Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Planet X conspiracy
Options
Comments
-
Again, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying.
I didn't say they would have issues, just that it was more efficient.
It takes more energy to get to Earth, take water into space, then leave again than it would just to extract water from a comet.
Why ? Can you explain why it would be an issue for a race who mastered interstellar travel ?Also there is simply more of those resources in space than their would be on Earth. And then that there would be plenty of those resources in their own solar system or the solar systems between their home and Earth.
Why would they fly back to their system for these resources when travelling in earths vicinity ?
I have a Lidl in relative close proximity but will go to another store when travellingPlease try reading my posts before objecting to them.
I did ... They don't make sense in relation to the point you are trying to make0 -
I have done so in my previous posts.Why ? Can you explain why it would be an issue for a race who mastered interstellar travel ?
It costs more energy to get a ship to Earth from the outer solar system, get water into orbit, then get the ship back.
I don't understand your question. I'm not suggesting that they fly back to their system and then back to Earth.Why would they fly back to their system for these resources when travelling in earths vicinity ?
I said (very clearly) that they wouldn't be coming to Earth to collect resources.
If they want resources, then there are easier sources.0 -
I have done so in my previous posts.
It costs more energy to get a ship to Earth, from the outer solar system, get water into orbit, then get the ship back.
I asked you WHY it would be an Issue for a race capable of interstellar travel ?I don't understand your question. I'm not suggesting that they fly back to their system and then back to Earth.
I said (very clearly) that they wouldn't be coming to Earth to collect resources.
If they want resources, then there are easier sources.
Why wouldn't they visit earth and look for resources If passing earth on their interstellar travel ?
And again why do you think other resources are easier when you talk about a race capable of interstellar travel (why would it be an issue to disregard earth with the wealth of technology available to theses species ?)0 -
1. I did not say it was an issue.I asked you WHY it would be an Issue for a race capable of interstellar travel ?
2. It is more efficient to collect resources elsewhere in space than from a planet deep in the gravity well of a star. There are no resources on Earth that aren't abundant in other more easily/efficiently accessible places in this solar system or others.
Because, aside from life, there isn't that much about Earth that stands out. It has a bit more water and oxygen than the other rocky planets, but water and oxygen are much more efficient to collect in the outer solar system.Why wouldn't they visit earth and look for resources If passing earth on their interstellar travel ?
And again why do you think other resources are easier when you talk about a race capable of interstellar travel (why would it be an issue to disregard earth with the wealth of technology available to theses species ?)
It is easier because regardless of technology is costs more energy to take something off Earth than it does to take it off a smaller body further out.
On that note, why do you assume that a race capable of interstellar travel can't scan a planet from the outer solar system? Why do they have to go down to the planet to see what's there when they have a wealth of technology.
Again, it would be far more efficient for them to scan a planet from their own system than to send a ship...
Not sure I can rephrase my same point any more simply and directly.
Maybe a good analogy is why would you go to a shop that was on the other side of a mountain when there's plenty of larger, cheaper shops all around you?0 -
Gravity. Earth has a lot more gravity to fight against than a comet or asteroid. Mining a planet for resources is going to require a lot of equipment which will need to the planet's surface, set up, operated, then packed up again, and then moved off the planet again, then there's all the mined resources they would need to ship into space.Why ? Can you explain why it would be an issue for a race who mastered interstellar travel ?
That's going to use up vast amounts of energy. If they have any interest in energy conservation and efficiency (as a space faring species they'd have to) they'll weigh up the two options and go with the much easier asteroids.0 -
Advertisement
-
The only problem with doing that would be their data would be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years out of date. This is the massive problem with space travel, even if we figure out how to travel faster than light the next problem is you can't see anything. Once you get outside of a solar system you're completely in the dark, literally. Traveling faster than light would mean you can only see forward.Again, it would be far more efficient for them to scan a planet from their own system than to send a ship...
