UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life

https://www.space.com


It will take a Rogue planet travelling at 13000 km/sec , about 6000 years on average to travel to nearest , six , Earth- like planets . Or about 36000 years to explore the nearest six Earth- like planets altogether . For an advanced self - sustaining civilization living inside this travelling planet , it is perfectly possible to colonize such planets .


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nh8XRpTuKIs


I think James Webb , should look at these planets first !


https://differentimpulse.com/james-webb-space-telescope-could-begin-learning-about-trappist-1-atmospheres-in-a-year/

It will take a Rogue planet travelling at 13000 km/sec , about 6000 years on average to travel to nearest , six , Earth- like planets . Or about 36000 years to explore the nearest six Earth- like planets altogether . For an advanced self - sustaining civilization living inside this travelling planet , it is perfectly possible to colonize such planets .

But the mass of a planet means you go in the direction you are travelling in so those six earth like planets need to be in the direction the rogue planet is already heading in and in a line and once you have past those planets they are gone... no going back.

The energy needed to steer and fly this rogue planet would be enormous.

I seem to remember reading a book on ways to potentially destroy the planet and it mentions the energy required to move the earth off its orbit and either directly into the sun or out off into deep space was approximately the same as the energy needed to completely destroy the planet.... and was enormous.

The only way I could think of would be if you could develop gravity wave energy, so you could have gravity stations all around the planet which are directed at local masses which either push or pull depending on where you wanted to go... a bit like Spiderman and his webs flying through a city of high rise buildings using his spider webs to pull him around... except on a much larger scale.

Theoretically gravity waves have no range limit... technically the gravity of galaxies thousands of light years away are exerting a tiny pull on you right now, but the effect is so tiny you can't measure it, which means if you could create a gravity manipulator you could push or pull your way through space... if you think of the traditional way of viewing gravity as the mass being a ball on a springy surface like a trampoline... the greater the mass the deeper the depression and so other mass approaching that mass fall towards it when they get close enough to the distorted or curved space near by.

In that sense a gravity device might curve space ahead of the mass to make it fall that way too... but how much energy it would require to move an entire planet is hard to say...

Even if it would work in the first place.

Note most Sci fi stuff have inertial dampeners so that when their ships accelerate away at the speed of light the crew is not squashed flat like jam on the rear walls of their ship. The only other way around it would be to put everyone suspended in a liquid, but even then they could not accelerate the way they are shown to, but then they would also float around their ships when travelling anywhere.

In Star Trek they often travel at a specific speed like warp factor 3 or something, yet they depict the journey as needing constant engine operation to maintain that speed when in fact once they have achieved the speed they could turn the engines off and would only need to use the engines to change direction, or speed up or slow down.

Their sublight engines would be the same.

The vast majority of rogue planets are Jupiter class objects that formed in the inner orbits, aka hot Jupiters. They can get ejected
easily from binary star systems thanks to the 3 body problem. There are supposed observations of "stable" three body systems where
a large planet or small third star is doing some strange orbit around the primary binary stars, but these are certainly quasi-stable
regimes and not some guaranteed configuration.

It is unlikely that small, Earth like planets become rogue planets without some event like a heavy object passing through their star
system (e.g. neutron star or maybe a "black hole"). The collection of rocky small planets that are not gas giants that we have
in our system is the result of having a small and stable single star. In binary star systems the chaotic orbit regime will ensure that
any smaller planets get consumed by larger bodies during planetary formation. Even in our system we have a mopping up occurring
since the beginning that has removed most of the small objects and also constrained the planets into a plane.

Really, the cheesy Space 1999 scenario is more plausible where some intelligent life generated propulsion event drives a small moon
out of a system. But this "spaceship" will not be on a steered trajectory and will not visit interesting places like in the TV show.

We hijack Deimos moon and put fusion propulsion on it and point it at proxima star system . Carry 1500 couples , genetic viable population , who live in interior using advanced agriculture , safe from cosmic radiation and meteor impacts and space debris . Can be done very soon . How much thrust can fusion Rocket produce to push this mass to say 13000 km/ sec ?

https://theplanets.org/moons/


https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5524/how-many-people-are-required-to-maintain-genetic-diversity#:~:text=To maintain healthy genetic diversity and establish enough,species will likely go extinct by natural causes.

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9582/how-many-people-can-you-feed-per-square-kilometer-of-farmland#:~:text=So one sq. km would meet the calorie,a sq. km. of fertile modern-tech cultivated land.



https://medium.com/predict/the-fusion-rocket-that-could-dominate-interplanetary-travel-d4a8234c67cd


https://theplanets.org/deimos/

Rock can crack and is neither water nor air tight most of the time without a serous amount of sealing and other work to make it air tight.

It would serve no advantage to use a large object like a small moon or asteroid because it will always be heavier than a space ship equivalent made of metal.

