring probably sometime in early September).  Nevertheless,
the prejudicial language terminating SSRT contained in the HAC's
Committee Report H. Rpt. 102-627 has passed into the outside world,
and the same arguments against SSRT as are presented and justified in
H. Rpt. 102-627 are butrussed by their presence in that report.

2. We must assure that there is as much positive support from Congress
for SSRT as is possible before the HAC/SAC ("Senate Appropriations
Committee") conference on the Defense Appropriations Bill.  This will
help to neutralize the "bad" language of H. Rpt. 102-627.

3.  The Defense Subcommittee of the SAC will mark up its bill and its
associated report in the next few weeks (I will see that specific data on
this meeting, such as date and time, is posted as soon as I can get it).

4.  Letters, phone calls, faxes, etc., should be made to the Senators
listed following as soon as is possible; they are the members of the SAC
Defense Sub.  Ask that the SSRT DC-X ATD program be supported in the
SAC's Committee Report on their Defense Appropriations Bill (which will
probably be the _Senate's_ version of the House's bill H.R. 5504; their
Committee Report _will_ sport a different number designator than that
on H. Rpt. 102-627).  The more and varied the positive contacts
supporting SSRT these Senators receive, the better.

All of the Senators listed below are members, of course, of the full
Senate Appropriations Committee; in fact, the Chair of the Full
SAC, Senator Byrd (D-WV) is a member of the Defense Subcommittee.
The Ranking Republican of the full SAC, however, is _NOT_ on the
Defense Sub.  I've listed him below anyway.  You should write/call/fax
him too (Mark Hatfield).

The full SAC is 29 Senators; the Defense Sub is 18 Senators -- 62%.


*Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI)  Chair of the SAC Defense Subcommittee
SH-722
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1102
202/224-3934
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) ((Chair of the full NASA Authorization
Committee in the Senate))
SR-125
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4002
202/224-6121
Fax: [phone]

*Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA)
SH-136
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1802
202/224-5824
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Robert Byrd (Chair of full SAC) (D-WV)
SH-311
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4801
202/224-3954
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
SR-433
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4502
202/224-4242
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Jim Sasser (D-TN)
SR-363
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4201
202/224-3344
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
SH-328
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0302
202/224-4521
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR)
SD-229
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0401
202/224-4843
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
SH-506
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3002
202/224-4744
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
SH-531
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1502
202/224-3254
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Ted Stevens (Ranking Minority Member of the Defense Sub) (R-AK)
SH-522
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0201
202/224-3004
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Jake Garn (R-UT)
SD-505
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4401
202/224-5444
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Robert Kasten, Jr. (R-WI)
SH-110
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4902
202/224-5323
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY)
SH-520
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3202
202/224-6542
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH)
SH-530
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-2902
202/224-3324

*Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)
SR-326
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-2402
202/224-5054
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
SH-303
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3802
202/224-4254
Fax: [phone]

*Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR)
Hatfield is the Ranking Minority Member of the full SAC.
SH-711
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3701
202/224-3753




--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 21:12:56 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brendan Woithe) writes:
>I've just been wondering. . .
>
>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the
>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these
>large beasts??!! I read that if it hit the earth, millions could have died.
>
>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!!

There is currently no defense against these rocks.  People in the
sciences are just beginning to pay real attention to the asteroid
collision problem.  Outside the few who are scientifically literate,
almost no attention is paid to asteroid collisions with Earth.

Next time you're with nontechnical types (at a party say) tell
them the biggest environmental threat they face isn't some produced
by humans but is asteroids and then watch reactions.  If they
are doubtful, inform them about Tunguska.  A small part of comet
exploded in Siberia in 1908.  The resulting 10 MT blast leveled
trees for 50 miles around and knocked horses to the ground 400
miles away.  In 1972 a small (100m) asteroid almost hit the
US northwest.  If it had, we would have a major (multibillion)
program designed to protect us.  It missed (barely -- it went
through the upper atmosphere).  So we don't have such a program
yet.
>
>Anyone know anything about it???
>
>Thanks
>
>Jhagon
>
>
>... Our galaxy is just a figmant of someones bad imagination!!!
>--- Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
> * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either.
>(3:680/820.0)


