| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2007 21:20:04
From: I.N. Galidakis
Subject: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
This is obviously of only theoretical personal interest:
Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced carnal
species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to always
stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as possible
to us. Let's assume that this assumption (staying hidden from human sight and as
close to us) serves some unknown purpose of its evilness against humans.
Something like the Predators, for example.
"social" means in order to survive as species it needs some sort of colony
(which obviously generates some "noise" as a byproduct of its existence), like
we do.
"very scientifically advanced" means advanced enough from our standpoint, but no
nonsense science, like cloaking Romulan/Klingon devices or Predator
"light-bending" thingies.
"carnal species" means the corresponding life form is of similar makeup to us,
subject to gravity, death, aging, etc.
"Human sight" means any observation means, such as radio and optical equipment,
spectrographs and in general any scientific device we use today.
I would be interested in knowing your opinions about optimal locations where
this species could be located.
The allowed range is the entire solar system (Sedna, Eris?), so please take
careful account of the dynamics of the entire system before answering. Locations
which eventually turn and face Earth are not acceptable, as they are surveyable
by human instruments.
In a sense this is a two-objective optimization problem, for objectives:
"Hidden" and "Close".
Many thanks in advance,
--
I.N. Galidakis
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 19:32:47
From: Stupot
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
I.N. Galidakis wrote:
> This is obviously of only theoretical personal interest:
>
> Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced carnal
> species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to always
> stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as possible
> to us. Let's assume that this assumption (staying hidden from human sight and as
> close to us) serves some unknown purpose of its evilness against humans.
> Something like the Predators, for example.
>
> "social" means in order to survive as species it needs some sort of colony
> (which obviously generates some "noise" as a byproduct of its existence), like
> we do.
>
> "very scientifically advanced" means advanced enough from our standpoint, but no
> nonsense science, like cloaking Romulan/Klingon devices or Predator
> "light-bending" thingies.
>
> "carnal species" means the corresponding life form is of similar makeup to us,
> subject to gravity, death, aging, etc.
>
> "Human sight" means any observation means, such as radio and optical equipment,
> spectrographs and in general any scientific device we use today.
>
> I would be interested in knowing your opinions about optimal locations where
> this species could be located.
>
> The allowed range is the entire solar system (Sedna, Eris?), so please take
> careful account of the dynamics of the entire system before answering. Locations
> which eventually turn and face Earth are not acceptable, as they are surveyable
> by human instruments.
>
> In a sense this is a two-objective optimization problem, for objectives:
> "Hidden" and "Close".
>
> Many thanks in advance,
New Zealand.
--
Stupot http://insignity.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 15:56:01
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:20:04 +0300, "I.N. Galidakis"
<morpheus@olympus.mons > wrote:
>The allowed range is the entire solar system (Sedna, Eris?), so please take
>careful account of the dynamics of the entire system before answering. Locations
>which eventually turn and face Earth are not acceptable, as they are surveyable
>by human instruments.
I'd think that many moons of outer planets would work nicely. We can't
see these with sufficient detail from Earth to determine if somebody is
living on them. Most of what we know comes from the occasional space
probe passing by. Since you posit a high degree of technical
sophistication, I'm sure this hidden species could trivially alter the
data being sent back as required to keep themselves invisible.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:03:06
From: SkySea
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
Opposite side of the Sun, same obit as Earth.
I'm fairly certain this was a Sci-Fi topic at least once, although I
recall we were supposedly mutually unaware of each other.
>"I.N. Galidakis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
>This is obviously of only theoretical personal interest:
>
>Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced carnal
>species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to always
>stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as possible
>to us. Let's assume that this assumption (staying hidden from human sight and as
>close to us) serves some unknown purpose of its evilness against humans.
>Something like the Predators, for example.
...
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:15:55
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
On 2007-09-22, SkySea <SkySea@aolREMOVE.com > wrote:
>>"I.N. Galidakis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
>>
>>Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced carnal
>>species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to always
>>stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as possible
>
> Opposite side of the Sun, same obit as Earth.
Impossible - there is already Cruithne orbiting through that region
of space in addition to Earth. If there was anything there Cruithne
would not be able to both catch up with and run away from the Earth
in the manner it does. You may be able to manage one or the other,
but without having done any simulations I suspect that even that
would be unstable.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 03:33:36
From: josephus
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
SkySea wrote:
> Opposite side of the Sun, same obit as Earth.
