Are we being attcked by Aliens, and the public don't know about it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I probably have. Not in those exact words and I don't recall and exact instance, but I almost certainly have used it.
Do you have a problem with it?

And its not so much an argument as an observation.

The little problem I have with it is simply that when someone makes a statement, even in the science forum, everybody, you included but mostly you, you insist on them giving evidence proving it.
Now it doesn't matter?
Only when it suits you, I presume...

Originally posted by pawnpaw
Did I say I believed they exist at all?

You certainly said you thought it a possibility.

I started a post about info on the internet, and I wondered what the rest of you thought about it,
Yet you seem remarkably unhappy now that you have heard what the rest of us think about it.

I wasn't asking for some quirky remarks coming from someone who usually thinks he's a knowitall.
Surely you did expect them even if you didn't specifically ask for them. But I don't think my answers were 'quirky' nor do I usually think I am a knowitall.

Please don't assume things you like to use in attacks on other posters.
I made no attack whatsoever. I asked you a rational set of questions and asked for your opinion. Why did you think it was an attack?

Originally posted by pawnpaw
The little problem I have with it is simply that when someone makes a statement, even in the science forum, everybody, you included but mostly you, you insist on them giving evidence proving it.

If someone claims something is a fact and wants me to believe it too, then yes, I ask for evidence or proof - especially if the claim is extraordinary.

Now it doesn't matter?
I did not demand that you accept what I said as fact, I just gave an opinion (which you had asked for).

Originally posted by twhitehead
You certainly said you thought it a possibility.

[b]I started a post about info on the internet, and I wondered what the rest of you thought about it,
Yet you seem remarkably unhappy now that you have heard what the rest of us think about it.

I wasn't asking for some quirky remarks coming from someone who usually thinks he's a knowitall.[/b ...[text shortened]... you a rational set of questions and asked for your opinion. Why did you think it was an attack?

And you certainly said that I believed it.
Wrong.
Are you the "rest", so you do believe you are representing most of the serious posters.
Of course I am unhappy when you state you are the "rest".
Unfortunately you do come over as a knowitall. Doesn't matter what you think of yourself. It's all in your answers. That's the only way we can assess you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Or just put out the sun, that would do us in pretty quickly.

My scenario doesn't require the invention of new physics.

It's simple, effective, quick, and effectively unstoppable.

Why do complicated and unreliable, when you can do simple and reliable instead?

Any more complex or less reliable strategy relies on the attacking space faring civilisation to
be made up of complete and total morons.

Originally posted by pawnpaw
Have you any reason why you think they will do the obvious?
Maybe it's just a frontrunner of something that will follow.
It all depends on what "they" are aiming to do in the long run.

The laws of physics tell us that to travel through space requires using some kind of rocket.

Any space craft carrying equipment sufficient to mess with our atmosphere [for no good reason]
in a significant fashion is going to weigh at least 1 ton. [more probably hundreds of thousands]
Such a space craft will require fuel of tens or hundreds of tons [more likely millions] to get anywhere
close to the speed of light.

Any such rocket would be visible to the naked eye for months before arrival, and to telescopes
and satellites for much longer than that.

As no such rockets have been seen, I can be almost completely certain* that aliens are not visiting Earth.
Let alone attacking us.

Furthermore, there are no plausible scenarios in which aliens might want to attack us where the goal is
not to simply wipe us out.

Which brings me back to announcing their existence via a relativity bomb.


*Beyond any reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by pawnpaw
And you certainly said that I believed it.

Actually, no, I did not.

Are you the "rest",
I am one of them, yes.

so you do believe you are representing most of the serious posters.
No. I am representing only myself. If you want us all to have a communal discussion and then choose a leader to present our findings to you rather than posting individually then I am afraid you are in the wrong place.

Of course I am unhappy when you state you are the "rest".
I stated no such thing.

Unfortunately you do come over as a knowitall.
But that is not what you said. You said I thought I was a knowitall.

Doesn't matter what you think of yourself.
Then don't talk about what I think of myself.

That's the only way we can assess you.
Feel free to assess me any way you like. Just don't think you can read my mind as you obviously can't.

I also recommend you calm down and try to read what I actually write. So far nearly everything you have said about what I posted (or thought) is untrue. You are clearly upset about my initial response and not thinking clearly. What did you expect? This is, after all, the science forum not spirituality or debates.

