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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication#:~:tex....
One-way communication is a valid type of "communication".
If the spacecraft is known to not be receiving, I think the term "broadcasting" would apply.
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.
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.
So just to end this, what would you and the others like the title to be given the article is perfectly clear and with a title that is substantively different? So we don't have to non-discuss this anymore.
Voyager 1 is sending repeated data back to Earth.
I think I saw an article on tech dirt saying the spacecraft was sending stuck in "groundhog's day" that I thought was clever
If I'm talking to a person, and then they just start repeating a nonsense sound no matter what I say to them, is it really inaccurate to say communication has stopped, especially when it's immediately followed up with by saying communication has broken down and explained further? No, not really. Certainly isn't wrong enough to have this long, fruitless discussion that I feel embarassed I participated in.
>Communication means an exchange of information. Receiving a signal does not.
You were wrong. Communication does not explicitly require response.
The definition of "communication":
>"means of sending or receiving information, such as phone lines or computers."
It says "Sending or receiving information". It does not say "sending and receiving".
The spacecraft can be receiving perfectly fine, and that is communication from earth to the spacecraft. We may not be getting a valid response, but that does not mean we haven't communicated information to the spacecraft.
This is the obtuse hill you chose to keep dying on.