The difficulties of traveling in space are so great most intelligent life forms may never leave their solar system.0 -
The only problem with doing that would be their data would be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years out of date. This is the massive problem with space travel, even if we figure out how to travel faster than light the next problem is you can't see anything. Once you get outside of a solar system you're completely in the dark, literally. Traveling faster than light would mean you can only see forward.
The difficulties of traveling in space are so great most intelligent life forms may never leave their solar system.
This is true, but weisses is giving me flak for not assuming some magic technology that bypasses fundamental physics where traveling to and from Earth doesn't require any more energy than travelling to and from a smaller body further out in the system. So I'm asking why not assume an equally physics defying technology that's still far more efficient.0 -
On the comet issue.
Earths escape velocity is about 40,000 km/h
Rosetta comet is travelling at about 55,000km/h.
So taking off from earth requires less energy than catching up to a comet.
Once you land on earth you can shut down the engines an process water at your own pace. To process a comet you either have to keep pace with it, or bring it to a halt, both are much more energy intensive than landing on a planet.
Then theres the problem of finding comets, an interstellar voyage may use a lot of water, so you have to repeat the process many times, with many comets, which may also be scattered throughout the solar system. Then you have to melt and purify that water. All the while consuming resources,
Landing on a planet with, Atmosphere, Water, Magnetosphere, and Edible Life would seem to me the more logical option to me.0 -
Huge faulty assumptions here.
No it doesn't. The majority of the energy is used in escaping Earth.Tzar Chasm wrote: »On the comet issue.
Earths escape velocity is about 40,000 km/h
Rosetta comet is travelling at about 55,000km/h.
So taking off from earth requires less energy than catching up to a comet.
You need to get up to 40,000km/h to escape Earth's Gravity.
Once you do this you are already traveling at that speed, so you only need to add an additional 15,000km/h to your speed. And that's even easier since you don't have an atmosphere to worry about.
This is why rockets have a huge launch stage, but a small space stage.
Secondly, if the alien spaceship is coming from outside the solar system it's already traveling extremely quickly. so you don't require as much energy to match the speed of a comet.
And again, there would be plenty of places in their solar system or any number of systems between theirs and ours where they can get what they need. It would require far less energy to go to them.
You don't need to keep pace with the comet with your engines burning the entire time. Once you match the comet's speed and orbit you can shut down your engines follow along with it like you are parked next to it. You don't lose speed in space.Tzar Chasm wrote: »Once you land on earth you can shut down the engines an process water at your own pace. To process a comet you either have to keep pace with it, or bring it to a halt, both are much more energy intensive than landing on a planet.
And even then you can simply latch onto the surface. This is exactly what the Rosetta probe did.
You don't need to halt the comet either. I'm not sure why you think this is necessary or possible...
Then, landing on Earth and taking off again would require huge amounts of energy, especially now the ship is full of a huge amount of water.
And even then, there's other places in the solar system where water (probably) exists, but it takes far less energy to land and take off from, like Europa.
Why would this be a problem? They found Earth from their system no issue and determined that it had something they needed. We are able to find comets no problem now...Tzar Chasm wrote: »Then theres the problem of finding comets,
It takes far less energy to melt a kg of water than it does to lift that water to escape velocity. It's direct, simple math.Tzar Chasm wrote: »an interstellar voyage may use a lot of water, so you have to repeat the process many times, with many comets, which may also be scattered throughout the solar system. Then you have to melt and purify that water. All the while consuming resources,
Why would they need to purify comet water, but not Earth water?
Earth water would be full of the same amount of minerals if not more so than comet water. Plus it would also be infested with Earth life.
This assumes that Earth's atmosphere is breathable and survivable to aliens. And that they are capable of eating anything on Earth. Which is a huge leap.Tzar Chasm wrote: »Landing on a planet with, Atmosphere, Water, Magnetosphere, and Edible Life would seem to me the more logical option to me.0 -
Not exactly comparable though. There's no resistance in space and you can use slingshots. You wouldn't need to use nearly as much energy getting up to speed in space as you would need to break earth gravity.Tzar Chasm wrote: »On the comet issue.
Earths escape velocity is about 40,000 km/h
Rosetta comet is travelling at about 55,000km/h.
