Slashdot Mirror


Lasers Could Hide Us From Evil Aliens (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post: Most of the time when we talk about silly scientific papers related to alien life, we're talking about crazy ideas for how to find aliens. But a new study in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society proposes a way of hiding from aliens. Humans are so fickle. A lot of our search for Earth-like planets (and, by extension, for life as we know it) hinges on transiting planets. These are planets that pass in front of their host star in such a way that the transit is visible from our perspective. The movement of the planet in front of the host star makes the light from that star dim or flicker, and we can use that to determine all sorts of things about distant worlds -- including how suitable they may be for life. Professor David Kipping and graduate student Alex Teachey, both of Columbia University, determined how much laser light it would take to mask the dimming caused by our planet transiting the sun, or cloak the atmospheric signatures associated with biological activity, [such as oxygen, which is achievable with a peak laser power of just 160 kW per transit]. From the report: "According to their math, it would take 10 continuous hours of shining a 30 MW laser once a year to eliminate the transit signal in visible light. Actually replicating every wavelength of light emitted by the sun would take about 250 MW of power."

218 comments

  1. Better yet.... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Use lasers to cut the aliens planet in half. Shoot first, ask questions later. Send space archeologists to figure out if they were naughty or nice. Better safe than sorry.

    1. Re:Better yet.... by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Funny

      I call it the Kissinger approach to foreign relations.

    2. Re:Better yet.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Darth Trump

    3. Re:Better yet.... by VernonNemitz · · Score: 0

      I call it "stupid". Laser light does get less intense with distance; we can't make a beam powerful enough to cut a planet that is hundreds of light years away.
      Also, consider the other planets in our Solar System, and think about "Bode's Law". When a star has multiple planets for billions of years, their orbits must be such as to allow gravitational effects upon each other to mostly cancel out. A pattern such as Bode's Law emerges from that, and if aliens see our system's other planets, they will still be able to deduce that our hidden planet must be there somewhere. I expect their not finding Earth would make them more curious than finding it.

    4. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darth Trump

      Better Darth Trump than a candy-ass pantywaist who not only doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism" actually censors the French President.

      Jesus Fucking Christ, the French have more balls than Barack Obama. The French. Who put trees on Paris boulevards so the Germans can march in the shade every few decades.

      The FRENCH have got more balls to say what's threatening civilization than Barack Obama does.

      Hell, my daughter's spayed female cat has more balls than Barack Obama.

      Ask the Iranians - but wait until after they get their nuke weapons.

      Why the fuck do you think Trump is still alive politically? He's stepped on his on crank with golf shoes so many times he should be buried.

      But Trump's got the fucking balls to stand up for what he believes in (not that it always makes sense...) - and it's not the kind of stupid mush-brained balls that dares to berate a white boy for "appropriating black culture (HAHAHAH!! - to do that he'd have to kill other black people!)" for wearing dreadlocks.

    5. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call your reply the woosh reply because the joke went over your head.

    6. Re:Better yet.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Better Darth Trump than a candy-ass pantywaist who not only doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism" actually censors the French President.

      Trump fans be salty.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Better yet.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism"

      Only if we can call KKK and abortion clinic bombers "Christian terrorists".

      If you are going to be rude, be equal opportunity rude.

    8. Re:Better yet.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The KKK would be better called "Democrat Party Terrorists".

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism"

      Only if we can call KKK and abortion clinic bombers "Christian terrorists".

      If you are going to be rude, be equal opportunity rude.

      Both of them?

      Compared to the THOUSANDS of Islamic ones? (Only 113 Islamic terrorist attacks that have killed 907 people - in the last 30 days)

      Hey, can you tell me how many Christians murdered people over Piss Christ?

    10. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism"

      Only if we can call KKK and abortion clinic bombers "Christian terrorists".

      If you are going to be rude, be equal opportunity rude.

      Democrats know nothing of equal opportunity, except to line their own pockets and claim "they do it for the People."

      Look to Super-Delegates for an education of how to swindle stupid people out of an election and their money. (Oh, and Hillary paying herself from campaign funds to run for "President.")

      Ted Cruz is the only sane answer, but that ship has sailed since the Batshitcrazy Boat showed up that is Trump. It also sailed when Trumps 'good friend' who owns the National Inquirer, of all things, started dictating political discourse in this country.

      Personally, I'm going for Thomas Jefferson's solution. ~Enjoy.

      Captcha: discord.

    11. Re:Better yet.... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Kissinger was a shoot first, ask questions later kind of guy? Really, what are you basing that on? I'm no historian but just a little bit of research seems to totally refute that notion.

    12. Re:Better yet.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Quantity has nothing to do with a vocabulary question.

    13. Re:Better yet.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Quantity has nothing to do with a vocabulary question.

      Sure it does. If there are one or two or three groups then it's easy to name them by name but if there are hundreds of groups with hundreds of names, then it's easy to group them under the generic title of "islamic terrorists" just like we group school shooters under the generic term "school shooters" even though there are several different types of school shooters and we classify homicides as gang related or non-gang related.

      Also, for profiling, it makes sense to spend a little more time looking at the muslims than at the general population when you're talking about airport security.
      On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with abortion clinics screening people carrying bibles a little more closely (even though I can't even tell you when the last bombing of a clinic was compared to the hundreds of muslim attacks in the last year alone)

      Because of the percentage of terrorist attacks worldwide that are committed by muslims it just makes sense to classify the attackers as either "islamic terrorists" or "non-islamic terrorists". Just the same as it makes sense to classify stuff as "school shootings" and "other public place shootings". We do the same with "gang related violence" and non-gang related violence. It helps with seeing trends and helping predict future attacks. A few decades ago it was "postal workers" but as that group is no longer a significant problem we don't talk about it anymore.

    14. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure ... that's why the lasers are mounted on a platoon of Space Sharks. They can get in there nice and close to let 'em have it.

    15. Re:Better yet.... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Really, what are you basing that on?

      Carpet bombing Cambodia?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Better yet.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If the news used "Christian terrorists" to refer the general act of Christian extremists attacking abortion clinics, do you have any problems with such usage?

    17. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they send a new step-mother with a horrible eye and unlimited collection of sex magazines in her purse as a response. All daughterly single fathers of NASA, celebrate!

    18. Re:Better yet.... by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    19. Re:Better yet.... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      I can understand being tech obsessed, but couldn't you of spared just a little time for history class?

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    20. Re:Better yet.... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Actually what they've just inadvertently suggested is a way of detecting intelligent life on other planets. If the spectral mix of a smaller planet differs from the normal spectral mix of the star during a transit I guess we just found someone who implemented this technique.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    21. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it "stupid". Laser light does get less intense with distance; we can't make a beam powerful enough to cut a planet that is hundreds of light years away.

      I feel like if you were aiming to be mindlessly pedantic you wouldn't have even required the "hundreds of light years away" qualifier in there.

    22. Re:Better yet.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If the news used "Christian terrorists" to refer the general act of Christian extremists attacking abortion clinics, do you have any problems with such usage?

      No, why would I or anyone else have problem with this? If the news said "A group of christian terrorists attacked an abortion clinic" or "A group of christian extremists attacked an abortion clinic" then that's very descriptive. They are in no way implying that all christians are terrorists. Same as saying that "a group of greenpeace terrorists blew up a whaling boat". That doesn't mean that everyone in greenpeace is a terrorist. Greenpeace the organization might disavow them but it's still descriptive if the group claims to be operating under their flag. Westboro Baptist Church is an example of an extremist christian group. They are for the most part non-violent so are not what we would generally call terrorists but they are routinely called "christian extremists" even though there are plenty of christians and baptists that would prefer that neither of those names were associated with that group. Another point I might add is that when Westboro Baptist Church shows up at an event there is usually a large number of other Christian groups doing counterprotests and disavowing their association.

    23. Re:Better yet.... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Use lasers to cut the aliens planet in half. Shoot first, ask questions later. Send space archeologists to figure out if they were naughty or nice. Better safe than sorry.

      The Alan Parson's Project laser would probably work just fine..

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    24. Re:Better yet.... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Nah, I have a better, cheaper idea: Tinfoil hats are really inexpensive and easy to make, and it'll make anyone worrying about 'evil space aliens' feel at least as much better than expensive lasers.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    25. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be fun at parties...

    26. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand being history obsessed, but couldn't you have spared just a little time for literacy class?

    27. Re:Better yet.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, I asked some conservatives, and they were bothered by that usage. Whether that's "logic" or not is a long and winding philosophical battle.

