Scientists Now Searching for "Alien Transit Systems"

It seems like civilian optics is using what the military and intelligence agencies were using 20+ years ago. Imagine what they're using now, and what we'll have available to us in 20+ years!

a reply to: pfishy they may have been planning to. But then they probably intercepted those billions of selfie photos and decided we are not worth helping at all.

a reply to: Zobel

You aren't too far off the mark, I'd imagine.

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Trouble is, optics are constrained by the laws of optics. Physics.

a reply to: Phage

I read an article a while back stating that if you could position an optical telescope at a 'perfect' position and distance from the Sun, you could use the limited gravitational lensing of our star to image streets on an exoplanet within 1400 ly of earth, if they exist.
Any thoughts?

a reply to: pfishy
Yes. I think it's nonsense.

Gravitational lensing is used to make very, very distant galaxies visible by "focusing" the light from them but, at the same time that light is greatly distorted.

Enough lensing from the Sun to make streets visible on a very distant planet? No.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Phage

I read an article a while back stating that if you could position an optical telescope at a 'perfect' position and distance from the Sun, you could use the limited gravitational lensing of our star to image streets on an exoplanet within 1400 ly of earth, if they exist.
Any thoughts?

that is a bit hyperbole. you could however see enough detail to see if a planet were inhabited if they had large agricultural areas or cities. still you'd need good computer algorythms and a big telescope. you could of course thoroughly analyse the atmosphere, oceans, and land and could see areas of contrast such as clouds, ice packs, oceans, forested or grass areas, deserts, and so forth. we can do a lot of that now with super-jupiters and regular scopes. the next gen scopes will do that (regularly) with super earths and earth analog planets. that without the gravity lens boost.

all you really need are a couple of pixels to tell a lot. you can do some of it with just one pixel images over time.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
that is a bit hyperbole. you could however see enough detail to see if a planet were inhabited if they had large agricultural areas or cities. still you'd need good computer algorythms and a big telescope. you could of course thoroughly analyse the atmosphere,

While the level of detail you describe would probably never be present; it is relatively easy to analyze the atmosphere of an exoplanet.

And, One doesn't need a super computer, or a "big telescope"...your typical laptop and a defraction grating, along with spectrometer software is all you need...oh...and a good amount of luck...gravity lensing isn't all that common...but, every time a planet transits it's parent, there is an improved probability that such an event will occur...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
that is a bit hyperbole. you could however see enough detail to see if a planet were inhabited if they had large agricultural areas or cities. still you'd need good computer algorythms and a big telescope. you could of course thoroughly analyse the atmosphere,

While the level of detail you describe would probably never be present; it is relatively easy to analyze the atmosphere of an exoplanet.

And, One doesn't need a super computer, or a "big telescope"...your typical laptop and a defraction grating, along with spectrometer software is all you need...oh...and a good amount of luck...gravity lensing isn't all that common...but, every time a planet transits it's parent, there is an improved probability that such an event will occur...

they are talking of the gravity focus about 550 to 1100 AU from the sun. It's spherical. once you have the ability to get a big scope there it is just a matter of aiming at some object of interest on the far side of the sun. but the tolerances for several factors like FOV are pretty tight and you'd have to change orbital position to look at more than one star system but if you did you magnification power would increase some absurd number like 53 million times or something like that.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
that is a bit hyperbole. you could however see enough detail to see if a planet were inhabited if they had large agricultural areas or cities. still you'd need good computer algorythms and a big telescope. you could of course thoroughly analyse the atmosphere,

While the level of detail you describe would probably never be present; it is relatively easy to analyze the atmosphere of an exoplanet.