It requires no energy to keep pace with a comet, there's no resistance to fight, you just get up to speed and float along at that speed. You don't need to bring it to a halt either. the problem with earth is you then have to expend even more energy getting all that stuff off the planet. In space you just cruise off with minimal use of energy.Once you land on earth you can shut down the engines an process water at your own pace. To process a comet you either have to keep pace with it, or bring it to a halt, both are much more energy intensive than landing on a planet.
Comets tend to hang out in predictable places, I don't think they're the only source of water either, if I'm not mistaken there's plenty of water in the oort cloud too. Water is recyclable too. you don't use up water, it doesn't disappear when you use it, it passes through your body, so the majority of water can be reclaimed. there are also billions of tons of water floating around solar systems. Handy to capture because it's solid, you could effectively drag the ice along with you rather than making storage for it.Then theres the problem of finding comets, an interstellar voyage may use a lot of water, so you have to repeat the process many times, with many comets, which may also be scattered throughout the solar system. Then you have to melt and purify that water. All the while consuming resources,
The magnetosphere would be a huge advantage to being on a planet, but then if they haven't solved radiation protection they're not going to get very far in space. It's one of the major hurdles preventing us from prolonged space flight.Landing on a planet with, Atmosphere, Water, Magnetosphere, and Edible Life would seem to me the more logical option to me.
But other than that, if the planet hasn't almost identical properties to your home planet it's probably not going to be a pleasant place to live. the air may not be breathable, it may even be corrosive like on venus, the life may not be edible, if fundamental chemical process are even slightly differnt it could make everything on the planet toxic.0 -
Advertisement
-
@ King Mob. Snap.0
-
Pointing out the apperantly wrong assumptions in a purely fictive scenario... The effort displayed by people these days to be seen correct just reached a whole new level
Remember we are discussing a race capable of interstellar travel, meaning they travel at approx light speed anyways
If anyone can come up with a reason why such a race would have any trouble escaping earths atmosphere I'm all ears0 -
Again yo misrepresent points you can't address. Noone is saying that they would have trouble doing it. We are saying it would take energy they wouldnt need to spend if they went somewhere else.Pointing out the apperantly wrong assumptions in a purely fictive scenario... The effort displayed by people these days to be seen correct just reached a whole new level
Remember we are discussing a race capable of interstellar travel, meaning they travel at approx light speed anyways
If anyone can come up with a reason why such a race would have any trouble escaping earths atmosphere I'm all ears
Again why climb over a huge mountain to get to a shop when theres shops all stound with the same selection?0 -
Again yo misrepresent points you can't address. Noone is saying that they would have trouble doing it. We are saying it would take energy they wouldnt need to spend if they went somewhere else.
Again why climb over a huge mountain to get to a shop when theres shops all stound with the same selection?
What do you do when you are over the mountain and you forgot something ?
Or if you approach from the opposite side and noticed there is a good deal ?
Why could earth not be used as a kind of petrol station ? Used by travelling races who are travelling around
The using more energy point is moot .. As none of us know if that would be an issue for races capable of interstellar travel.0 -
This is true, but weisses is giving me flak for not assuming some magic technology that bypasses fundamental physics where traveling to and from Earth doesn't require any more energy than travelling to and from a smaller body further out in the system. So I'm asking why not assume an equally physics defying technology that's still far more efficient.
I am giving you no flak
You brought the magic interstellar travel into the discussionIf an alien race can master interstellar travel, they can probably melt ice.
If an alien race can master interstellar travel i don't see your point that for them its somehow easier to extract it from a comet then take it from earth
Using "logic" doesnt fly here
You are using science fiction to point out to someone he is incorrect and you are right0 -
I don't know what you mean here. What would they forget when they are sending out a spaceship on an interstellar voyage?What do you do when you are over the mountain and you forgot something ?
Also, this implies they were visiting Earth for a reason other than resources, which is our point, which you've been disagreeing with for some reason.
There isn't anything about Earth that would be a "good deal".Or if you approach from the opposite side and noticed there is a good deal ?
