alien satellite/probe article

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 1questioner

 

I really meant to say that we cannot see any moon with the exact orbital mechanics of our moon. That means both a near perfect circular orbit and a geo-synchronous rotation.

Oh? First., "geo-synchronous rotation" is not the phrase you wish, when describing our Moon. Just "synchronous"....putting the modifier "geo" in front means something else....well, it could be argued as 'correct' in a way (since "geo" refers to Earth) - - but, it is imprecise and causes confusion.

Synchronous Rotation

Compared to:
Geosynchronous Orbit

.......is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period that matches the Earth's sidereal rotation period.

Now. Actually, our Moon's orbit is not nearly perfectly circular....depends on how you define "nearly", I suppose:

Orbit of the Moon

Distance at perigee ~362600 km (356400-370400 km)
Distance at apogee ~405400 km (404000-406700 km)

That's a variation in the ellipse of over 40,000 kilometers. or, roughly 10% off of circular.


Finally, there is a list of other tidally locked bodies in the Solar System:
List of known tidally locked bodies

Randomly choosing from the above list, let's look at Europa (Actually, not random'...I like Europa because it was featured in the Arthur C. Clarke sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey". The book, and film "2010").

From the Wii source, regarding Europa:

Europa orbits Jupiter in just over three and a half days, with an orbital radius of about 670,900 km. With an eccentricity of only 0.009, the orbit itself is nearly circular.

"nearly circular"......and, only 9 one-thousandths eccentricity. Compared to our Moon's roughly 10%.

I appreciate your response, but you will never convince me that it was a collision with Earth that caused our moon to be captured in our orbit. That is only a theory and I've not seen or heard any compelling evidence to convince me it is true. And, by your response, I probably will never convince you that the collision theory is seriously flawed. Fair enough... Time and science move on and hopefully one of these days we will all know the truth.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The fact is, the un-stated assumption which underlies many skeptics' reasoning ("UFO's can't possibly be ET spacecraft") is gradually becoming intellectually indefensible....

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess that is true.

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The fact is, the un-stated assumption which underlies many skeptics' reasoning ("UFO's can't possibly be ET spacecraft") is gradually becoming intellectually indefensible....

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess that is true.

Hahaha. Are you being sarcastic?! ('')

Honestly, all I mean is that there are so many ways around the limitations imposed by the speed-of-light barrier that the skeptic who bases his thinking on "the distances are too far" is just not on very firm ground anymore.

Why? I'm not even referring to speculative ways around the light-barrier problem, like wormholes or FTL travel, but instead to things based on physics as we already know it... like slow and gradual colonization of surrounding solar systems at a speed much less than c ... or the fact that whatever's coming (or is here!) may be artificial intelligence that can be put in "sleep mode" for a thousand years, or can self-replicate... or (one possibility the authors of the 'Alien City Lights' paper mentioned) a planet flung from its star, with prior-evolved intelligent life using means other than that star's heat as energy, and then later being captured in a highly elliptical orbit by our sun....

I realize there are circles of people in research and academia who discuss such topics daily, so in that sense it's nothing new. However, these two papers are not just implicitly acknowledging such possibilities, but are spelling them out completely, as central parts of their theses. And I don't believe we've seen such clear, blatant and widely-publicized reminders by highly-credentialed scientists that sound so much like this: "Yoohoo, people, wake up! They really COULD be here by now."

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The fact is, the un-stated assumption which underlies many skeptics' reasoning ("UFO's can't possibly be ET spacecraft") is gradually becoming intellectually indefensible....

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess that is true.

Hahaha. Are you being sarcastic?! ('

')

Honestly, all I mean is that there are so many ways around the limitations imposed by the speed-of-light barrier that the skeptic who bases his thinking on "the distances are too far" is just not on very firm ground anymore.

Why? I'm not even referring to speculative ways around the light-barrier problem, like wormholes or FTL travel, but instead to things based on physics as we already know it... like slow and gradual colonization of surrounding solar systems at a speed much less than c ... or the fact that whatever's coming (or is here!) may be artificial intelligence that can be put in "sleep mode" for a thousand years, or can self-replicate... or (one possibility the authors of the 'Alien City Lights' paper mentioned) a planet flung from its star, with prior-evolved intelligent life using means other than that star's heat as energy, and then later being captured in a highly elliptical orbit by our sun....

I realize there are circles of people in research and academia who discuss such topics daily, so in that sense it's nothing new. However, these two papers are not just implicitly acknowledging such possibilities, but are spelling them out completely, as central parts of their theses. And I don't believe we've seen such clear, blatant and widely-publicized reminders by highly-credentialed scientists that sound so much like this: "Yoohoo, people, wake up! They really COULD be here by now."

edit on 10-11-2011 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)

It is very strange. Academics choose what they research and study to publish in a paper. You would think somebody would tell them: "hey, better find something else to study because this might hurt your career if people start getting the wrong idea about you" It's a little bit like studying flatulence or something - you just wouldn't want that on your resume normally.

Originally posted by cloudyday
It is very strange. Academics choose what they research and study to publish in a paper. You would think somebody would tell them: "hey, better find something else to study because this might hurt your career if people start getting the wrong idea about you" It's a little bit like studying flatulence or something - you just wouldn't want that on your resume normally.

I see it a little differently. These scientists are leaders in their fields (Harvard, Princeton, Penn), so IMO these types of papers slowly and incrementally add bits of legitimacy to the idea that ET could be here. These men are, in a way, the very people who actually define what is and isn't an acceptable assumption / hypothesis / research topic. So hopefully other scientists will follow. (I don't mean with respect to UFO's -- gosh no, you couldn't pay them to use that acronym in a published paper!) But with more well-publicized articles like these, the public will become more and more comfortable with the idea that legit science actually acknowledges the possibility of an alien presence VERY close to home.

So, personally, I see it as definite progress!