Having massively over engineered construction materials that are heavier and bulkier than modern materials makes no sense at all except perhaps on a metal starved planet or a metal based moon or asteroid where in essence you are taking resources with you, but the object can never be big enough to be useful.

An example would be using water as a building material... you have a fine outer structure that has some sort of heat distribution system so the side facing the sun in earth orbit does not get too hot and conversely the side facing away does not get too cold... and then fill the interior with a pressurised airspace and enormous volumes of water which in its frozen form constitutes potential hydrogen fuel and water and rocket fuel and protection from solar radiation and air resources... you could carry a billion litres of water as a resource, but again the problem is that amount of weight will reduce your speed and acceleration potential and every change in direction and speed will require more energy because of its mass.

The Space 1999 premise was that nuclear waste stored on the moon exploded, but obviously the force needed to blow it out of earth orbit and out of solar orbit into deep space the get anywhere near any other star system to meet even just one alien race would have shattered the moon into tiny pieces instead and instead of roaming the universe they really would have become a ring system around the earth for a few million years...

nomadski wrote:
Also as a Sun ages , it expands and becomes hotter . Swallow it the inner planets or burning them up . While the outer planets heat - up more and become more habitable  and forcing migration to outer planets .

After a star leaves main sequence it's probably best to just leave the system altogether.

We are talking a bare minimum of 2 billion years before the sun becomes a problem... hopefully we will have gotten recycling everything down to the point where we are fully mobile and able to travel enormous distances very quickly if we need to...

Rather than flying around on a planet it would probably make more sense to travel around in something tiny and stop off on objects like planets and moons where our advanced technology can take resources and materials we can use from their surfaces.

The ability to manipulate gravity would allow us to also manipulate acceleration which are related... being able to accelerate at 1g would allow us to accelerate to enormous speeds and also as a bonus make the trip a bit more comfortable...

Cheap simple energy generation is another key technology that would make things more practical.

GarryB wrote:We are talking a bare minimum of 2 billion years before the sun becomes a problem...

Earth will become uninhabitable long before the sun enters red giant phase. In a billion years it'll be hot enough to boil our oceans. Unless future civilization can do something about it, we have about a half billion years left here.

Half a billion is plenty of time for it either not to be an issue or something we already dealt with...

Would be more worried about asteroids... periodically a star moves relatively closer to our star system and bumps stuff out of the Oort cloud that makes our solar system "active" in terms of threats flying around the place... some have been linked to previous extinctions.... what has happened before will likely happen again.

GarryB wrote:
Would be more worried about asteroids... periodically a star moves relatively closer to our star system and bumps stuff out of the Oort cloud that makes our solar system "active" in terms of threats flying around the place... some have been linked to previous extinctions.... what has happened before will likely happen again.

The "Death Star" hypothesis may have been in vogue a few decades ago, but not recently. The K-Pg is the only mass extinction known to have resulted from an asteroid impact.

I don't think we will have to think about any of those "Armageddon" situations. Long before that humanity has most probably wiped themselves off the face of this planet. The history of Homo Sapiens just started and you are talking in half a billion years terms.

With determination that some elites on this planet are working on biological pathogens to kill people off I really don't think we need to care about something like the life cycle of the sun. The chances that a massive sun eruption strong enough that the magnetic field of the earth won't be able to sustain is much higher and closer than the life's end of the sun.

But I like to see your interest and energy

Werewolf wrote:I don't think we will have to think about any of those "Armageddon" situations. Long before that humanity has most probably wiped themselves off the face of this planet. The history of Homo Sapiens just started and you are talking in half a billion years terms.

Sure, Homo sapiens could be gone in just a couple of centuries, replaced by AI or artificially created beings. But our "descendants" could survive almost indefinitely even if we won't.

With determination that some elites on this planet are working on biological pathogens to kill people off I really don't think we need to care about something like the life cycle of the sun.

I tend to believe humanity, as currently known, will go out with a whimper rather than a bang i.e. replaced instead of eradicated. Nuclear weapons still exist but were never used post '45.

The chances that a massive sun eruption strong enough that the magnetic field of the earth won't be able to sustain is much higher and closer than the life's end of the sun.

To my knowledge, hasn't happened in the c 4.6 billion years earth has been around thus far.

But I like to see your interest and energy

That's what I suspected a long time ago! https://youtu.be/G-HDXyTP8SA ;

https://youtu.be/JyKuwmBPHVM https://youtu.be/p3GC370J0xg

https://youtu.be/HeykJmyv13Y https://youtu.be/gzt7gD4d6uI

https://youtu.be/DOI2NL-tLn0 https://youtu.be/C4T6KTzL7ww

I don't buy the notion of an underground civilization (indigenous to earth) watching over us. It's absurd. How could intelligent beings grow crops or develop industry underground? There's no photosynthesis and hardly any oxygen. Think of the problems of waste and pollution disposal...Or, why hide underground if it's so superior? IF an advanced intelligence is indicated by the vid it's more likely ET.