    28. Re:Better yet.... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Well, I asked some conservatives, and they were bothered by that usage. Whether that's "logic" or not is a long and winding philosophical battle.

      I think most muslims would prefer "muslim extremist" to "muslim terrorist" and I would agree as by using the word extremist then you are somewhat acknowledging that it is not all of them. Likewise if you use if for something like "greenpeace extremists" or "christian extremists". It also sounds silly if you use it for a group entirely made up of extremists as something like "KKK extremists" or "Nazi extremists" sounds weird and gives the opposite effect of expressing approval for the organization. Although to be fair, the Amish could be considered "christian extremists" so what we are really talking about are who are extreme in their use of violence.

    29. Re:Better yet.... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly how that qualifies, but I can't say I understand all that happened there from reading that article. It appears that they were actively targeting Vietcong bases located in Laos and Cambodia, what is the big deal there? It seems like a smart decision, and as Laos and Cambodia were not actively engaged in preventing the Vietcong from invading their country, it seems that they were either allowing it, which makes them combatants, or they were unable to stop it, which means we were assisting with invasions of their territory (without their permission?).

      I am genuinely curious, not trying to argue. I wasn't alive back then, so don't really understand the issues of the day.

       

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:Better yet.... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, did you actually read that article. It supports what I'm New stated. The KKK were supporters of the Democratic party, and were mostly Democrats. However, the partys swapped in the 20th century when the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party that was passing the Civil Rights reforms.

      Also, the abortion clinic bombers are not Christians as they are directly going against their own religion. The Islamic Terrorists are following their religion.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:Better yet.... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      (Oh, and Hillary paying herself from campaign funds to run for "President.")

      What do you expect to happen? You don't think that the campaign funds are used to support the candidate while they are running for office? This seemed like a basic thing the funds are for, from paying for flights/lodging/food, to supporting the candidate's ability to not have to go to a job while they are campaigning.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Aliens have our technology? by Kid+CUDA · · Score: 1

    I like how all these types of articles always assume aliens have the same primitive tech as ours.

    Just think what a 10'000 years head-start would give to a civilisation! It's ridiculous to assume they'd be fooled by us.

    1. Re:Aliens have our technology? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just think what a 10'000 years head-start would give to a civilisation!

      Human civilization started with agriculture ~10,000 years ago. Today we have Facebook. Hmm... Maybe another 10,000 years will improve things.

    2. Re:Aliens have our technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primitive, yes, but you haven't realized yet how wicked and cunning mankind can be ...

    3. Re:Aliens have our technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primitive, yes, but you haven't realized yet how wicked and cunning mankind can be ...

      Um, Hillary Clinton has... well, I guess Bill has as well. Btw, it's 'humankind' you sexist pig.

    4. Re:Aliens have our technology? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing in Palo Alto, California, Robert Freitas Jr. wrote an excellent paper on this subject.

    5. Re:Aliens have our technology? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Agriculture might have started roughly 10,000 years ago.

      Civilization is much older. The oldest cave paintings are 40,000 years +
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Sites of civilization go back up to 80,000 years, Neanderthalian ofc.
      And: those sites where in continuous use over a period of over 20,000 years. Only in summer time, in winter the glaciers where close and snow covered them.

      The oldest fossiles of Neanderthals are roughly 200,000 years old.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Aliens have our technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today we have Facebook. Hmm... Maybe another 10,000 years will improve things.

      In another 10,000 years Twitter will be named "Twatter" and have increased its character limit to 255 omnicodes.
      Facebook will no longer exist except as the major religion centered around the "Book of Faces", which strangely only contains cats, and porn, and cat related porn.

    7. Re:Aliens have our technology? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Civilization is much older. The oldest cave paintings are 40,000 years +

      Agriculture is what separates primitive societies from civilizations.

      Agriculture was the key development in the rise of sedentary human civilization, whereby farming of domesticated species created food surpluses that nurtured the development of civilization.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

    8. Re:Aliens have our technology? by jordanjay29 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Human civilization started with agriculture ~10,000 years ago. Today we have Farmville. Hmm... Maybe another 10,000 years will improve things.

      FTFY.

    9. Re: Aliens have our technology? by jxander · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the Fermi Paradox.

      --
      This signature is false.
    10. Re:Aliens have our technology? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If that is your definition then it is fine for you.

      For the rest of the world civilization is when people started to form communities and technology, like e.g. ceramics.

      And: you quoted it yourself, perhaps reread what you quoted?

      Agriculture was the key development in the rise of sedentary human civilization, whereby farming of domesticated species created food surpluses that nurtured the development of civilization.

      This sentence does in no way imply that there was no civilization before agriculture.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Aliens have our technology? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I do believe you're conflating culture and civilization.

    12. Re:Aliens have our technology? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      For the rest of the world civilization is when people started to form communities and technology, like e.g. ceramics.

      According to my seventh grade social studies teacher, civilization came about only after agriculture got established to allow man to smoke weed, satisfy the munchies, and get laid.

    13. Re:Aliens have our technology? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then your teacher had a weird definition of civilization :D

      According to my teachers civilization started when man buried their dead in various forms in grave yards.

      To others it started when they crafted spearheads and arrow tips ... your millage may vary.

      For my part crafting ceramics, which we did long before building cities and doing agriculture is: civilized.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Aliens have our technology? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Then your teacher had a weird definition of civilization :D

      He was a hippie. Pony tail, simple clothes and sandals. Go figure.

    15. Re:Aliens have our technology? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Hm, not sure, but I believe I read something about the oldest canabis findings, as in "remains of usage" predates agriculture :D

      But perhaps he thinks: cultivating it is the start of a "true" civilization:
      http://www.advancedholistichea...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Aliens have our technology? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Civilization" implies cities, which really couldn't exist without agriculture. Obviously, there were communities and technology before then. Heck, chimps have communities; should we call them civilized?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:Aliens have our technology? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Civilization does not imply cities, plenty of civilizations don't have them, till in our days.
      The simplest examples are the northa american indian tribes that had a nomadic live style (plenty of them had indeed cities). Or Tuareg or Polynesians ...
      As soon as people have trade lines covering 10,000 of kilo meters I call that civilization.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. could lasers hide us nutjobs seeing grant funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This thing sounds like some guy trying to get grant money from the DoD or something.

    We don't even know aliens even exist, let alone the need to hide from them.

    Waste of money.

  4. it is all relative by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, this might work, as long as you know exactly where the aliens are observing your transit from. If you didn't know their location then they could be anywhere in the sky and the transit would be at different times, so you wouldn't know just when to hide the transit or where to point the highly directional laser beam. I take this as another admission that we know about the aliens and this time we know where they are watching from. However, they likely have already visited us (or we wouldn't know about them) and so they know we are here and are not going to be fooled by our laser trick.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:it is all relative by Burdell · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but if you put your laser at the L2 Lagrange point, with suitable station keeping (since L2 isn't stable), and can run it continuously, you are covered.

    2. Re:it is all relative by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work. Fully masking out shadow with lasers to anyone watching would take as much energy as we receive from the sun (for obvious reasons). It's much easier to eliminate the shadow we emit to a specific known star, because we only need to emit enough energy to make up for a tiny part of our shadow.

      It's the difference between having enough lamps on the ceiling of a large hangar to simulate DAYLIGHT in the hangar... and just shining a very bright flashlight at a single 1" sensor.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    3. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only two possible reasons why humans are not already colonizing other planets:

      1) it is impossible.
      2) we still have too much conflict (of every type) with one another, inhibiting the rate of knowledge gain and application to accomplish this.

      Assuming #2 is true, we can reasonably expect that a society capable of practical interplanetary travel will be effective at working together. As history has already shown, the most effective organization to this end is built very firmly on mutual respect; where it is absent, conflict destroys all productivity.

      So, the most likely possibility is that any alien species that comes to visit us will already have a system of values based on mutual respect. Such a value system is a requisite of interplanetary travel. Further, such beings will be capable of abstract thought and highly intelligent (more requisites of interplanetary travel).

      Therefore, their first thought in meeting us will not be "I wonder how they taste," but rather "are they culturally-advanced enough to participate in our society?" Given the current state of human affairs, their second question will be "how likely is it that our influence will help their cultural advancement?"

      We should not hide from them. They are exactly what we need to save us from ourselves.

    4. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only two possible reasons why humans are not already colonizing other planets:

      1) it is impossible.
      2) we still have too much conflict (of every type) with one another, inhibiting the rate of knowledge gain and application to accomplish this.

