> You're assuming the spacecraft isn't receiving the commands.
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.
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.
You're entitled to be as obstinate as you want to be, and as wrong as you want to be - I don't really care what you do. The fact is, sending information to a receiver that is receiving is in fact the definition of one-way communication, whether you want to refute it or not. You're dying on this hill.
I'm not dying on any hill or refuting anything. The point is the title is fine, could be mildly improved, though isn't outright incorrect, and that this entire conversation has been a waste of all of our time. Haha.
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.
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.