What people fancy as underground can be considered surface features (cave systems, etc.). The rest is solid rock and the temperature
and pressure increase with depth. There is no hint of any advanced civilization on this planet outside the human one. It is impossible for it to be
so well hidden that there are zero emissions (chemicals, EM) from it. It would be impossible to hide any cavern and transport tunnels from humans
using seismic tomography. Going deeper is simply excluded since the rock becomes plastic and any cavity would require magical force-fields
to maintain. May as well just believe there is some divine being hiding and watching us.

Advanced civilizations in my opinion must exist on other planets. It is absurd for the Earth to be unique in the mind-numbing vastness of the
(known) universe. There is more than likely a whole spectrum of civilizations out there at all stages of development. Even assuming that
cosmologists are right (dubious), 14 billion years is enough time for such development given the vast number of potential planets. The critical
element is the number of candidate planets. Also, the Earth is not a rule as to how long it takes for intelligent life and associated civilizations
to form. Other planets could see evolution of intelligent life much earlier. Some planets may never develop dinosaurs, etc.

The question is why there is no EM pollution from these civilizations reaching us. I think it is too aggressively optimistic to expect to
glean signals from the background noise. You cannot extract a signal from noise without knowing what it is. Only if it is clearly above
the background do you have a chance. Random noise can produce coherent patterns. This the same problem as subtracting the galactic
disk signal when composing maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation. It is fraudulent voodoo photoshop and not science.
So SETI and other such efforts are a waste of time. The only information we get out of these failed efforts is that the average distance
between advanced civilizations in the universe is very large. This is rather to be expected. It is only the absurdly large numbers of
candidate planets in the whole universe that likely gives a large number of such civilizations, but it cannot be expected that they form
on every candidate planet. This ratio is unknown but it is evident that most candidate planets are not hosts to civilizations. The fraction
of candidate planets is very small as well, but that is not a show stopper since their total number is absurdly large.

Some believe we have visitors from other planets, but I do not buy it since the distances are mind numbing as well. No less than speed of
light travel is feasible. You would need multi-generational colony ships to get anywhere and such entities are sci-fi fantasy. Any problem
would result in total failure and loss of life. No technology is robust enough. Planet "ships" are on a whole other level of robustness.
There is no point of failure for such "ships" outside of gamma ray bursts or serious instability of their star, which would preclude them from
even hosting advanced life such as that on Earth. Our Sun is very stable and our atmosphere stops its periodic bursts of protons and
X-rays.

Why the universe is so large and imposing an isolation on advanced life is an interesting question. But there may be parts of the universe
where the stellar neighbourhood is more busy and communication between planets with advanced life is possible.

kvs wrote:There is no hint of any advanced civilization on this planet outside the human one…..

Not only that, there's no evidence in the fossil record for any evolving intelligence besides our own.

Advanced civilizations in my opinion must exist on other planets.   It is absurd for the Earth to be unique in the mind-numbing vastness of the(known) universe.   There is more than likely a whole spectrum of civilizations out there at all stages of development.

I incline toward the view that civilizations undergo fairly rapid development, reaching spacefaring status after several thousand or a hundred thousand years or so. Considering the possible brevity (relative to the age of the universe) of the "developmental phase," at any given time there may be mostly just far advanced civilizations.

 

Also, the Earth is not a rule as to how long it takes for intelligent life and associated civilizations
to form.   Other planets could see evolution of intelligent life much earlier.   Some planets may never develop dinosaurs, etc.

I dunooo…it was said that the long dominance of dinosaurs led to increased emphasis on brains in mammals.

The question is why there is no EM pollution from these civilizations reaching us…..
So SETI and other such efforts are a waste of time.

Agreed, albeit for a different reason--advancing technology. It's been claimed that if there was peace and we switched to fiber optics earth would disappear from the radio map of the heavens; Sagan spoke of "tight beam transmission" in which case there'd be no leakage into space. If virtually all civilizations are far advanced it's no wonder SETI--with the possible exception of the '70s "WOW!" signal--hasn't produced results.

  The only information we get out of these failed efforts is that the average distance
between advanced civilizations in the universe is very large.

If you mean civilizations which are indigenous to certain planets they're certainly few and far apart. It is possible, though, that colonization has long been underway. Sagan estimated a single civilization could colonize the galaxy in a billion years--and I doubt he invoked some method of exceeding or bypassing the speed of light.

Some believe we have visitors from other planets, but I do not buy it since the distances are mind numbing as well.   No less than speed of light travel is feasible.  