      Or...

      3) We do not have the technology to build Generation Ships yet.

      Life? Whaddya' gonna' do?

    5. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fully masking out shadow with lasers to anyone watching would take as much energy as we receive from the sun (for obvious reasons).

      However, masking out the absorption lines of atmospheric oxygen would take only the amount of energy received from the Sun in a one-atmosphere-wide ring around the Earth (rather than the entire Earth surface area), multiplied by the fractional bandwidth of the absorption lines (which is small - maybe 1/10,000?). This wouldn't prevent aliens from detecting that the Earth exists, but it would prevent them from detecting oxygen and deducing that it supports life.

    6. Re:it is all relative by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      We could just cloak the planet, let all the sunlight pass around us and continue on... would be kinda hard on the photosynthesis thing, tho....

    7. Re:it is all relative by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a hopeful outlook.

      How hard was it to cross the ocean with ships suitable to carry permanent colonists? Pretty damn hard from the caveman perspective, those guys needed serious cooperation back home to build the ships, finance the voyage, etc. never mind the tech involved. Still, when they arrived, how long was it before people were pouring molten gold down their throats, dropping like flies from smallpox, etc.?

      In the age of exploration, those being discovered by the explorers usually got the short end of the cultural exchange.

    8. Re:it is all relative by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      We have the technology, we have the economic/industrial capability, what we lack is the sociopolitical will to do it.

    9. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the technology, we have the economic/industrial capability, what we lack is the sociopolitical will to do it.

      What the hell are you talking about? We don't even have the capability to put a person on the Moon. The Moon. It makes all this ridiculous bullshit Musk and others are blowing up everyone's ass, to get funding, about going to Mars just plain stupid.

      I could go to all the trouble to type in what the correct, obtainable and realistic plan is, the one that was laid out 40 plus years ago. But what is the point. No one wants realistic anymore, they want to rush to Mars where everyone will die and set back space operations 50 years.

      We now know it's far more important for NASA to make Arab nations feel really, really good about their missile programs rather than actually getting off this swirling dirtball hurling through space and time. Truth, look it up.

    10. Re:it is all relative by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Big difference between having the capability and the technology. Of course we have the technology to put a person on the moon. It's been done. The science and engineering is not hard. It's all about the cash. Without the funding, the capability does not exist. We could, with sufficient motivation, build a generation ship today. The technology exists. The motivation does not, so the capability does not.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    11. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The knowledge and engineering needed to build a ship that can cross the ocean does not require *anywhere near* as much social cooperation as the knowledge and engineering needed to build a ship that can traverse habitable planets. The scale is overwhelmingly different.

    12. Re:it is all relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Just like with having laser defense against missiles! Too much space to cover with a dot, and it is a sphere (dome)... Though the answer is more or less simple: point it to where we are pointing to discover other planets. To start with! Now that I think of it, though... what would relativity tells us about this technique should there be some discovery back? I wonder... DJB

    13. Re:it is all relative by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Assuming that the aliens are observing from another star, all you would need to do is fire your laser anytime Earth passes between the Sun and any stars close enough that you're worried about alien invasions. Probably a couple hundred light years max, likely less. At that rate, my guess you wouldn't have to fire the laser that often.

      One of the big challenges would be to get everything right, especially the alignment as stars are all moving relative to each other. You want to fire the laser when the Earth will be between the Sun and where the target star will be when the light reaches it, not where the star is now. Get it wrong, and you could fire the laser when Earth isn't transiting, which could have the opposite effect of drawing attention to Earth.

  5. 10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by maird · · Score: 2

    There is never no direction from which the earth is not currently transiting the sun. April Fool.

    1. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except all of the ones in which the Earth never transits the sun due to it not intersecting a line between the observer and the sun.

    2. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      True, but this is still BS. Theoretically, this might work if you could run the laser continually and fire outward along the axis where the sun's light is being occluded by the Earth, but you'd still have the problem of the laser's light being, well, a laser, instead of the full-spectrum output from the sun. You'd need a whole array of lasers outputting in every frequency from infra-red all the way up through the visible spectrum, and well past UV - and you'd still have no guarantees that there wouldn't be some kind of anomaly that could be detected by anyone watching.

      April Fool, indeed.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I think it only works when we know exactly where the observer is.
      Which mean the we must detect them before they detect us, which is unlikely for aliens that can threaten us from interstellar distances.

      I don't think it is an April Fool, it is more like a thought experiment.

    4. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this has 0 practical usage.

    5. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I think it only works when we know exactly where the observer is.
      Which mean the we must detect them before they detect us, which is unlikely for aliens that can threaten us from interstellar distances.

      I don't think it is an April Fool, it is more like a thought experiment.

      Any alien that is a threat to us from interstellar distances is likely going to have much much better ways of detecting us than shadows. It could be a thought experiment of how an alien who wants to hide from us could hide from us but that would likely require them to already be here and understand what we are attempting and actually care that we discover their home planet light years away that we have no means to actually reach. Not to mention that if it was started now, this magical shield would take X lightyears to start being effective. For advanced aliens without FTL travel, they could have detected us hundreds of years ago and have ships in route already.

    6. Re:10 continuous hours per year. Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they only want to fool the aliens on april fools' day, there's no need to use the laser on other days.

  6. Logical fallacy by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

    The problem is that while this may be necessary over a single day from a single identified star, there are more than 2 stars in the universe (citation needed). And we are talking about shining directed light on the opposite side of our planet near continuously at a variety of angles, exponentially increasing the power requirements to effectively hide. This also assumes casting more light directionally wouldn't also cause greater attention due to the whole 3 dimensional nature of this problem.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Logical fallacy by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The aliens might also notice that a bunch of the power normally spread across the spectrum suddenly got concentrated at one frequency.

    2. Re:Logical fallacy by athmanb · · Score: 1

      That's what I was wondering, wouldn't this create a really interesting spectrum, basically guaranteeing attention from whoever detects it?

    3. Re:Logical fallacy by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      ...there are more than 2 stars in the universe (citation needed).

      I was walking home last night and I can assure you there is more than two stars in the Universe. I'm pretty sure I counted at least 42.

    4. Re:Logical fallacy by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      You could select the stars you are spoofing by distance (if they have FTL travel, we're hosed anyway), or if you see some un-natural looking activity (stars going nova in the middle of their sequence, sudden brief flare ups like planets being converted to temporary stars) that general neighborhood might be a good one to try to hide from.

      Of course, if you screw it up, you're actually signalling to them that you are there instead of hiding.

    5. Re: Logical fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A transit will only be visible for a very narrow range of angles where the Earth is visible crossing the face of the Sun from a location many light years away.

    6. Re:Logical fallacy by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Details, details!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  7. Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Given the vastness of the galaxy, it seems inevitable that the earth is transitioning the sun from some distant viewpoint on the galactic plane essentially all the time. Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers (which would probably screw up our own astronomy) in all directions at all times?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Given the vastness of the galaxy, it seems inevitable that the earth is transitioning the sun from some distant viewpoint on the galactic plane essentially all the time. Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers (which would probably screw up our own astronomy) in all directions at all times?

      This. You would have to be shining the laser in the opposite direction from the sun continuously, unless you already know where the aliens are you're trying to hide from. But only away from the sun, since all you have to mask is a transit.

      You'd also better hope the aliens don't do spectroscopic measurements.

    2. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers [...] in all directions at all times?
      No, you only point it away from the sun ...
      From no other viewpoint the sun is "obscured" by earth. (*facepalm*)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers [...] in all directions at all times?

      Hell yes.

    4. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Facepalm yourself there.

      When we see a planet transit in front of its star, we see it on a path from one edge of the star to the other. For the Earth, your laser that simply points "away from the sun" would only hide our planet at one point on the path of its transit. And that only if the aliens were situated at a point that is on the plane of our orbit.

      At the worst, Nova Express would simply have to explain that he meant "in all directions away from the sun at all times". Maybe he assumed readers would pick up on that limitation on their own.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by dissy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the worst, Nova Express would simply have to explain that he meant "in all directions away from the sun at all times". Maybe he assumed readers would pick up on that limitation on their own.

      I think the more important limitation not mentioned here is the time scale.

      If we want to hide the fact there is oxygen production on our planet, the lasers would have had to be turned on over 3 billion years ago.

      To hide the planets existence in general, the lasers needed turned on over 4 billion years ago.

      Sorry to say but this paper was published just a tad too late to be useful for anything related to its stated purpose.