Originally posted by pawnpaw
And you certainly said that I believed it.
Wrong.
Are you the "rest", so you do believe you are representing most of the serious posters.
Of course I am unhappy when you state you are the "rest".
Unfortunately you do come over as a knowitall. Doesn't matter what you think of yourself. It's all in your answers. That's the only way we can assess you.

You are doing the equivalent of asking "is the world really [roughly] spherical? or is it actually flat?
because I just saw a youtube video where someone claimed it was flat, and they seemed really convincing"

It's not acting like a know-it-all to be able to dismiss such claims out of hand, it's simply a product of not being
a know nothing. It's both tragic and absurd that in this day and age significant numbers of people do not have the
knowledge and/or mental tool-kit to not get taken in by such nonsense. But it's not a sign of either elitism or
know-it-all-ism to know enough about science and/or critical thinking to be able to dismiss such claims.

My recommendation is that if you want to understand why it is that it's so ludicrously improbable that aliens
are attacking us by messing with the weather, is that you start by having a good long read of this website
on the science of space travel written as a source for science fiction writers who care about getting the details right.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

It's a treasure trove of good scientific thinking and interesting facts in an easy to understand format.

They don't get everything absolutely right, [nobody does] but they get it right enough, and they regularly update
with corrections when/if they do make an error.

You might also like to have a look at some of the essays on Star Destroyer.net including this one, on how to spot
pseudoscience.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/

Originally posted by googlefudge
My scenario doesn't require the invention of new physics.

It's simple, effective, quick, and effectively unstoppable..

Your strategy does require that their goal be to eliminate us and to not really care about the environment.
In my opinion real space faring aliens probably wouldn't care too much about us militarily but might be interested in studying the the environment (biology in particular including us).
If we discover life on Mars our first thought wouldn't be 'lets nuke them'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The laws of physics tell us that to travel through space requires using some kind of rocket.

Any space craft carrying equipment sufficient to mess with our atmosphere [for no good reason]
in a significant fashion is going to weigh at least 1 ton. [more probably hundreds of thousands]
Such a space craft will require fuel of tens or hundreds of tons ...[text shortened]... me back to announcing their existence via a relativity bomb.


*Beyond any reasonable doubt.

I have come to realise that you have quite an extensive knowledge on the scientific side of these things. I appreciate that, and also the fact that I do not have that.
But I was hoping that you, and some other poster with the same knowledge, would latch onto the Vortex issue, which I beleive also happened in over Norway some years ago.
It's all in the video.
What do you think of that phenomenon, does it really happen, is that also just a figment of someone's imagination, or what?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Any space craft carrying equipment sufficient to mess with our atmosphere [for no good reason]
in a significant fashion is going to weigh at least 1 ton.

Assuming they brought it with them. I am fairly sure that we will soon posses sufficient technology to create robots that can travel to distant planets and then make what machinery they require once there. In our case they could simply steal most of the materials off humans.

Such a space craft will require fuel of tens or hundreds of tons [more likely millions] to get anywhere
close to the speed of light.
It is the slowing down that we would see (after the speeding up fuel is exhausted). Also, is there any need to travel at near light speed?

I think you are also over estimating our current sky surveys. We often don't spot comets or asteroids until they are quite close. I don't think we would see an incoming spacecraft months before arrival. Maybe weeks, maybe not at all depending on what radiation it is emitting and how it plans to slow down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Assuming they brought it with them. I am fairly sure that we will soon posses sufficient technology to create robots that can travel to distant planets and then make what machinery they require once there. In our case they could simply steal most of the materials off humans.

[b]Such a space craft will require fuel of tens or hundreds of tons [more like ...[text shortened]... eeks, maybe not at all depending on what radiation it is emitting and how it plans to slow down.

Either you are accelerating really really really slowly... In which case you are a
radio/microwave source for years.

Or you set off all the nuclear bomb detection satellites in Earth orbit.

Being fuel efficient means having a very high exhaust velocity.

Which means any efficient drive system is pumping out high energy radiation.

A powerful drive system that allows accelerations greater than 0.1g is doing so at nuclear bomb
per second energy levels.

Even a moderately powerful starship could have a drive energy output equivalent to Earth's entire
power consumption.