And, One doesn't need a super computer, or a "big telescope"...your typical laptop and a defraction grating, along with spectrometer software is all you need...oh...and a good amount of luck...gravity lensing isn't all that common...but, every time a planet transits it's parent, there is an improved probability that such an event will occur...

they are talking of the gravity focus about 550 to 1100 AU from the sun. It's spherical. once you have the ability to get a big scope there it is just a matter of aiming at some object of interest on the far side of the sun. but the tolerances for several factors like FOV are pretty tight and you'd have to change orbital position to look at more than one star system but if you did you magnification power would increase some absurd number like 53 million times or something like that.

Oh...my way is easier...

no spacecraft
no large telescope
no massive computer systems...

just a small Earth based telescope (11 inch), a hex core i7, and the persistence of a robot...with this I can give you much of the same data...long before your spacecraft is even built...

The "gravity lens" I'm referring to is the one that is created by any massive object...like a planet.

Back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had this principal for creating technology. We called it "KISS"..."keep it simple stupid"...it seems so many have either never heard of this, or have forgotten.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
that is a bit hyperbole. you could however see enough detail to see if a planet were inhabited if they had large agricultural areas or cities. still you'd need good computer algorythms and a big telescope. you could of course thoroughly analyse the atmosphere,

While the level of detail you describe would probably never be present; it is relatively easy to analyze the atmosphere of an exoplanet.

And, One doesn't need a super computer, or a "big telescope"...your typical laptop and a defraction grating, along with spectrometer software is all you need...oh...and a good amount of luck...gravity lensing isn't all that common...but, every time a planet transits it's parent, there is an improved probability that such an event will occur...

they are talking of the gravity focus about 550 to 1100 AU from the sun. It's spherical. once you have the ability to get a big scope there it is just a matter of aiming at some object of interest on the far side of the sun. but the tolerances for several factors like FOV are pretty tight and you'd have to change orbital position to look at more than one star system but if you did you magnification power would increase some absurd number like 53 million times or something like that.

Oh...my way is easier...

no spacecraft
no large telescope
no massive computer systems...

just a small Earth based telescope (11 inch), a hex core i7, and the persistence of a robot...with this I can give you much of the same data...long before your spacecraft is even built...

The "gravity lens" I'm referring to is the one that is created by any massive object...like a planet.

Back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had this principal for creating technology. We called it "KISS"..."keep it simple stupid"...it seems so many have either never heard of this, or have forgotten.

there are additional reasons for wanting a telescope or radio receiver at the sol gravity focus. it would push telescopes beyond current technological limitations. and it has to be gotten there somehow. someone will develop propulsion tech to new limits in order to do so. and such a mission would leave us with a comms relay and amplifier that would facilitate future interstellar space probes. we would be able to characterize the interstellar medium as never before and maybe see objects in the Oort cloud. This might include frozen orphan planets or Y-0 type brown dwarfs.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Y-Otype dwarfs in the Oort Cloud? I thought that had been all but disproven. Or did I misunderstand you?

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Y-Otype dwarfs in the Oort Cloud? I thought that had been all but disproven. Or did I misunderstand you?

you may mean in conjunction with nemesis type theories. but you cannot disprove y-0 type brown dwarfs exist in the Oort cloud because they do. the Oort cloud is not just an alleged group of ice and dust and cometary bodies surrounding Sol. There is an "oort" cloud around virtually all stars and they co-mingle.

hence the two brown dwarfs (one of which is defintely a Y-0 subtype) that the WISE instrument found about 7 light years from here are in the/an Oort cloud. because there is no associated regular star which they orbit they are on thier own out in interstellar space between stars and in the boundaries of the "oort" Cloud.

additionally there are so called rogue terrestrials, super earths, mini-neptunes and even jupiter class planets in the void between stars which again is in the region defined as the extended Oort cloud.

Several such rogues have been spotted but the models of planet formation suggest nearly every star that forms planet boots a few into the interstellar void or else eats them as the gas giants migrate around.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pfishy
Yes. I think it's nonsense.

Gravitational lensing is used to make very, very distant galaxies visible by "focusing" the light from them but, at the same time that light is greatly distorted.

Enough lensing from the Sun to make streets visible on a very distant planet? No.