    6. Re:Wouldn't this only block us from one viewpoint? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For the Earth, your laser that simply points "away from the sun" would only hide our planet at one point on the path of its transit.
      No it would not, it would point away from the sun for the whole transit. Where else should it point to?

      However that point is rather mood, as the gravitational "wobbling" of the sun would still be visible. So a schema like this would never work anyway.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. It's only 10 hours if we know where they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to guess that it's 10 hours a year if we know where to point the laser.

    If we don't know where to point the laser, it's not going to do us any good.

    Likewise, if we find two ore more inhabited planets, it would be 10 hours PER planet.

  9. Aliens Are Already Here. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    They are called demons. Read about them in an old book once.

    1. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      They are called daemons. Read about them in an old book once.

      FTFY - I got a few of those running my Linux box.

    2. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      M$ says you can now exorcise those daemons with the new Windows 10 ;)

    3. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      They're not actually exorcised, just called "services"

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Link to torrent or it didn't happen. And there isn't one because it hasn't released yet hence the wink. But since it swooshed overhead, I will let the pale troll go.

    5. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Your box needs more exorcise...

    6. Re:Aliens Are Already Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demons in that book being defined as leaving their post without permission and trespassing.

  10. similarily... hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means that in theory, aliens could hide this way from us. That furthermore makes it so that our detection methods might not be detecting much at all... If we hid ourselves and they hid from us... we would never know of each others' existence- but then, if we don't know of someone to hide from, why are we hiding? paradox?

  11. Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    I don't know if any space faring alien society would necessarily be evil. Consider that for a species to survive long enough on a planet to develop the science to get into space it has to not cause its own destruction first. It's certainly possible that in order to make space travel more possible we'll develop the kinds of technology that make far deadlier weapons than we already have. Any species that is overly xenophobic or uncooperative would probably wipe itself out before developing the kinds of technology needed to cross the vast distances of space, assuming that it's even possible.

    If aliens with that kind of capability did find earth, they'd probably leave us the hell alone simply because we haven't evolved enough as a species to avoid destroying ourselves with the kind of advanced technology that any alien species that could reach our planet would have developed. They might study us, much like we do with insects or animals, but even that assumes that doing so provides them with knowledge they don't already have which is again a pretty big assumption.

    1. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea why you think that. All of the direct evidence we have of cultures coming into contact where one has significantly higher capabilities does not lead to a good result for the less capable. And they didn't leave them alone to study.

    2. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Good to know all the experience with human societies gives us a good idea of how aliens will think.

    3. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      I don't know if any space faring alien society would necessarily be evil.

      Evil is a human concept, it does not apply to aliens. Take morals out of any deals with aliens, we have no idea if they would even have such concepts, and if they did they would almost certainly be so different to ours as to make conjecture at this point useless.

      But you can consider some more basic concepts that might have a bearing on the actions that an alien species might take upon discovering the earth.

      Consider that to be a civilization capable of interstellar travel, they would almost certainly have a good understanding of math, physics, risk mitigation and many more.

      Risk mitigation is the interesting one. If we met a warlike species in possession of a planet, who show practical propensity to absorb our technologies and become more like us would we:
      1] Wipe them out before they are a threat to us.
      2] Allow them to grow and progress to the point where they could wipe us out.

      Answers are interesting - I lean very much towards [1]

    4. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually many scenarios in which aliens with what we would consider malicious intentions might become space travel capable. For example,a species mostly noble develops the means of space travel only to have their culture reset through some sort of natural disaster or terrorist initiated one, something that splinters the current society, and causes new ones to be created. After a few hundred years, these new groups rediscover some of the technology from before the reset event. and so the reavers come to be...

      And let's not forget good old deception. An alien race that has so removed selfishness form their culture that lose their ability to be suspicious of other species. They land, looking to help the local populace advance, only to have their kindness repaid with murder and theft of their technology. and so the space pirates are formed

      Let's not forget to the ability for societies to to differ in their interpretation of good or to unify around a plethora of motives. Humans unify around exploration and community -- maybe some other species organizes around xenocide and conquest. Or maybe there is a species whose interpretation of benevolence involves reducing biospheres to irradiated wastelands.

      I have had this thought of yours, but I do believe it naive. I doubt that there is a state of natural existence where sentient societies do not have have the tendency to interfere with one another.

    5. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the /. commentators assume aliens are like humans. Can't they speculate how Lovecraftian critters would react to humans?

    6. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking of aliens similar to the Zerg. They do not consider themselves as evil just simply the survival of the fittest.

    7. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real point is if we already know the aliens are evil, then they probably already know about us. No amount of lasers will hide that.

    8. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Any species that is overly xenophobic or uncooperative would probably wipe itself out before developing the kinds of technology needed to cross the vast distances of space, assuming that it's even possible.

      So far, your data set on which you draw this conclusion is null.

    9. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if any space faring alien society would necessarily be evil. Consider that for a species to survive long enough on a planet to develop the science to get into space it has to not cause its own destruction first. It's certainly possible that in order to make space travel more possible we'll develop the kinds of technology that make far deadlier weapons than we already have. Any species that is overly xenophobic or uncooperative would probably wipe itself out before developing the kinds of technology needed to cross the vast distances of space, assuming that it's even possible.

      Imagine settlers making the lengthy, dangerous, and costly voyage from Europe to the Americas some 400 years ago. Now expand that to the level of discipline necessary to survive a 10,000 year journey with zero chance of returning. After that kind of journey, any natives that dared to complain about the aliens arrival and colonization of their world would get their butts orbitally bombarded back to the stone age without the aliens bothering to think twice about it.

    10. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Lovecraftian aliens weren't necessarily evil. They were not healthy for humans to be around.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Are Aliens Necessarily Evil by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      far deadlier weapons than we already have

      If they've got the ability to get from one star to another (via FTL, generation ship, suspended animation, whatever), they've almost certainly got the ability to throw very large rocks at very high speeds, which means they could easily devastate Earth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. Three days late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do pay attention, newly owned editors.

  13. Trump wants to use lasers on Mexicans now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for it! Trump 2016!

  14. The sun always shines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And our planet always casts a shadow. More interesting would be to calculate the orbit for a laser system to always stay on the far side of earth with respect to the sun. On the plus side, that satellite wouldn't need solar panels.

    1. Re: The sun always shines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, it wouldn't need solar panels because it would be in the dark (assuming it is in close enough orbit to be in Earth's umbra where where no part of the Sun is visible).

    2. Re: The sun always shines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, you got the joke?

    3. Re: The sun always shines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a joke in there? Since you're asking I assume you didn't catch it, and by the moderation, seems nobody else did either.

  15. And from one point in time? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Given the vastness of the galaxy, it seems inevitable that the earth is transitioning the sun from some distant viewpoint on the galactic plane essentially all the time. Are we supposed to continuously fire lasers (which would probably screw up our own astronomy) in all directions at all times?

    Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years from us, so if we actually started doing this they would get 4 transits and then none.

    Stars further out would have even more transit information, and there's no way we can retroactively take back that information.

    If the transit information suddenly stopped, wouldn't this attract more alien attention than just keeping our heads down and hoping no one notices us?

  16. You can run up a budget, but you can't hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pointless. Sufficiently advanced aliens would be able to see us via the wobble of the star our planet(s) cause.

  17. Where to mount the laser? by maird · · Score: 1

    In many countries firing lasers in any format of away from the surface of earth would require co-ordination with the national aviation administration agency. Clearly flying aircraft through the beam of a 30MW visible light laser would be a lot worse than having a laserpointer aimed at them by kids. I heard this all day on April 1st on NPR and the BBC. Although the BBC news site dates it March31st I doubt the story is anything more than an April Fool joke by the original authors.

    1. Re: Where to mount the laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mount the laser on frickin sharks

  18. We'll just ignore the whole radio thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll just ignore the whole beaming of radio signals into space, and the fact our planet has already been transiting the sun for millions of years thing as well.

    1. Re: We'll just ignore the whole radio thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we will just turn on the cloaking device. Hell it works on star trek

    2. Re:We'll just ignore the whole radio thing by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      We'll just ignore the whole beaming of radio signals into space, and the fact our planet has already been transiting the sun for millions of years thing as well.

      When THIS bizarre signal was detected
      by the Bugle-Butt Bog Blatters of Bazzle-B,
      its recurring ticks and beeps were explained
      as EM waves emitted by a series of iron rich objects in fast circular orbit
      around a neutron star, with what sounds to us like a voice --- actually,
      electrostatic discharge in spiraling metallic fields of dust
      being fed into the star interrupted by the transit of a more massive object.