And even if you use a really tiny space craft, that then builds whatever they want at the destination,
then you still have to then move the stuff you just built.

I think you are also over estimating our current sky surveys. We often don't spot comets or asteroids until they are quite close

Comets and asteroids are blacker than coal lumps of cold rock and ice [until they get close to the sun]
and even then, the ones we struggle to find are the small ones.

A spacecraft, with an on-board nuclear reactor and fully powered up nuclear/AM drive system is a freaking
lighthouse pumping out radiation in everything from radio waves to gamma rays.

We have setup's that do automated sky surveys in a couple of hours that could pick these things out from
the next star system over.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Either you are accelerating really really really slowly... In which case you are a radio/microwave source for years.

I assume we are talking deceleration here? What deceleration is required? Can't a 1 ton spaceship use aero-braking? What about using the opposite of slingshot orbits to slow down?

Or you set off all the nuclear bomb detection satellites in Earth orbit.
Is this on entry? Would the Mars rovers entry to Mars have set off any such detectors there?

Being fuel efficient means having a very high exhaust velocity.
And a highly directional one too. Not necessarily pointed directly at us.

Which means any efficient drive system is pumping out high energy radiation.
Or high velocity particles.

And even if you use a really tiny space craft, that then builds whatever they want at the destination,
then you still have to then move the stuff you just built.
Why move it? Why not just build it on earth and keep it there?

A spacecraft, with an on-board nuclear reactor and fully powered up nuclear/AM drive system is a freaking
lighthouse pumping out radiation in everything from radio waves to gamma rays.
I am fairly sure that we only ever spot our own spacecraft when we really look for them. In fact I rather doubt we can even image the voyager craft at all.

We have setup's that do automated sky surveys in a couple of hours that could pick these things out from
the next star system over.
I don't believe you. How much radiation does one of Plutos moons give off and how would it compare with a spacecraft with a small nuclear reactor on board? Keep in mind that some of Plutos moons were only very recently discovered - and not by sky surveys.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I assume we are talking deceleration here? What deceleration is required? Can't a 1 ton spaceship use aero-braking? What about using the opposite of slingshot orbits to slow down?

[b]Or you set off all the nuclear bomb detection satellites in Earth orbit.
Is this on entry? Would the Mars rovers entry to Mars have set off any such detectors there? ...[text shortened]... p in mind that some of Plutos moons were only very recently discovered - and not by sky surveys.[/b]

I assume we are talking deceleration here? What deceleration is required? Can't a 1 ton spaceship use aero-braking? What about using the opposite of slingshot orbits to slow down?

Acceleration vs Deceleration is just a matter of picking your reference frame.
I tend to ubiquitously use acceleration for all changes to velocity.

And no, the spacecraft cannot use [just] aero-breaking because it's coming in from interstellar space.
If nothing else the velocity gain from the Sun's gravity well is going to have this thing booking at 70~80km/s
If you add on any kind of serious velocity for interstellar travel, and you are talking about hundreds, if not thousands
of km/s. It's got to slow down way before reaching Earth orbit.

Is this on entry? Would the Mars rovers entry to Mars have set off any such detectors there?

No this is performing the deceleration burn from outside the solar system all the way to the Earth.

And a highly directional one too. Not necessarily pointed directly at us.

It's pointed at us if they are coming to Earth.

Otherwise they are gaining lateral velocity and they go away some-place else.

Or high velocity particles.

Same thing. High energy radiation is made of high velocity particles of one kind or another.

Comets that fly past the Sun can get up to 600+km/s due to gravitational acceleration at which point the solar
wind velocity is already in the 'soft radiation' category.
Efficient drive systems whack particles out in the tens or hundreds of thousands of km/s range.

Why move it? Why not just build it on earth and keep it there?

Because these techno-monkeys Reveal Hidden Content keep messing with it.

Earth is a lousy place to try to build stuff if you are an alien.

Most of the really fun elements that are particularly useful have sunk to the Earth's core where they are
really hard to get at. It has weather and biology on it that can mess with your robots/nanites that you
are using for manufacturing. It's got a big gravitational field that makes getting back off hard.
And a technology using civilisation on it that might discover your stuff and mess with it.

Whereas, asteroids have very little gravity, lots of solar energy, easy to access all the useful elements, and
no troublesome weather or biology to get in the way.