>
> I'm fairly certain this was a Sci-Fi topic at least once, although I
> recall we were supposedly mutually unaware of each other.
>
>
>>"I.N. Galidakis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
>>This is obviously of only theoretical personal interest:
>>
>>Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced carnal
>>species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to always
>>stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as possible
>>to us. Let's assume that this assumption (staying hidden from human sight and as
>>close to us) serves some unknown purpose of its evilness against humans.
>>Something like the Predators, for example.
>
> ...
> =============
> - Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
> 122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
because of dynamics the two planets will have different velocities at
different times of the year. perigee is fast. apogee is slow. so at
those time the planet would peek out and be seen.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:16:09
From: ike
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
Hasn't that idea been beaten to death? What if they want a large pizza from
Tonies
or some adult female human tail on a Saturday night? Do ya think they are
watching
all the porn channels by now? I suppose Elvis from '56 is boring along with
Gilligans Island.
That Capt. Kirk probably really got 'em going and that green blooded,
pointed eared Fuck! "Goddamn it
Spock, I'm a doctor, not computer!!"
my guess is Saturn...they love those rings.
> Assume a perfectly malevolent, social and very scientifically advanced
> carnal
> species coexisting with us in the Solar system, but whose intent is to
> always
> stay absolutely hidden from human sight, 24/24, 365/365 and as close as
> possible
> to us. Let's assume that this assumption (staying hidden from human sight
> and as
> close to us) serves some unknown purpose of its evilness against humans.
> Something like the Predators, for example.
>
> "social" means in order to survive as species it needs some sort of colony
> (which obviously generates some "noise" as a byproduct of its existence),
> like
> we do.
>
> "very scientifically advanced" means advanced enough from our standpoint,
> but no
> nonsense science, like cloaking Romulan/Klingon devices or Predator
> "light-bending" thingies.
>
> "carnal species" means the corresponding life form is of similar makeup to
> us,
> subject to gravity, death, aging, etc.
>
> "Human sight" means any observation means, such as radio and optical
> equipment,
> spectrographs and in general any scientific device we use today.
>
> I would be interested in knowing your opinions about optimal locations
> where
> this species could be located.
>
> The allowed range is the entire solar system (Sedna, Eris?), so please
> take
> careful account of the dynamics of the entire system before answering.
> Locations
> which eventually turn and face Earth are not acceptable, as they are
> surveyable
> by human instruments.
>
> In a sense this is a two-objective optimization problem, for objectives:
> "Hidden" and "Close".
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> --
> I.N. Galidakis
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 05:44:46
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
On Sep 22, 12:19 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote:
> josephus wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > it just goes to show there are LESS and LESS places to hide.
>
> True ;o)
>
> > DARK OF
> > THE MOON, MARS, and various planetary satellites.
>
> Well, it's not as simple as only "the dark side" of mars and various other
> satellites or planets. The "dark side" of the moon is not the same as the "far
> side" of the moon.
>
> Various planets, satellites and Mars have "dark sides", but eventually these
> sides may turn their faces towards Earth. The location has to be *permanently*
> hidden from Earth's view.
>
> The "far side" of the moon was an optimal location because the moon is tidally
> locked with Earth, so its far side always remains invisible from Earth.
>
> Dale's answer was a good one as well, but I think you are right: It is
> impossible to have an object always in a perfectly symmetrical antipodal orbit
> to Earth with respect to the Sun, because of the multiple perturbations from the
> rest of the planets, which eventually will desynchronize the orbit of anything
> on the other side and bring it into view.
>
> > josephus
>
> --
> I.N. Galidakis
The information derived from the orbital orientation change of Uranus
and applied to the Earth,along with the definite affirmation of the
orbital change associated with the natural unequal noon cycle is
crucial for understanding climate and meteorology.-
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
I well know that the much simpler Copernican insight in gauging our
orbital motion through the motions of the other planets has yet to be
affirmed in this forum so it is almost pointless asking 'astrologers
with telescopes' to interpret the images of Uranus a correctly.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Using images and motions of the other planets to extract details of
our own planet has always been the highest form of astronomy and the
new motion based on orbital orientation change which explains the
unequal noon cycles and the reason for daylight/darkness asymmetry
either side of the Equator is just that.