      "I love Lucy" with its complex waveform and recurring white-noise laugh track
      and its sudden on-air pregnancy which shocked the entire galaxy
      had already been dismissed as a number of small gravitational singularities
      a.k.a "young black holes" in chaotic orbit around a more mature one
      causing perturbations of metallic rocks objects to form a veritable
      monkey-typewriter of not quite random therefore not quite unexpected waves.

      The Bog Blatters, when encountering any complex signal from an advanced civilization,
      invariably responded by artistically crafting a ludicrously and insanely complicated
      set of clockwork-objects upon a massive framework, often larger than your typical solar system
      that, when set in motion, precisely reproduced the signal received,
      so, at in the end, it could be finally explained (and dismissed) as "just one of these."

      And so--- despite being surrounded by intelligence---
      They were alone in their utter cleverness.
      As are we.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  19. And About That Century's Worth of Radio ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Seeing as we have been doing our damnedest to make ourselves known ever since we discovered wireless technology, just how will these lasers help ?

    1. Re:And About That Century's Worth of Radio ? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1
      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    2. Re:And About That Century's Worth of Radio ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well I just hope the aliens Love Lucy as much as we do.

  20. Donald Trump will get them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're afraid of the space aliens, maybe Donald Trump can build a big wall in orbit for you.

  21. Not a good idea by russotto · · Score: 1

    So the evil aliens are scanning space. They notice a planet around an insignificant star about halfway along the Orion arm of the Milky Way. It gets filed for eventual exploitation. Then at some point it disappears. Now it's INTERESTING. That's bad.

    1. Re:Not a good idea by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Then at some point it disappears. Now it's INTERESTING. That's bad.

      Uh, no. That's progress. The Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council finally built out the hyperspatial express route. Takes forever to get anything built in this galaxy. Damn bureaucrats.

  22. False summary... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    "According to their math, it would take 10 continuous hours of shining a 30 MW laser once a year to eliminate the transit signal in visible light. "

    For a single known direction. It will not mask it for all directions, but only a tiny 2-3 degree slice of the entire 360 dransit

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. really stupid idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Unless you know exactly where the aliens are in the sky, you would have to broadcast in all directions. That would take more energy than we can make, to say the least.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:really stupid idea by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Not "all" directions, but all directions from which Earth appears to be transiting the Sun -- and that's, let's see, Sun subtends 0.5 degrees from Earth, similar triangles, you'd need a beam spread of about 0.25 square degrees. I don't even have the back of an envelope handy, but it seems like that means emulating the Sun's brightness over about 2 one-millionths of its total radiant pattern. No, wait, you'd only need to emulate the part that the Earth is blocking -- in the limit, about one ten-thousandth of that previous total.

      0.2 x 10^-9 of the Sun's total radiant flux is still... rather a lot of power.

      Actually, I'm making this a lot harder than it needs to be. Look up how much power the Earth absorbs from the Sun. Build a laser that can radiate that much power out from the night side of our planet, erasing the deficit from the Sun's radiative pattern. Now, how are you going to power that laser, never mind handling the waste heat from its less-than-100% efficiency?

      I know -- build giant solar panels in independent orbit around the Sun! But, oh dear, now you have to mask their transit signatures.

      A better idea: how about we build a really huge farm of solar panels around Earth, changing its signature from "Earth-like planet" to "just another Jovian giant"? Then all we'll have to worry about is imperialistic gas-bags trying to take over a nonexistent planet. (I'll leave the political comparisons to other posters.)

    2. Re:really stupid idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A shell of solar panels englobing the earth would boil us since we wouldn't be radiating heat faster than we produce it. And a hot jovian so close to the sun would have to have a lot more mass. Make for a good sci-fi story where someone forgets these little details :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:really stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know -- build giant solar panels in independent orbit around the Sun! But, oh dear, now you have to mask their transit signatures.

      No, why? You just have to make sure that always the same amount of solar panel or earth is blocking any specific direction. There is no more transient because there's always the same amount of transient. Basically an invisible dyson sphere, that hides earth's transient as a bonus.

    4. Re:really stupid idea by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "just"

  24. Re:could lasers hide us nutjobs seeing grant fundi by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    That's the thing about hiding. Once you know it is useful, it is too late to do it. That's why some animals often try to stay hidden, and if they're not hidden and wish they were, they don't hide, they freeze.

  25. Decisions, decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, with that power consumption the government has to choose between the age of exaflop machines and a frigging laser to hide us from speculated hostiles from our imaginations?

  26. Impractical... For now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something to keep in mind as we observe planets around the closest stars. Despite what our instruments tell us, advanced civilizations may have already found us and implemented cloaks to hide.

  27. have I just slept the last 363 days? by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Informative

    What the hell kind of alien goes out of his way to visit a planet where the most technologically advanced species still kill each other over tribal god-images and petrochemicals?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re: have I just slept the last 363 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gourmet one

    2. Re:have I just slept the last 363 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell kind of alien goes out of his way to visit a planet where the most technologically advanced species still kill each other over tribal god-images and petrochemicals?

      On my distant home world, that guy Mastaclon - The High Priest of God-Gas says: "If we aren't supposed to eat species and animals, then why are they all made of meat?!"

      Ahhhh, yeah, makes ya' go huummm.

    3. Re:have I just slept the last 363 days? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What the hell kind of alien goes out of his way to visit a planet where the most technologically advanced species still kill each other over tribal god-images and petrochemicals?

      One looking for new markets to sell to.

  28. Uhmmm... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    That "...250 MW of power." would be for each planet we want to hide from. We might need a a lot of lasers and we have no idea where to point them.

    Aliens we need to fear probably can detect us with something more sophisticated than the transit method.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Uhmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a good point. How many MW of power would be needed just to put lasers ONLY on all the sharks?

  29. Why Hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if we spot a star where the transit method shows no planet but the doppler shift method does show a planet, we will know that not only is there intellgent life there, but that they have somethng to hide.
            RJG.

  30. bad idea by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    We have pilots complaining about the dangers of .5 watt laser pointers, and we're talking about firing up a 30 megawatt laser? What happens if we accidentally blind Gort? I don't want to have to answer to the galactic equivalent of the FBI. Hell, that might be considered an act of war. Or at least the equivalent to a rabid dog attack. And it never turns out well for the dog, does it?

  31. problems by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    If there's an alien civilization out there that: 1) can detect us, 2) wants to fuck with us, and 3) has the means to travel here in a reasonable time (hundreds of light years) -- then I think we have way bigger problems than trying to fool them with lasers -- assuming we even know which planet it is...

    1. Re:problems by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      2) wants to fuck with us

      Even I with my mediocre inglish understand the difference between:
      a) wants to fuck with us
      b) wants to fuck us

      Not sure if I would object against a) if they were all she's and hot, at my age you have to take what you can get!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they set off now, then by the time any alien gets here, we'll have transcended. Or if they set off centuries ago, and arrive soon, they're going to be woefully underprepared for what we've become.

    3. Re:problems by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      This assumes they have frozen in place while we haven't.

    4. Re:problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. Mirrors, lots of mirrors by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    Well we could set up a bunch of really big mirrors to redirect all of the sunlight that would normally hit the earth around the earth, thus masking our transit shadow and making the earth invisible to any outside observers. This would totally cloak us and make us safe from future invading aliens. The only side effect I can think of is that it would be darker and colder here on earth.

  33. How many ways is it absurd! by maird · · Score: 1

    As most posters note, there is never a direction from which the earth isn't transiting the sun. Therefore, a single location on the surface of earth for a laser other than perhaps either pole is not a practical implementation anyway since it will be on the sun facing side of earth about half the day. It will not be able to mask the transit taking place while it is on the daytime side of earth. You couldn't fire 30MW visible light lasers into the sky from earth without the massive objection of at least aviation. The "visible" light from the sun isn't a flat spectrum anyway, any laser system that didn't replicate the spectrum of the solar radiation (visible and invisible) wouldn't be a mask to anyone capable of observing the transit in the first place. Then, so what! There's nothing special about the earth transit of the sun that says to any aliens "here be a food or war source". Each of the other planets in the solar system is also at any instant in transit of the same sun when observed from some direction. You might be able to say because of the spectrum filtering what the atmosphere of a transiting planet is made of but which scientists assume there's anything special about an atmosphere of nitrogen with a bit of oxygen to aliens? Which scientists assume that all aliens are of a similar composition to humans (by saying that masking ourselves from aliens at all only requires masking the solar transit of earth within the solar system while there is continual RF energy from earth radio stations anyway). Any aliens capable of coming over from their planet to the solar system for a fight/feed (i.e. the definition of what we want to mask ourselves from) are, given our current capabilities of carrying out war in space, just as likely to hook (insert your choice of solar system planet) to a tow hook and take it back to their own home as a source of raw materials leaving us bewildered at a vanishing planet while they laugh at the ease of the exercise. Nope, it was a decent and entertaining April Fool joke by Kipping and Teachey from Columbia University but no more.