Also, it would require the same amount of energy to enter and leave the system no matter what direction you come from.
Because that's not how space travel works. You carry enough fuel to get you to a speed that gets you out of your system, then you use the rest of your fuel to slow down again when you arrive. Doing anything else would be inefficient. Stopping in Earth's system would be a huge waste of energy for no benefit.Why could earth not be used as a kind of petrol station ? Used by travelling races who are travelling around
And then, if we follow the logic that the aliens are incapable of discovering what is in a system from far away, it's even more of a waste to send a ship out to a place where it possibly can't refuel. This is doubly so if resource they need is rare and only available on some planets but not all.
And even then, if aliens did have to stop in the solar system for whatever reason, it is much less energy expensive to collect the resources in places like comets, asteroids and outer planets.
So Earth is not a good place for a petrol station.
Again you misrepresent. No one is saying it is an issue. No one is saying they would be incapable of doing it.The using more energy point is moot .. As none of us know if that would be an issue for races capable of interstellar travel.
Because, again, is costs several orders of magnitude less energy to take a kilogram of ice from a comet and melt it than it does to lift a kilogram of water from Earth into space.If an alien race can master interstellar travel i don't see your point that for them its somehow easier to extract it from a comet then take it from earth
This is before you factor in everything else. Same goes for all other smaller bodies in the solar system like asteroids and moons.
It is more efficient. Technology has no baring on this fact. It won't matter how you do it specifically, one thing will always take more energy than the other.
If you are going to suggest that you can make a machine so that doing both of these things is equally expensive energy wise, then congrats you've just broken the laws of thermodynamics and made a perpetual energy machine. This would negate the need to gather resources in the first place.0 -
I don't know what you mean here. What would they forget when they are sending out a spaceship on an interstellar voyage?
Also, this implies they were visiting Earth for a reason other than resources, which is our point, which you've been disagreeing with for some reason.
There isn't anything about Earth that would be a "good deal".
Also, it would require the same amount of energy to enter and leave the system no matter what direction you come from.
Because that's not how space travel works. You carry enough fuel to get you to a speed that gets you out of your system, then you use the rest of your fuel to slow down again when you arrive. Doing anything else would be inefficient. Stopping in Earth's system would be a huge waste of energy for no benefit.
And then, if we follow the logic that the aliens are incapable of discovering what is in a system from far away, it's even more of a waste to send a ship out to a place where it possibly can't refuel. This is doubly so if resource they need is rare and only available on some planets but not all.
And even then, if aliens did have to stop in the solar system for whatever reason, it is much less energy expensive to collect the resources in places like comets, asteroids and outer planets.
So Earth is not a good place for a petrol station.
Again you misrepresent. No one is saying it is an issue. No one is saying they would be incapable of doing it.
Because, again, is costs several orders of magnitude less energy to take a kilogram of ice from a comet and melt it than it does to lift a kilogram of water from Earth into space.
This is before you factor in everything else. Same goes for all other smaller bodies in the solar system like asteroids and moons.
It is more efficient. Technology has no baring on this fact. It won't matter how you do it specifically, one thing will always take more energy than the other.
If you are going to suggest that you can make a machine so that doing both of these things is equally expensive energy wise, then congrats you've just broken the laws of thermodynamics and made a perpetual energy machine. This would negate the need to gather resources in the first place.
Using a science fiction approach (as you did) stating one thing is more logical and efficient when it comes to how fictional alien races might travel is absurd
You seem to know how interstellar travel and use that to "proof" your point ...Because, again, is costs several orders of magnitude less energy to take a kilogram of ice from a comet and melt it than it does to lift a kilogram of water from Earth into space.
I ask again ... Why do you think our knowledge of energy and its efficiency is an issue for a race that is capable of interstellar travel ?0 -
I'm not using a science fiction approach, whatever that means. I'm using a basic knowledge of science.Using a science fiction approach (as you did) stating one thing is more logical and efficient when it comes to how fictional alien races might travel is absurd
You seem to know how interstellar travel and use that to "proof" your point ...