You can guarantee pretty much finding asteroids and comets and know what they are made of which
makes planning your mission a lot easier than if you try to land direct on a messy habitable planet
like the Earth.

I am fairly sure that we only ever spot our own spacecraft when we really look for them. In fact I rather doubt we can even image the voyager craft at all.

Who needs to image it? I can see the light from a light house from a long way off, and know it's there
without ever imaging it.

And we can spot the couple of Watts of power from voyager in under 1 second.

Seriously, go read the Atomic Rockets site, particularly the parts about stealth in space.

I don't believe you. How much radiation does one of Plutos moons give off and how would it compare with a spacecraft with a small nuclear reactor on board? Keep in mind that some of Plutos moons were only very recently discovered - and not by sky surveys

We've already been through this when we talked about Pluto a few months back.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/say-we-find-extraterrestrial-life-how-to-prove-it.164762

The problem with spotting small dim objects near larger bright ones from a very long way away is that they
merge into one. You lose the smaller objects in the glare of the larger one.

We are not talking about spotting dim moons reflecting a small about of faint sunlight.

We are talking about blazing bright nuclear drive systems and warm IR glowing spacecraft and drive plumes.

It's the difference between spotting a star and a planet.

From that thread

And when you say 'we wouldn't have spotted surface lights' on Pluto [or it's moons] that really depends
on how many we are talking about.

A city with [say] 2 MW visible light and 10 MW IR [just from the lightbulbs'] would absolutely be visible.
That's before we add in the ~20+GW thermal from the nuclear power plants powering and heating the city.

Solar radiation at the distance of Pluto is ~1.55W/m2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Pluto's radius 1,184,000m
Cross sectional area 7,439,000m2
Overestimate of maximum reflected light energy from Pluto assuming 100% reflectivity 11.5 MW
more realistically we are talking about ~1~2MW total reflected power.

In other words the thermal output from a single commercial nuclear reactor is 100 to 10,000 times
the brightness of Pluto, let alone the much tinier moons.

And not only that, the frequencies at which that energy is output are different.

Originally posted by pawnpaw
I have come to realise that you have quite an extensive knowledge on the scientific side of these things. I appreciate that, and also the fact that I do not have that.
But I was hoping that you, and some other poster with the same knowledge, would latch onto the Vortex issue, which I beleive also happened in over Norway some years ago.
It's all in the vide ...[text shortened]... henomenon, does it really happen, is that also just a figment of someone's imagination, or what?

You are unlikely to find anyone sensible who will 'latch on to the vortex issue' because
most people who are sensible have long ago learned not to click on crazy conspiracy
nut youtube links. [I'm not saying that you are crazy, the person who posted the video
on the other hand...] Unless they are intending to simply mock the video for amusement.
Because it's frankly a whole lot of work to properly debunk this kind of nonsense.

I mean, just dealing with the 'is it aliens' part of your story, I'm dredging back up thermodynamics
work/sites and luminosity calculations and such. And this is something that is right in my wheel house.
I'm not any sort of meteorologist and so answering questions about whether phenomena where
I don't just make stuff up would require lot's of [hours or days at a bare minimum] research
into these kinds of phenomena. And even then all I would be doing is determining what the expert
consensus was on the topic [if such exists] rather then being able to determine what is going on
myself. And nonsense stories like this are spammed all over the net, there are millions of them.
I/we do not have the time to devote to properly debunking all of them even if we wanted to do so.
People post deliberate lies and distortions on youtube, even before you factor in people
failing to understand things and making honest mistakes. And more importantly, real scientists do
not publish their findings in youtube videos.

Now if you find a genuine science publication talking about the phenomena and post that, you might
well get some people checking it out and discussing it.

But if all you have are youtube vids from a conspiracy nut...

I mean it's not as if vortices are uncommon in nature... You see them everywhere.

If you have two air masses flowing past each other you will almost certainly get vortices
between them.


EDIT: OK I watched the first 41 seconds.

The image on the screen at 41 seconds is a picture of a spinning rocket booster from Norway from 2009.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/09/awesomely-bizarre-light-show-freaks-out-norway/

And has nothing to do with aliens, or wormholes, or whatever other carp this video is peddling.

Whoever is posting this is evidently and demonstrably dishonest if they are claiming any of this as evidence
of aliens.