  34. Or it could just ring a dinner bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Think along the lines of a society with technological advances thousands or millions of years beyond ours. Do you think that they might notice that the coherency of light emitted by our star increases by about the same amount that a planet might dim the start during transit? A very high percentage of stars have planets. This method of "hiding" would only out us as technologically capable of making lasers.

    1. Re:Or it could just ring a dinner bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This method of "hiding" would only out us as technologically capable of making lasers.

      And powering them, and putting them into space, and aiming them at some distant star.
      Making a laser is the easy part.

  35. Wow, how stupid ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Nothing more easy than distinguishing coherent light with one single frequency (that is what we call a laser) from "normal sunlight".

    You could as well just place a sticker on the sun: planet 3 is inhabited, 7 billion intelligent meat bags and a few billion big animals ripe to cull.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Wow, how stupid ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      planet 3 is inhabited, 7 billion intelligent meat bags

      The word, "intelligent" is false advertising.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Wow, how stupid ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      7 billion intelligent meat bags and a few billion big animals

      All they want is the cat food.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Wow, how stupid ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Oki, then lets say it is minimum two, you and me :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  36. Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by duckintheface · · Score: 1

    You can replace the transit shadow with 10 hrs of 30 MW laser light. But that assumes you know where the aliens are so you know when to start and stop the laser. But if you don't know where the aliens are, you have to assume that someone is always watching. So that would be 876 times as much energy in order to run the laser continuously.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think you assume they are near a star and not out in the middle of nothing. That seriously constrains the problem. So does distance - why worry about stars more than a few hundred light years away?

      The bigger problem in my totally ignorant opinion is that we have other planets in the solar system, and hiding Earth accomplishes very little. If they focus attention on any planet around our star, they will likely pick up radio signals from earth as well. I would think that Mars and Venus would both seem very interesting to aliens looking for life or even just potential habitable planets.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Heck, why worry about stars even a few light years away? Interstellar warfare is unlikely to be feasible across even such short distances without faster than light travel, and if they have that then distances become much less relevant.

      Besides, most any interstellar-capable species within several hundred light years probably already knows Earth is here, and that it's a living world. Suddenly "hiding" ourselves is probably the loudest announcement of the presence of a technological species we could make.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Yes, I've heard two criticisms that really resonate: (1) a planet simply blinking out of existence is worth further scrutiny, and (2) the laser light would not be warm-body radiation, but at best some kind of combination of coherent light sources, which would be quite interesting and worth investigation.

      I'm not worried about faster-than-light travel, or for that matter interstellar warfare. But if I were worried about alien invasion, I would assume that anyone who could get here in a reasonable amount of time could also wipe us out of existence. I think if you gave us a starship even earth technology could wipe out life on a defenseless planet.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In fact, the technology necessary to cross between stars would make an effective weapon in its own right. Forget the ship, just strap your rockets on a big rock and then set it on a collision course instead of slowing down at the far end. At interstellar speeds it's unlikely to be visible long enough to have any hope of stopping it, and a planet is a nice predictable target.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lasers don't protect you from Aliens living under the ground. And I have heard that they eat people. It's illegal to use a legal name and you damn your soul to eternal damnation in hell everytime you do. Google LEGAL NAME FRAUD to learn more.

    6. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I just read a book (that I can't really recommend) by Harry Turtledove where the aliens make exactly this threat. We'll just slam a starship traveling at 0.5c into Earth. That ought to do it.

      (The book was Homeward Bound. It was a disappointing followup to the Colonization series, which itself was a disappointing followup to the very fun World War series.)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I think this laser approach to hiding ourselves is too similar to a lighthouse approach for broadcasting ourselves. And for what, for hiding the fact that there's a planet there? There's planets everywhere.

    8. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Well, thank you very much Immerman. I never considered that and dammit, you just ruined every interstellar warfare book and movie I ever read or watched by giving the most obvious and simple way to end an interstellar war. . Planetcide.

      Ah shit. And I loved the Honor Harrington series so much.

      Now, please write a book utilizing this so I will have something to read. Cheers!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    9. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about faster-than-light travel, or for that matter interstellar warfare. But if I were worried about alien invasion ...

      I don't like spaghetti, but if I did, I'd like it with meatballs.
      I'm not someone that's quick to anger, but if I was, I'd be outraged.
      I don't gain weight easily, but if I did, I'd be fat.
      I'm not interested in politics, but if I was interested in politics, I'd be attending that rally.

    10. Re:Well yeah, if you know where the aliens are. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ha! Perhaps I should have phrased it, "If you paid me to worry about alien invasion..."

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  37. 10 hours once a year? by jsh1972 · · Score: 2

    Am i missing something, or would those ten hours only cloak us from one vantage point? How are they deciding which single point in the sky we need to cloak against?

    1. Re:10 hours once a year? by jmv · · Score: 1

      The assumption is that the laser would point at a specific star system. Otherwise, you would not only need to operate the laser 365 days a year, but its power would need to be equal to all the power the Earth receives from the sun. Oh and hiding the Earth is only useful if you hide all the other planets too, otherwise the aliens could just assume there's life on Venus and go check it out.

  38. Talk to the fricken' sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck getting the fricken' sharks to do our bidding.

    They'd probably enjoy aliens destroying humanity.

    OK, they'd miss the lawyers and the politicians. But other than that?

  39. 160 kW per transient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not compute. kW is power. But then they need 30 or 250 MW to get those 160 kW. Maybe its 160 kWh or kWs?
    Also, we don't know where the observer is. This means "transient" is pretty much continuous, the shadow that earth is casting. That needs continuous output.

  40. But aliens have more advanced tachnology by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    The story falls down when you consider the ridiculous assumption it is founded on, that we can use our technology to defeat more advanced technology that we can't even imagine. So are these guys idiots or do they think we are? I say they are idiots because as far as deliberately concocted tall stories goes that is a very lame effort.

  41. That's great by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Minor assumption here, we have to know where the aliens are. Lasers are kind of directional and you also need to know when the Earth will transit in front of the sun relative to their perspective. If we knew so much about the aliens it's likely they would also know about us. Still, I trust to the vast interstellar distances to keep us "safe". FTL travel belongs in sci fi.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  42. You are all SO Stoopid, See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be how it works, like in the new Stars Wars movie, see.

    We’ll shoot a Big Red Laser out at those dastardly aliens and it will travel many lights years in seconds, see. While Gurrgelon and his pals are eye-balling our beautiful little planet with ill-intent, the laser will suddenly arrive, see. “OW MY EYE!” Gurrgelon will scream, now missing an eye. His good buddy Spazticon will exclaim: “Dudz you have 12 more, stop whining!”

    They will then all agree, with heavy angst, that they will boycott ‘the Laser Planet’ and never go to that terrible place with the dreadful eye-gouging laser because those mean, dreadful, mean, beings will rob them of their “safe space” and they might actually feel, you know, like, uncomfortable, seeing words and things and stuff they don’t like. They will all have a good cry together and light a space-candle, see.

    And those poor, poor Aliens will be spared from coming to the most horrible place in the multi-verse. See.

  43. Aren't we always transiting the sun? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Depending on where the observer is located, aren't we always transiting the sun from somebody's point of view?

  44. Rename the Planet "Ork" by chill · · Score: 1

    Really? 100 comments in and not one reference to 1970s sitcom Mork and Mindy?

    At least one of the plot lines revolved around Ork being such a cowardly place that they'd hide the entire planet from other aliens.

    Looks like someone is turning old sitcoms into grant applications.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  45. how do the lasers hide us from the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ignorant Americans in the other thread - Oh wait they go oh look at tat pretty lights and walk , into the beam. Never mind, carry on!

  46. Next step by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

    Now to find out ways of detecting if some planet is using a similar device to hide itself. And we'll have found life. Intelligent, paranoid, life. Perhaps that's why SETI comes still empty-handed, perhaps only the paranoid survive.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  47. That's assuming the aliens are so primitive by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    That's assuming the aliens are so primitive that they haven't developed the instant anywhere machine yet.