Because or knowledge about energy and efficiency is fairly solid in this regard. Nor is anything being discussed particularly complicated or unknown.I ask again ... Why do you think our knowledge of energy and its efficiency is an issue for a race that is capable of interstellar travel ?
If you want to throw physics out the window and just assume it is all magic, like you are suggesting, then you can't really say that the theory is grounded, or logical, or coherent. you can't then also say that it's obvious and logical that these aliens are there to gather resources like gold...
It takes energy to do work. It takes energy to lift something out of a gravity well. It takes more energy to lift something that is in a stronger gravity well.
If you are saying that aliens can work around this fairly simple concept, then they are in fact using a free energy machine.
And if they have a free energy machine, then they don't need resources and they probably wouldn't be worried about collecting gold or water...
Which part of this are you objecting to?0 -
You seem to be treating this as a belief and having the same reaction to having your beliefs challenged as any religious person would have.Pointing out the apperantly wrong assumptions in a purely fictive scenario... The effort displayed by people these days to be seen correct just reached a whole new level
The planet x theory was presented in this thread along with evidense, all King Mob and I have done is challenge the evidense with current scientific understanding and you're the second person to seem completely offended that people just won't accept the theory as valid.
The fact is a species capable of interstellar travel could be borderline god like. The task is so unsurmountable that it's going to take a level knowledge and technology that may simply be physically impossible. It's possible they have an energy source that makes gravity completely irelivant, but there are still practical considerations in the physical world.
But the thing about a species like that is they don't need anything. They wouldn't need any more energy, they could probably make water out of the basic elements floating in space, when a species reaches that level of technology they can probably twist the universe to their will. That makes them even less likely to want to have anything to do with humans. We have absolutely nothing they want, they've likely seen plenty more life forms just as advanced. We become just another planet in billions.
Of course this is in direct opposition to ancient aliens, in that theory the aliens replace our defunct god and make us important again. Someone powerful is out there watching over us. We'd rather be the victim of abusive aliens than a random unimportant rock.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Depends what you mean, things travel between star by accident (rogue planets), it's possible for us to get to the next star over in about 100 years if the entire planet were to dedicate themselves to the task. It's possible, just incredibly difficult. You'd want an extremely good reason to do it, have absolutely no choice but to leave, or made energy production extremely cost efficient.Is interstellar travel science fiction yes or no ?0 -
Again, I don't understand the question. Science fiction is a literary genre.Is interstellar travel science fiction yes or no ?
Interstellar travel is real and is happening with the Voyager probes as we speak. This form of interstellar travel still obeys the laws of physics and it was what I was referring to in my points.
Are you referring to faster-than-light travel?
Which costs more energy?
Lifting 1kg of water into space from Earth?
Or lifting 1kg of ice off a comet and melting it?0 -
You seem to be treating this as a belief and having the same reaction to having your beliefs challenged as any religious person would have.
How do I treat this as a belief ? you are not making sense
All I try to do is point out how ridiculous it is to point out someone is wrong in a purely fictional scenarioThe planet x theory was presented in this thread along with evidense, all King Mob and I have done is challenge the evidense with current scientific understanding and you're the second person to seem completely offended that people just won't accept the theory as valid.
I did not bring up up the interstellar scenario !If an alien race can master interstellar travel, they can probably melt ice.The fact is a species capable of interstellar travel could be borderline god like. The task is so unsurmountable that it's going to take a level knowledge and technology that may simply be physically impossible. It's possible they have an energy source that makes gravity completely irelivant, but there are still practical considerations in the physical world.
But the thing about a species like that is they don't need anything. They wouldn't need any more energy, they could probably make water out of the basic elements floating in space, when a species reaches that level of technology they can probably twist the universe to their will. That makes them even less likely to want to have anything to do with humans. We have absolutely nothing they want, they've likely seen plenty more life forms just as advanced. We become just another planet in billions.
Of course this is in direct opposition to ancient aliens, in that theory the aliens replace our defunct god and make us important again. Someone powerful is out there watching over us. We'd rather be the victim of abusive aliens than a random unimportant rock.