It may not be absolutely necessary, if colonization has shrunk average distances. And it's just so rash to assume our understanding of what is possible is the last word…

You would need multi-generational colony ships to get anywhere and such entities are sci-fi fantasy.  

I tend to doubt serious spacefaring is for purely biological entities. AI, cyborgs, whatever, seem more likely.

Btw getting back to this beneath-the-earth notion: It seems so implausible, even idiotic, that an underground civilization would become so incredibly adept at areonautics or flying. How the hell would it develop and test aircraft while remaining hidden underground??

They are not underground thr way you might think. These beings choose to be seen. The phenomenology is strange. Thry are I guess you could say more preternatural intellects than extraterrestrial or endoterrestrial. Sounds goofy I know. Reality is stranger than fiction, and much darker.

I think that our perceived reality is like an apparent skin on a much more involved structure. Even though some like to dismiss quantum
mechanics as relevant for the macro scale, I think it is the most important. What we think of as space(-time) is an apparent, emergent
entity. In this sense the vastness of the universe and the speed of light are not a limit. Spooky action at a distance ain't spooky if
the reality is quantum mechanical. I do not think there is any barrier cutting off the QM from the "classical limit". It does not make sense
for the properties of this micro-scale to not have any effect on the macro-scale. The macro-scale is just an assemblage of the micro-scale.
More likely is that what we think of as small and large are not trivial in this way.

For all we know we might be totally wasting our time... the human being might be the caterpillar stage of a more impressive evolution and when we die we become energy like beings for which the speed of light means nothing and we can traverse the universe in an instant and also because it is space time we might be able to travel through time as well... just not be able to interact with anyone from the past or the future....

GarryB wrote:... the human being might be the caterpillar stage of a more impressive evolution

Very likely but superseded by its own creation. I can't see homo sapiens evolving naturally into something else.

and when we die we become energy like beings for which the speed of light means nothing....

More likely living or viable entities will achieve something extraordinary.

TMA1 wrote:

These beings choose to be seen.

Concerning reported UFO entities, that's long been my conclusion.

Just dropped in to say that it would be utterly arrogant of us to believe that there is no extraterrestrial life "out there" just because we have not experienced it personally - although some claim they did and perhaps they did?

What I find even more "utterly arrogant" is to believe that this microscopic spec of nothingness we find ourselves trapped on could be so important and interesting that other far more intelligent beings would even know about us - let alone want to come and visit us!

Mir wrote:Just dropped in to say that it would be utterly arrogant of us to believe that there is no extraterrestrial life "out there" just because we have not experienced it personally - although some claim they did and perhaps they did?

I think if ET civilization, as opposed to life, exists, we should expect to experience it, as some examples of it probably have had a very long time to progress.

What I find even more "utterly arrogant" is to believe that this microscopic spec of nothingness we find ourselves trapped on could be so important and interesting that other far more intelligent beings would even know about us - let alone want to come and visit us!  

Considering the extreme rarity of planets capable of supporting advanced life, I think we'd be very interesting. ETs also came from "microscopic specs of nothingness" and at one time were no better.

starman wrote:
Considering the extreme rarity of planets capable of supporting advanced life, I think we'd be very interesting. ETs also came from "microscopic specs of nothingness" and at one time were no better.

You have nothing else but your own "believe" to support what you're saying.

BUT having said that - considering the size of the universe(s) - mathematically there may well be billions and billions of planets out there capable of supporting advanced life. If you just look at the Milky Way that forms part of our galaxy there are between 100-400 billion stars in that area alone - each with the distinct possibility of its own planetary system.

50 years ago we had no idea, but now we know there are lots of planets out there... most stars seem to have them... even the binary or worse star systems with multiple stars where you would think planets would get kicked out by gravity interactions of those stars.

With most stars having multiple planets then the potential for life is enormous.

But irrespective of what you believe, either life is normal and plentiful but getting to the state where they can start to move through the universe is rare, or life is super rare and we are the only ones in this universe, because of the size of the universe and the fact that it is expanding, some places will be moving away from us faster than we could hope to travel any time soon, in both cases I suspect the chances of us meeting alien life is pretty low.

Perhaps current sightings of what are described as being aliens or alien spaceships are us from our own future trying to get back here or to solve problems... like the movie 12 Monkeys, or Terminator... but less dramatic and rather less interested in drawing attention to themselves.

Either way, no matter what you believe we should respect life way more than we do and that is something we really have to work on.

I used to love the Carl Sagan series!

As I've mentioned earlier we find ourselves sort of like in the outer edges of a galaxy commonly known as The Milky Way with at least a 100 billion stars according to conservative estimates. A hundred billion is already a huge number.

There are apparently Two Trillion Galaxies of varying sizes in our universe averaging about a hundred million stars each.

Some theories propose that our universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes - known as the multiverse. Then there are those that dabble in quantum physics theorizing about parallel universes!