  48. In the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will be searching for alien life by looking for the telltale signs of shining 250MW lasers outwards to try and hide themselves...

  49. What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if we are the evil aliens?

  50. Pfffttt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless the lasers are shark mounted, what's the point?

  51. per transit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth is always transiting the sun from some point of view. So the laser would need to be continually running.
    [Explicit denoting intelligence challenged person redacted]

  52. Disappearing Planet by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Yes, this might work, as long as you know exactly where the aliens are observing your transit from. If you didn't know their location then they could be anywhere in the sky and the transit would be at different times, so you wouldn't know just when to hide the transit or where to point the highly directional laser beam. I take this as another admission that we know about the aliens and this time we know where they are watching from. However, they likely have already visited us (or we wouldn't know about them) and so they know we are here and are not going to be fooled by our laser trick.

    Even if they haven't visited, if they have their own data showing worlds transiting stars in fifty systems, and suddenly one of the worlds disappears...

  53. That's an unreasonable assumption by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    The thing about aliens They are alien. It’s unknowable.
    The aliens could be totally hive minded with only a tiny portion of creatures controlling everything else. No individuality. No personal greed. No personal ambition. Only serving the “hive”.
    Such a species would be hyper aggressive towards any perceived threat. If they happened on Earth, what would they see? They would see a species that is very aggressive internally and hyper aggressive towards anything perceived as different from the norm. A species on the verge of developing the technology to leave the planet. Who already has the technology to destroy an entire world.
    Most likely such a species would lay waste to Earth by dropping rocks on it.

  54. Re:could lasers hide us nutjobs seeing grant fundi by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    The thing about this technique, it only works once you've spotted the aliens and if they're worth being concerned about their spotting us, it's already too late.

  55. Nothing to fear the Alienst will be Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the laws of physics are the same thus the laws of economics will be the same they will be Libertarians since that is the only long term viable society.

    Thus they will respect the None aggression principle and property rights and we will be fine.

  56. New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Interstellar warfare is unlikely to be feasible, full stop. What resource, if it existed outside this solar system, would be economically viable to go fetch? What would be worth the additional cost of warfare?

    There is nothing suggesting FTL travel is reconcilable with the laws of physics, and it is certainly not reconcilable with causality. Also, if FTL exists, then aliens can travel into our past, which would probably make the whole concept of warfare moot.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of different Relativity solutions that allow for FTL, even though they do require exotic matter that we haven't yet detected. Then again, we haven't yet detected over 80% of the mater that our models say must exist.

      As for causality, I believe the rule is: FTL, Relativity, Causality, choose any two. And considering all the advances we've made in physics in the last 100 years, assuming Relativity is the final comprehensive theory seems a bit premature, especially considering it has some fundamental incompatibilities with Quantum Mechanics.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Relativity describes the geometry of the universe. Its particular description has a surprising number of consequences, nearly all of which have been verified experimentally with great precision. There is nothing even hinting at any human-scale violations. Also, any new theory would still have to explain any past observations. Down will not suddenly become up with new physics or new particles, and Einstein's theories will still be valid over the domain which they have been verified in. If there is an end-run around Relativity, it is liable to be a quantum effect only.

      So on the one side we have overwhelming contrary evidence, and on the other side we have a mathematical loophole and blind optimism. FTL has not been proven impossible yet, and if that's sufficient for you to take it seriously then I submit that you are far too credulous.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    3. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're neglecting the minor detail that if Relativity is correct, then the universe we see around us literally could not exist unless roughly 97% of the stuff in it is stuff we've never seen the slightest direct evidence of.

      Obviously any replacement theory would have to be consistent with observations, just as Relativity had to be consistent with Newtonian gravity. It's an improvement over what came before, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's the ultimate endpoint. Besides we've really only tested Relativity at the smallest and most mundane scales and energies - temporal distortions at orbital speeds or subatomic scales, planetary perturbations at relatively low energies, etc. Beyond that the supporting evidence is largely "hey, we've seen this weird phenomena somewhere, and we can construct an explanation consistent with S/GR". But we lack the technology to actually see sufficient detail to tell if our explanation is even remotely correct. And we can't even do that much as distances get larger - at galactic and intergalactic scales GR is clearly NOT describing observations - we're having to add all that mysterious, completely unexplained or detected "dark stuff" in order to resolve the inconsistency.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Technically, the rule is: FTL, Special Relativity, Causality, choose two. Special Relativity has no problems with quantum mechanics, and is a simple and elegant theory that underlies a whole lot of things. I'm not saying there's lots of prospects for replacing General Relativity (although it's not nearly as nailed down), but rejecting Special Relativity is going to require rethinking a lot of things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's not confuse Special and General Relativity here. Special Relativity is simple and extremely well tested. General Relativity is more complicated.

      In the meantime, we've observed gravitational lensing without visible matter all over the place, and dark matter explains some other things very well. I'd call a gravitational lens an observation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's right.

      We don't necessarily need to reject Special Relativity though - we've found several General Relativity solutions that allow for FTL without violating SR. Wormholes and Alcubierre-style warp drives to name a couple. There was even a recent talk from a NASA fellow, from the Eagleworks I suspect, discussing a new Alcubierre variation allowing for a 10m warp bubble using only a Voyager 1 mass worth of exotic matter rather than a Jupiter mass.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Allowing for FTL without violating SR is not the same as allowing for FTL while keeping causality and SR. Indeed, the Wikipedia article says an Alcubierre drive could be used to create closed timelike curves, which are not compatible with causality as we know it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent answer showing that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are certainly some funny things going on in the large-scale universe, but theories modifying Relativity have failed spectacularly. Either you have an infinity of ad-hoc corrections, or you must accept that some form of Dark Matter exists. Frankly, this is one of the least surprising consequences of GR.

      Obviously any replacement theory would have to be consistent with observations, just as Relativity had to be consistent with Newtonian gravity. It's an improvement over what came before, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's the ultimate endpoint.

      You refute your point, and then repeat your original idea after the "but". You argue for GR when it suits your theory, and against it when it does not.

      Besides we've really only tested Relativity at the smallest and most mundane scales and energies...

      Arguing that SR is not well-tested is ridiculous. The only more precisely tested theory is QED. I don't even think you understand what constitutes a test of SR; all of modern physics is based on it. GR is trickier, but there is still no contrary evidence. FTL, especially on a human scale, would be a direct refutation of Einstein; as I said, it would be like discovering down was actually up.

      But we lack the technology to actually see sufficient detail to tell if our explanation is even remotely correct.

      This idea that "we don't know everything, therefore my pet theory is true" is exactly the same bad argument used by AGW deniers and religious zealots. That everything is not known does not mean nothing is known, and if your concept of reality directly contradicts empirical evidence, you are wrong. If your concept of reality has no evidence for it, it may not be wrong per se, but until there is evidence it gets to hang out with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel's Teapot. Of course, if empiricism isn't your strong suit then you can believe whatever you wish, but that does kinda invalidate your opinions on physics.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    9. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree at all - just saying we don't have to reject SR. Causality on the other hand has is a much more subtle thing - look at any of the evidence that it must be so, and you tend to find a lot of circular reasoning. What exactly would it look like if cause A was always preceeded by effect B? Exactly the same as if B were the cause and A the effect.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I think you might be confused in some way. FTL does not allow you to literally time travel. You leave your home and reach your destination before the destination sees the light from you leaving, but it does not allow you to go back in time in any way.

      You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.

      Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.

      No, you are incorrect. See the first answer here, or a more thorough explanation here. When reading the latter, keep in mind that "FTL signal" and "FTL spacecraft" are equivalent for these purposes.

      Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.

      Special Relativity equates FTL to time travel, but that would be a violation of causality in any case. Causality means that all causes must precede their effects. Special relativity says that the ordering of events is dependent on the observer. The combination of the two means that in order to preserve causality, all causes must be observed to precede their effects in all reference frames. Since the destination in your example would observe the travel of the ship in reverse order, that would violate causality. Visiting your own past is also possible under SR, but I'll defer to the linked explanations there.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    12. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Causality means events precede their causes, by definition. Under special relativity the simultaneity or ordering of events is dependent on the observer. Thus SR modifies the definition of causality to mean that all causes precede their effects in all reference frames. Violation of causality would not mean that cause A would always be preceded by effect B, it would mean that cause and effect would vary depending on the observer (assuming that you preserve SR). And again, assuming both SR and FTL, if you travel faster than light, your destination will observe your journey in reverse order.

