21–27 of 27 posts
I think I commented this the last time it was posted, but I'm vain enough to post it again: > Rather than answering this question, the JWST observation adds to the mystery: The telescope’s infrared eye found that dozens of the worlds appear to be in pairs orbiting each other — a puzzling arrangement that, if confirmed, would defy expectations. > “We’re missing something,” said Nienke van der Marel, a researcher who s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t the Oberth effect still work?
Actually, hm, I don't know. If you're approaching a mass in space, and firing your engine close to it - do you end up with a faster relative velocity than if you'd just fired your engines for the same amount of time in empty space? edit: I did the most basic possible amount of research by reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article (can we call that a milliHbomberguy?), and you're right, you do gain more vel…
An Oberth effect flyby of a primordial black hole with a high impulse drive like nuclear pulse propulsion would be pretty spicy. It’s a feasible way to achieve speeds close to the speed of light. Acceleration would kill you though.
If we did find such an object anywhere within a few light years of the sun it would be a way to send probes out at significant fractions of the speed of light.
If there are that many Jupiter+ sized objects then how many rocky planet sized ones are there? Would they even be detectable via infrared or gravitational lensing?
Not many. Gas giants can form on their own, they have composition similar to interstellar material (mostly hydrogen and helium). Rocky planets can only form in proto disks around newly forming stars. Heavier materials (carbon and up) are concentrated this way.
If there are that many Jupiter+ sized objects then how many rocky planet sized ones are there? Would they even be detectable via infrared or gravitational lensing?
I had a thought a while back about interstellar flight: If there are a lot of massive objects out there (rogue planets, maybe primordial black holes) then these could be used to aid acceleration and deceleration through gravity assist and the Oberth effect. (The latter describes how you get more acceleration thrusting near a massive body.) You could fly along with an ultra sensitive gravity telescope / sensor and hop…
I think I commented this the last time it was posted, but I'm vain enough to post it again: > Rather than answering this question, the JWST observation adds to the mystery: The telescope’s infrared eye found that dozens of the worlds appear to be in pairs orbiting each other — a puzzling arrangement that, if confirmed, would defy expectations. > “We’re missing something,” said Nienke van der Marel, a researcher who s…
But why? It's much easier and cheaper to just leech off a star for energy. Your theory also doesn't explain why "most intelligent life" would choose that approach rather than only a subset, with the rest staying around stars like normal.
- Because they're aliens, with different modes of thought! (But that's not very satisfying.)
- Maybe they're long-lived enough and live slowly enough to consider stars more of a hazard than a useful resource to live next to - those things go nova, put out lots of dangerous radiation and flares, many of them turn into gas giants and incinerate any nearby planets, and they attract others to the neighborhood. Maybe it's better to live a quiet, hard-to-detect life, slowly cruising through galactic space.
- Maybe that's the environment they originally evolved in, and living near a star would be as alien and uncomfortable for them as living on a gas giant slowly floating through space would be for us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Deep within" gas giants, physics gets incredibly weird due to the pressures involved. Life arising on a moon seems more likely to me.
I was thinking more of tectonically active ice giants with large oceans under the ice shield. To explore space, you will have to drill your way out first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why? It's much easier and cheaper to just leech off a star for energy. Your theory also doesn't explain why "most intelligent life" would choose that approach rather than only a subset, with the rest staying around stars like normal.
My original comment was just off the top of my head, so I don't hvae any particularly good reasons, but I do have some hypothetical ones - again, off the top of my head: - Because they're aliens, with different modes of thought! (But that's not very satisfying.) - Maybe they're long-lived enough and live slowly enough to consider stars more of a hazard than a useful resource to live next to - those things go nova, pu…