--
Chuck Divine

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:47:10 GMT
From: Robert Dorsett <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>>I'm disappointed in Clinton.  I thought he was just a national socialist.
>>I didn't realize he had gone all the way to being a communist.
>
>I'm a little confused...
>
>Clinton plans to cut a bunch of public money for NASP, SSTO, and "a few
>other launch systems" and this makes him a commie?  Jim, I'd love to hear
>your line of reasoning.  Reagan's defense build-up was the largest
>welfare program in history!
>
>I'm not saying I support Clinton's position (haven't read enough about it
>to know) but I am curious as to how cutting public spending makes one
>a communist.
>
>--
>    Brice Dowaliby         |    I may speak fluently, but
>([e-mail])  |    I don't speak for Fluent

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 21:13:23 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Other life-forms

>  Hmmm... Both sides have a point. I think it'd be great to leave a planet
>such as Mars alone for the purpose of watching it evolve. But I don't
>think that would be too prudent. That would be like telling everyone
>on earth to go back to Mesopotamia (or whereever, ifever, we all came
>from) so we wouldn't interfere with evolution on the rest of the earth.
>Besides, our presence may just help evolution along. I stress _may_.

This thread has yet to lose that misanthropic assumption that so many
eco-pagans hold:  Man is not-life (or of the Earth - or of the whatever
system that contains life).  This is the result of the idea that man-made
equal unnatural.  But of course, our artifacts are as natural as termite-
mounds and beaver dams.  Otherwise, they would not exist in nature (here).

We have as much right (power) to evolve as any other life-form.  Attempts
to disprove such will always degenerate into the man = non-life argument,
which, of course, is wrong.  Consider:  Our presence -may- help evolution
along.  This value-judgement can never be resolved!  Who will decide?  Only
something not-living can decide, since it won't be part of the process, but
non-living things can't judge!  Computers?  How can they not be a part of
evolution, being an artifact (tool) of an evolving life-form?

Consider this:  We get to mars, and find some bacteria that Viking missed,
and discover it kills plant and animal life.  Is it okay to kill it?
What about small-pox?  Polio?  AIDS.....

Or, if you prefer...is it okay to breed cattle and corn, irrevocobaly
changing thier evolution for all eternity?  And ours?  It think the only
tenable position has to be based on the question:  Will this action be good
for us?  The eco-pagans would do well to learn this question...

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,  *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 12:37:41 GMT
From: Jonathan Burns <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relativity in science fiction
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science

In article <[e-mail]>
 [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> That's from Galactic Patrol, which was copyrighted in 1937 and 1950 (this
> comment may have been added at the later date). (I believe this was the
> first book written, though it's the third of the series.)

> I've wondered about the chronology of the "negaspheres" (first appearing
> in the series in 1951, and apparently equivalent to antimatter black
> holes) and the development of theories on black holes. When did serious
> theorization on black holes come along?

Pulsars were discovered in, um, 1964? In the late 60s there were
conferences - Wheeler and de Witt edited the proceedings for one,
as I recall - on general relativity, the equation of state for
neutron stars, there being no stable state for them above a certain
mass. The name 'black hole' dates from then.

Smith's negaspheres would have come from the Dirac Sea idea.
Dirac's equation allows negative-energy states for electrons; but then
why don't all the electrons fall into them? Ans: they are all filled,
and the Exclusion Principle prevents it. A hole in the sea is a positron.

Negative-energy electrons on the loose were never predicted. Doc confused
the annihilation property of antimatter with the negative-intertia
property of loose n-e matter.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Burns        | His wit never failed him, and he laughed
[e-mail]| himself to death over a book of the dying
Computer Science Dept | a words of famous men.
La Trobe University   |                  Disch, _Camp Concentration_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 18:55:52 GMT
From: Tucson Al <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space probe data
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

    I've been working on a space simulation of my own, with planets,
comets, asteroids, moons, and stars, and I need some data in order to
correctly implement a propulsion-less space probe.  It is being influenced only
by gravity.
    What I need to know is the following:

    What was the speed (in km/s) of the Voyager 1/2 and Pioneer 11/12
spacecraft when they left Earth orbit. (i.e. began their voyages)?
    What direction were they headed (an angle in relation to the Earth or
Sun)?
    How high in orbit did they "start out"?
    What time of day (UT) was it when they were launched?

    I've been struggling with the space probe for the better part of 4
months, picking relatively obvious values for the above, like an altitude of
20,000km and a speed of 12.0 km/s.

P.S. please state what the speed is in relation to, the Earth, the Sun, etc.

