Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by chongli on Friday December 18, 2020 @09:46AM
(#25467558)
It’s a radio emission, not a radio transmission. That’s a key distinction that may be lost on a lay reader (or anyone not paying enough attention).
Astronomers, amateur astronomers, and astronomy enthusiasts all tend to be aware of the fact that radio is just another part of the spectrum we can use to look at the universe. It’s a strange quirk of our culture that the word radio carries connotations of technology and thus connotes intelligence.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by solstice on Friday December 18, 2020 @11:46AM
(#25468878)
> It’s a strange quirk of our culture that the word radio carries connotations of technology and thus connotes intelligence.
Counterpoint: "radio wave fart from exoplanet detected". No connotation of intelligence IMO
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by Apocryphon on Friday December 18, 2020 @02:13PM
(#25470727)
Though, perhaps, of biology.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by 8bitsrule on Saturday December 19, 2020 @04:29AM
(#25476307)
Not quite as whack as the rash of headlines a while back referring to FRB as 'mysterious radio signals' from 'deep space'.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by Diederich on Friday December 18, 2020 @11:16AM
(#25468491)
> anodyne
It's pretty rare for me to run into a (non-technical, niche) word I'm not at least somewhat familiar with, thanks!
anodyne (adjective): not likely to provoke dissent or offense; inoffensive, often deliberately so.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by matt-attack on Friday December 18, 2020 @12:47PM
(#25469755)
You're obviously not an Uncle Tupelo fan:
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by macintux on Friday December 18, 2020 @03:24PM
(#25471459)
I used that a couple of weeks ago responding to a bland email from my state’s DOT completely ignoring the concerns I raised.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by standardUser on Friday December 18, 2020 @09:32AM
(#25467417)
"Natural Radio Emission" seems to clarify things just fine.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by DaiPlusPlus on Friday December 18, 2020 @09:57AM
(#25467671)
If that's a Natural Radio Emission, then what's a Nocturnal Transmission then?
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by earleybird on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:09AM
(#25475238)
Why the downvotes - it's an obvious reference to Charlie Farquharson's commentary on the moon missions. :-)
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by darkerside on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:24PM
(#25470176)
Possible is a sneaky word to use here, implying unbelievability.
First Exoplanet Detected by Naturally Occurring Radio Emission
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by kbelder on Friday December 18, 2020 @06:42PM
(#25473502)
Occasionally I'll see an headline making a marvelous claim about 'Gravity Waves'... something like 'shrimp synchronize reproduction to gravity waves'. I always read it as gravitational waves, and for a split second I think there was some revolutionary physics discovery. Of course, they're simply talking about waves driven by gravity... or, in other words, everyday normal waves in water and air.
Re:Possible Radio Emission from Exoplanet Detected
by HideousKojima on Friday December 18, 2020 @10:33PM
(#25474748)
The same thing happens all the time with pulsars. "Astronomers detect radio signal in space" and don't mention that the signal's frequency is similar to a pulsar
Very awkward spot for the science PR people writing this. It’s almost like it needs extra words to prevent people from adding
“Possible (But Definitely Non-Alien) Radio Emission From Exoplanet (Which Cannot Support Life) Detected”