this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
67 points (100.0% liked)

Space

7294 readers
1 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Melody@lemmy.one 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'd argue that a more precise timing like 53.8 minutes is more attention grabbing. It shows finer grained control of technology; a "look here! we can do this too!" sort of demonstration.

If we are the "more advanced" neighbor; then I could see that being done.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's more that their knowing what an hour is would be impressive. Our selection of the hour as a measure of time is arbitrary outside of its specific context. It's just 1/24th of our planet's rotational period. We could just as easily split the day up into 10ths or 15ths or 7ths or whatever.

To broadcast a signal that's exactly an hour long to a planet that uses the hour as a measure of time might potentially imply someone trying to reference our way of measuring time. A signal that repeats every 53.8 minutes is on a timer that isn't specifically relevant to Earth in the same way an hour exactly would be.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That signal might be insignificant to us; but it may be their way of establishing a timescale.

The time may be derived from how long their planet takes to rotate...aka the length of one sub-unit of their day...aka 1/24th of their day.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago

Or, it could be the periodicity of the lifecycle of a cool bug they like, or it could be just a random period from any huge number of celestial objects we have yet to categorize. I have a guess for which of these options it is, personally.

[–] Kissaki@beehaw.org 11 points 5 months ago

Such a cycle is a cycle like any other. It's not "more precise" when it's shorter.

We attribute the 53.8 according to our scale.