The intelligent and simple question - Does the Earth keep the same
face to the Sun over the course of an annual orbit ?.
The answer is no,it does not.
Within that answer is an enormous amount of endeavor for many people
and especially in the area of climatology.I am not a beggar looking
for attention and to see the new motion based on orbital orientation
change attached to orbital motion introduced into an arena full of
clowns is with regret whereas the introduction of the Earth's axial
and orbital motions was done in more dignified circumstances.The real
astronomers in the Copernican era knew how dramatic the change was
*,in this era there is nobody good enough to appreciate the emergence
of a large modification to Copernican reasoning.
* http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 19:50:12
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
Far side of the moon? That's where I'd live if I were evil.
Marty
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 19:33:18
From: I.N. Galidakis
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
Marty wrote:
> Far side of the moon? That's where I'd live if I were evil.
Marty, I am impressed!
However, this answer was optimal till July 1969. Prior to the Apollo 11 mission
landing, the far side was surveyed by human eyes when the astronauts entered
into orbit around the moon. Hence the "colony" had to move to another optimal
location.
> Marty
--
I.N. Galidakis
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 00:38:04
From: josephus
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
I.N. Galidakis wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>
>>Far side of the moon? That's where I'd live if I were evil.
>
>
> Marty, I am impressed!
>
> However, this answer was optimal till July 1969. Prior to the Apollo 11 mission
> landing, the far side was surveyed by human eyes when the astronauts entered
> into orbit around the moon. Hence the "colony" had to move to another optimal
> location.
>
>
>>Marty
it just goes to show there are LESS and LESS places to hide. DARK OF THE
MOON, MARS, and various planetary satellites.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 23:01:46
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
josephus wrote:
> I.N. Galidakis wrote:
>
>> Marty wrote:
>>
>>> Far side of the moon? That's where I'd live if I were evil.
>>
>>
>> Marty, I am impressed!
>>
>> However, this answer was optimal till July 1969. Prior to the Apollo
>> 11 mission
>> landing, the far side was surveyed by human eyes when the astronauts
>> entered
>> into orbit around the moon. Hence the "colony" had to move to another
>> optimal
>> location.
>>
>>
>>> Marty
>
> it just goes to show there are LESS and LESS places to hide. DARK OF THE
> MOON, MARS, and various planetary satellites.
>
> josephus
>
Ahh.. Just hide on Mercury, nobody is going to search underground on
that hellhole of a planet.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:19:44
From: I.N. Galidakis
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
josephus wrote:
[snip]
> it just goes to show there are LESS and LESS places to hide.
True ;o)
> DARK OF
> THE MOON, MARS, and various planetary satellites.
Well, it's not as simple as only "the dark side" of mars and various other
satellites or planets. The "dark side" of the moon is not the same as the "far
side" of the moon.
Various planets, satellites and Mars have "dark sides", but eventually these
sides may turn their faces towards Earth. The location has to be *permanently*
hidden from Earth's view.
The "far side" of the moon was an optimal location because the moon is tidally
locked with Earth, so its far side always remains invisible from Earth.
Dale's answer was a good one as well, but I think you are right: It is
impossible to have an object always in a perfectly symmetrical antipodal orbit
to Earth with respect to the Sun, because of the multiple perturbations from the
rest of the planets, which eventually will desynchronize the orbit of anything
on the other side and bring it into view.
> josephus
--
I.N. Galidakis
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 15:52:13
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Hiding in the Solar System.
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:19:44 +0300, "I.N. Galidakis"
<morpheus@olympus.mons > wrote:
>Dale's answer was a good one as well, but I think you are right: It is
>impossible to have an object always in a perfectly symmetrical antipodal orbit
>to Earth with respect to the Sun, because of the multiple perturbations from the
>rest of the planets, which eventually will desynchronize the orbit of anything
>on the other side and bring it into view.
It depends on whether this malevolent society consists of a few hundred
individuals, or millions. Clearly it is possible to maintain an
antipodal orbit actively. But to remain undetected, this actively driven
body has to be small enough that we don't detect the perturbations it
would induce in other bodies.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
|