Thank you for agreeing that the amount of energy needed to extract water from earth probably isnt an issue
All we can do is assume ... No one knows the reasons if and why aliens would or would not visit earth ... Its all guessing
But somehow using human logic to disprove someones point as to why Aliens would visit earth doesn't fly0 -
Anything that has been pointed out as wrong is basic scientific understanding. IE: you thinking a space ship would need to expend energy to stay alongside a comet.How do I treat this as a belief ? you are not making sense
All I try to do is point out how ridiculous it is to point out someone is wrong in a purely fictional scenario
That sentence doesn't even have any relation to what is quoted, I wasn't talking about interstellar travel there either??I did not bring up up the interstellar scenario !
It is always an issue. It's may just be less of an issue, and that's on the understanding that these aliens have a power source that breaks all the laws of physics.Thank you for agreeing that the amount of energy needed to extract water from earth probably isnt an issue
True, but there's a lot of things we can rule out, they don't need our gold, they don't need our water, the only reason they could have for mining earth is out of spite. I think it's fair to assume any race that can make it here is a species that practices science or something similar, we have tremendous scientific value to these creatures and pretty much nothing else. Our resources are too limited for a species with those kind of power requirements.All we can do is assume ... No one knows the reasons if and why aliens would or would not visit earth ... Its all guessing
Logic is logic, it doesn't change by species.But somehow using human logic to disprove someones point as to why Aliens would visit earth doesn't fly0 -
I must apologise profusely to the group. I made a simple generalisation about alien visitations, which i believe plausible.
However i started to read that article and noped the fcuk out when they announced that we were a Binary solar system, with a second invisible sun, around which three other planets orbit, NO, sorry lad, thats bull****.
Aliens may well have visited us at some point in the past, this theory I do npt dismiss out of hand, if they did it was probably for their version of ' sh1ts and gigles '0 -
That's very possible. It's also very possible they're still here in some capacity observing us.Tzar Chasm wrote: »I must apologise profusely to the group. I made a simple generalisation about alien visitations, which i believe plausible.
However i started to read that article and noped the fcuk out when they announced that we were a Binary solar system, with a second invisible sun, around which three other planets orbit, NO, sorry lad, thats bull****.
Aliens may well have visited us at some point in the past, this theory I do npt dismiss out of hand, if they did it was probably for their version of ' sh1ts and gigles '
I had the same experience with the ancient alien theory, when I saw the first documentary I was convinced they had something. But the more you look into it the stranger the theories get and it becomes obvious there's way too much filling in of the gaps with pure fantastical speculation based on technologies that are barely a workable theory at this stage.
Now the ancient alien documentary has been turned into a series and they're just spit balling possibilities based on inaccurate information. It's gone completely down the rabbit hole.
The possibilities of the human imagination are limitless, we basically have a virtual version of the universe running inside our heads that can exist without any constraints. But the real universe does have real constraints and if you want to know how things in the real universe will turn out you have to calibrate your virtual universe with the real thing.0 -
I wish more people would play Kerbal Space Program.
It's easily the most fun way to understand things like how much energy you need to get off the earth, how little energy you need to accelerate in deep space and how fast things move when they are very far away from the sun compared to how quickly they move as they get closer.
If there was a mission to go to another star, collect water or materials and then come back, then there's no way that I'd waste my fuel going to an inner solar system and having a hard time leaving it. I'd decelerate and hang about its oort cloud, mine freely and fly back home.0 -
If you're looking for resources in space, a dense nebula might be the place to head. They'd have a bit of everything that could probably be attracted to a collector. If the advanced species can combine and split atoms (which they need to be able to do for power) they could possibly just collect Hydrogen and keep combining it to make the elements they need.
If they could make their ship big enough they could probably start using natural processes to make a contained ecosystem that doesn't need to be "refueled", at least not for a very, very long time, and the fuel would probably be something as simple as hydrogen again, if it's good enough for stars then it's probably good enough for a space civilization and there's no worry of it running out.0
Advertisement