It's worth it to work out the technical details. the sol gravity focus provides 52,000,000X magnification.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Ok, are these just passing through the cloud?
And I wasn't necessarily referring to the Nemesis theory. I just thought these had only been seen as transient objects passing through, not actually in orbit of Sol.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Ok, are these just passing through the cloud?
And I wasn't necessarily referring to the Nemesis theory. I just thought these had only been seen as transient objects passing through, not actually in orbit of Sol.

They are not in orbit around sol. but their habitation is inside the Oort cloud. they are orbiting the galactic center or in independent trajectories that happen to be in the galactic gravity well influence. But they (with some exceptions) are not travelling any faster than other stellar objects and thus their motion away or towards sol may take millions of years to make a real difference in their locations. any such objects should therefore be treated as if they are in fixed positions in our neighborhood of stars.

Your idea of the Oort cloud may be out of date. the Oort cloud is now believed to not be unique to the near interstellar medium to sol but a consequence of star formation everywhere. thus an Oort cloud is around the majority of stars and where stars are relatively bunched together their Oort clouds co-mingle. thus many if not most orphan planets are in an Oort cloud somewhere. It is now known that many if not most Planet forming processes result in ejected planets and or consumed planets. thus there are billions of orphan planets in the interstellar gaps. additionally; there are likely some brown dwarfs formed from a type of interstellar accretion process the same way red dwarfs form from regular nebular collapse but with even less material than is available to red dwarf forming systems.


if we are really really lucky perhaps some rogue planets will be between us and the nearest stars. a frozen oasis between here and Alpha proxima. a bus stop or stage coach station.

most rogue planets of terrestrial type may indeed be dead; but planets of terrestrial size or above may not be completely dead. Isotopes of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium are responsible along with residual heat and a little bit from Luna induced tidal flexing are responsible for keeping our core molten, the dynamo going and plate tectonics and vulcanism extant. Some planets that were flung into the void thus may have the same thing going even if the surface and atmosphere are frozen. some planets allotment of those radioactive elements may be the same or more than ours. And brown dwarfs are hot, warm or in rare cases "room temperature." So brown dwarfs would make a good way station too. some will have their own planets as the is the case with the two WISE objects recently found one is smaller and orbits the other. probably smaller planets or planetismals are there too but cannot be detected yet.

a room temperature brown dwarf is hard to detect so there may be more out there that we just haven't spotted. they could even lurk in the data from current or past instruments just not processed yet. but such dwarfs are sometimes comfy. you could float on the atmosphere much like you can in the Venusian atmosphere due to it's density relative to a pressure vessel such as you'd have with an inhabited space ship. it would be "cloud city" situation.

Y-0 type brown dwarf 7.2 LY away.

science.slashdot.org...

(may be a planet)

www.solstation.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.universetoday.com...

physicsworld.com...

they are more common than stars:

www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...

common result of supernovae:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

possible super earth rogue near solar system:

www.usatoday.com...

imagine if we discovered there was one of these on average every half a light year between here and Alpha Centauri?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I understand that our Oort Cloud is not a unique structure. Just as proto-planetary discs are common around young stars and exoplanets abound, so must equivalent Kuiper belts and Oort clouds. What I was trying to determine is if you were saying that the particular brown dwarfs we are discussing are present in Sol's Oort Cloud. If they are just a transient object that happens to be there now, I completely get what you are saying. And I'm aware that the current estimates of our own Oort Cloud put it's outside limits as far as 1.2 to 1.5 ly from Sol. So there's plenty of room for passing objects to temporarily inhabit space within it. But is there any evidence that there any that permanently inhabit it?

possible super earth rogue near solar system:

www.usatoday.com...

imagine if we discovered there was one of these on average every half a light year between here and Alpha Centauri?

Ok, someone has to say it...
NUBIRU

But anyway, thanks for the links. I definitely hadn't seen the one about possible water ice clouds in the brown dwarf.