Thank you for any and all help,

                    Doug Geiger
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 12:43:09 EDT
From: tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism

As long as we're on the Star-Trek vs. reality thread, here's a question
that used to come up before my housemate Doug said "Shut up and just watch
the show!":   When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past
at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one
side?  What is the source for this light?  It's pretty bad when you aren't
even into the actual show, and it's already violating known principles :-)

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "

|   [e-mail]                        '      ,  *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 23:23:54 GMT
From: Clorinda Trujillo <optima!trujillo>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (tom):
> When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past
> at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one
> side?  What is the source for this light?  It's pretty bad when you aren't
> even into the actual show, and it's already violating known principles :-)
>
> -Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +

I believe the ship has outside lights which shine on it.
I can't remember in what movie it happened, but the crew boarded a
dark Enterprise and turned on the lights.  They probably did this
in order to explain how why it was possible.

- Clo

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:43:54 GMT
From: Ken Arromdee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>That only proves that they don't possess both human intelligence _and_ human
>thought patterns (motivations, philosophies, etc).  It is not sufficient proof
>that they are not intelligent.  I don't believe that human motivations are the
>only ones intelligent beings can possess.
>
>Imagine that whales have intelligence at our level, and they all share a common
>religion.  This religion states that life is a temporary phase on the way to
>something better, and that dying is nothing to be concerned about.  That
>religion might also state (through an interpretation of the "Dead Sea Song")
>that revealing to any non-whale beings that whales are intelligent is a
>terrible sin which would send that whale to eternal agony.

But as pointed out, this could also "explain" how intelligent chairs let
people sit on them and push them around.

If the concept of "proof" is to have any meaning at all, the proof that
whales don't have greater-than-animal intelligence is similar to the proof that
chairs don't have greater-than-none intelligence.  For all practical purposes,
both of these are proven; the burden of proof is on the person who claims that
they are intelligent, not the one who claims that they're not.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 92 22:16:50 GMT
From: Rich Travsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
   (Gary Coffman) writes:
> Counting systems developed among humans because of the needs of herdsmen
> to keep track of their flocks. Plane geometry developed as agriculturalists
> needed to measure their fields. Number theory and higher forms of geometry
> developed as an *intellectual* exercise among natural philosphers of the
> ancient world. One, two, many was sufficient for subsistence gatherers and
> nomad hunters too busy surviving to develop natural philosphy.
>
> While whales don't usually herd their prey, [...]
They also don't have fields. A whale lifestyle could then be said to resemble
a hunting/gathering existence. Another anthropological tidbit is that such
cultures (hunting/gathering) actually spend/spent less time securing their
daily needs than more advanced cultures (using the term "advanced" in a loose
sense). They actually have a large amount of free time available...

> enemies (except man) and should have sufficient leisure time to develop
> a natural philosphy. I'd expect that their three dimensional environment
> would lead to geometric insights, and their podding behavior would lead
> to counting. From there, the leap to analytic geometry and prime ratios
> should be the logical next step. Any creature that doesn't grasp mathematics
> can't be said to be intelligent.
>
Birds live in a three dimensional environment; does the above progression
apply to them as well? (So far, only Alfred Hitchcock has seen the untapped
potential of our feathered friends... ;)

BTW, why would "podding" lead to counting?

One advantage of the ancients is that they had recourse to being able to
draw/write down their thoughts on these weighty matters. To be able to
pursue such pastimes in one's head (be you whale or human) is quite a feat,
and still more so to pass it to other generations. Whales do not have
writing materials. Or at least not that we've observed. I think this explains
why beaching occurs. They are wanting to make geometric drawings in the
beach sand. To test this assumption, the ground around the next beached
whale must be carefully observed. Usually gawkers and passers by have
trampled the surrounding sand, obliterating their scribbles. This must be
prevented. A helicopter flyby would be nice to take in the whole area
around the whale...

Richard Travsky       "So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 92 00:05:37 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> If the concept of "proof" is to have any meaning at all, the proof that
> whales don't have greater-than-animal intelligence is similar to the proof
> that chairs don't have greater-than-none intelligence.  For all practical
> purposes, both of these are proven; the burden of proof is on the person who
> claims that they are intelligent, not the one who claims that they're not.

I don't think that "chairs allow people to push them around" is the main proof
that chairs lack intelligence.  Other evidence, such as lack of anything that
might support intelligence (neurons, electronic switching elements, etc) is
stronger evidence.

No, for practical purposes it is not proven that whales are not intelligent.
They don't display human-like intelligence, but judging whales by lack of
display of human thought patterns does not constitute significant proof of
non-intelligence.  By that proof, certain religious people, people who engage
in extremely dangerous activities despite the risk, people with mental
disorders, and even teenagers who commit suicide because a boyfriend/girlfriend
left them would by your  (and Russell's) definition be non-intelligent.

--

[e-mail]

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 043
------------------------------