Eltanin Antenna | Hacker News Reader

Eltanin Antenna

en.wikipedia.org

99 pointspyinstallwoes21 comments

Even more antenna-like. But still a sponge.

https://www.mbari.org/news/scientists-discover-extraordinary...

What’s most peculiar of Eltanin is the 90 degree angles. Nature rarely has multiple if any 90 degree offsets for growth.

I wonder what aquatic aliens would think the first time they saw a pine tree.

They’d probably expect to find phi distributions in many things and it’s ancillary patterns in nature.

Has anyone done modeling on what capabilities for which frequencies it would have if it were an antenna?

Has anyone gone back to reimage it?

In general, antennas do not work underwater.

There is a very specific exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Sanguine

(Also, if it is a Chondrocladia concrescens sponge, it's unlikely to still be alive and in the same place, 60 years later.)

I love that the article states it "would have required a giant antenna covering two-fifths of the state of Wisconsin... was never implemented because of protests and potential environmental impact"

Yeah, i'm sure it was those damned hippies not the wild impracticality of covering half of wisconsin.

That's just the area formed by the grid of underground cables.

They don't have to actually cover that much space; not even close.

It is actually possible to emulate an arbitrarily giant antenna using an array of antennas.

How is that so?

What are we using Wisconsin for right now anyway

Making sausage, cheese, beer, and heavy machinery.

> Has anyone gone back to reimage it?

It's a sponge from 60 years ago. I daresay they'll have trouble finding it.

It was mostly a rhetorical question given this obvious fact but I figured the idea of due diligence in pursuit of science did come up at some point.

Not implemented due to protests, with no citation. 6000 miles of underground cables and 100 power plants was not implemented due to budget, almost certainly. The protests weren’t even required.

https://old.reddit.com/r/marinebiology/comments/lt1mh6/this_...

Wikipedia should not be using that drawing for a Chondrocladia concrescens, it also on the main C. concrescens page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrocladia_concrescens

Everyone knows when you bring deep sea creators to the surface they look different.

It's far more obvious from pictures taken in place - https://twitter.com/DrCraigMc/status/1366534723145781251/pho... https://www.flickr.com/photos/oceanaeurope/15285657515

It's a shame they didn't see a Chondrocladia lyra in the original expedition, much better for lore, but I guess being pre-internet savages the lyra wouldn't even look like an antenna to them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3tAtXdaik

That drawing looks no more different to me than any other naturalist drawing of a plant showing a preserved sample to detail texture and shape compared to a life drawing version.

I imagine anyone who's seen kelp in and out of water would get the correct impression

Thanks for pointing this out. It would be nice to have a public domain or creative-commons licensed image to use instead.

If only there was evidence indeed

Your examples don’t have the same angles as the Wikipedia article in question. I don’t see the same amount of appendages at all or in squared angle intersections.

Furthermore to have 90 degree angles in water from drifting appendages all line up at a convenient moment seems absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com