      Causality is assumed to be true, but it's also fundamental to our understanding of the universe, and our being able to understand the universe. If you are willing to dispense with it, I don't think you've thought about the matter enough. Either way you've got a job to do figuring out a way to describe the universe.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    13. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Read the response to the Stack Exchange response you cite:

      You point is invalid, please read users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~smithb/website/coursenotes/rel_A.pdf page 34 quote "That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v c. For, if u c and v c then the right hand side of (3.13) is real and non-negative, and therefore (w) is real, hence w c." using values above 1c produces non real values. aka -9.8c... you can only travel through time if you do your maths wrong, sorry – Arthur Feb 3 at 14:27

      You would not literally arrive before you left, as the trip itself would take time, and the return trip would be longer. I am not sure how the response came to their numbers, but I can see no way for it to come out the way it did. In his example:

      In the futuristic Earth year of 3000, Tralfamadore is 98,000 light years away, and receding at 20% of cc. I leave Earth at 1000% of cc, relative to Earth.
      In Earth year 13000 Tralfamadore is 100,000 light years away, and I catch up to it. I turn around and leave Tralfamadore at 1000% of cc, relative to Tralfamadore.
      In Earth year 2796, I arrive home.

      The trip there takes 100 years, and the return trip takes 102 years, where exactly did he get the 13000 year from? 13000 is when you see the ship arriving, but that doesn't mean that is when the ship really arrived. Also, you don't go back in time like that on the return trip, it is still a positive time vector even when traveling back.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      You copied that without reading it, and criticized the math without working through it.

      That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v [lte] c

      Since you're assuming u > c, that objection is inapplicable. Also, read the other article, and after that take a look at page 3,4 of this article[pdf] which has a nice graph of how causality breaks down. Again, for the purposes of causality violation, there is no practical difference between a superluminal signal and a superluminal spacecraft.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    15. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Exactly - by definition, not by evidence. We have essentially zero concrete evidence that causality is inherently sequential. Heck, we're still wrestling with why time itself appears to be sequential, unlike all the other known dimensions of spacetime.

      As for SR's relevance - I'd say that's not so much a modification of causality, as an extrapolation of how causality operates in the presence of non-constant time. I.E. SR was constructed such that our intuitive understanding of causality is preserved. And yes, as you point out it's primarily asserting that causal chains will be *observed* to occur in the proper order.

      But if SR is correct, AND FTL is possible, then there are numerous ways that you could apparently travel and/or communicate backwards through time, which breaks causality all to hell. I don't think we disagree on that much. I'm just saying that "breaking" causality is only an intuitive argument, since we have essentially no evidence that it exists as anything other than an observational illusion to begin with. And yes, breaking causality would turn modern science on it's ear - but it would hardly be the first time that's happened. It's a leap of incredible arrogance to say "Yes, the very foundations of science have been shattered time and again throughout history, but THIS time bedrock is solid."

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Preferring a universe in which one can travel quickly to one that is possible to reason about is not particularly sensible, in my opinion.

      We entirely disagree that FTL is anything more than a mathematical loophole in GR. You're saying, "Hey, if I reverse the sign on one of these mass terms, GR breaks in a hypothetically useful way!", which is all very well and good, but in doing so you have crossed the line from science to science fiction. Incidentally, since no one is claiming that "bedrock is solid," error being inherent to observation, it's hardly arrogant to measure something with a given precision. No, arrogance is suggesting that the laws of physics adhere to your beliefs simply because you want them to. Until and unless there is evidence of exotic matter with negative mass, it is entirely correct to say that FTL is impossible.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    17. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We don't get to pick the Universe we're born into. Assuming SR, then either FTL is impossible or causality is broken. If you want to argue that this shows that FTL is impossible, fine. We know of ways in which FTL would be compatible with how we understand General Relativity, which doesn't mean it's possible, only that we can't show it to be impossible yet.

      However, you're then claiming that the Universe works according to your beliefs. This can be good (Einstein used his beliefs to introduce Special and General Relativity) and bad (Einstein never realized what's going on at a quantum level). The Universe doesn't care about your beliefs, and will do what's possible regardless of what you think. In particular, although FTL appears to be impossible for various reasons, it is not necessarily correct to say it is impossible. Not without understanding more of the Universe.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're neglecting the minor detail that if Relativity is correct, then the universe we see around us literally could not exist unless roughly 97% of the stuff in it is stuff we've never seen the slightest direct evidence of.

      You're going to have to tell me what you'd consider direct evidence of something that, by definition, cannot be seen or handled. We observe gravitational lenses all over the place, without significant non-dark matter present. Since we have a gravitational field without an electromagnetic field, and gravitational fields are produced by matter or energy, and these things are stable, we have detected matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically. There's no reason why dark matter couldn't exist, so if you can't think of a way to get direct evidence of it you'll have to live with the possibility that something might be there that we can't get direct evidence of.

      You could just as easily say we don't have the slightest direct evidence for subatomic particles, since what we know is based on things like bubble chamber tracks and measurements of polarization and the need to fit into what is already known. Quantum mechanics is based on the idea of "hey, we've seen this weird phenomena, and we can construct an explanation that fits with other theories".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      However, you're then claiming that the Universe works according to your beliefs.

      I'm sort of surprised that you would have read everything in this sub-thread and got that impression. Either that or you have a differing definition of belief than I do. As far as I am aware, all attempts at reconciling FTL with GR use wormholes, negative mass, or both. As there is no observational evidence for those phenomena, they cannot be considered to be empirically true, even if there were solid mathematical reasons for them to exist. The universe does not care much for my feelings, but it also does not care much for mathematical trickery: inventing exotic matter to get the result you want out of your model does not oblige it to exist.

      Science, broadly speaking, tends not to assign truth values to unproven statements, and on my milder and perhaps more consistent days I too subscribe to agnosticism. However, most of the time, I feel no need to maintain any open mindedness about Invisible Pink Unicorns, extraterrestrial abductions, religion, or FTL. Philosophically there is just as much validity in regarding the unproven as false. Thus, there is no particular need to distinguish between "impossible" and "not-quite-completely proved impossible", but if you insist, I can revise my earlier statement: until and unless empirical evidence suggests that FTL is possible, it cannot be considered to be a feature of this universe.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    20. Re:New Paper Suggests 'Star Wars' is Fiction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Causality is assumed to be true, but it's also fundamental to our understanding of the universe, and our being able to understand the universe. If you are willing to dispense with it, I don't think you've thought about the matter enough.

      You seem to have a strong belief in causality that goes beyond what we know. Causality is on shaky ground in quantum mechanics, and some physicists do seriously consider closed timelike curves and what they would mean. We have no assurance that it is baked that deeply into the Universe. It is baked deeply into how we understand things, but we've found before that sometimes the laws of the Universe don't conform to how we understand things. It's worth thinking how we could understand things if causality gets increasingly shaky and sometimes goes away entirely.

      We have proposals for FTL that conform with the laws of physics as we understand them currently. I think we're very likely to find out why they won't work as we learn more physics, but I can't be sure. Some wacky ideas do pan out. If you're not going to worry about a Universe without causality and with FTL, that's entirely understandable. Saying that nobody who's adequately thought about the matter would is going beyond what we can be confident of.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  57. As if coherent light doesn't stand out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously the spectral properties of the laser light will be an unmistakable sign of life and civilization. Do these people actually think?

  58. Re:could lasers hide us nutjobs seeing grant fundi by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You're just ignoring what I said, and repeating what I responded to without even considering what I said. Why even say nothing? Do better.

    You give no reason to believe what you say is true. Animals in nature who hide, often do not try to hide once seen. They only do that if they have a safe place nearby to run to, which we wouldn't have in that scenario. Why would we be able to see aliens with better tech than us before they see us, and then hide? That seems pretty silly. If you're against hiding, be against it for rational reasons, not illogical ones. If we're going to even try to hide, it would have be started before any contact.

  59. Did'nt Ask the Intelligence Community or Snowden? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    I suppose it never occurred to them that aliens would want to investigate the star with a mysteriously missing planet that is out of sequence?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  60. Oh yeah. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil aliens are always stopped by the insignificant intelligence of the residents of this backwater planet.

    Humans are so stupid they can't even figure out how to live with each other in peace.

    We deserve what we get.

  61. How far we've come... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is that we went from creating food, to sharing pictures about it...

  62. What is old is new again... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Probably the one with the one true god...

    I for one welcome the teachings of Xel'Nor* the Great!

  63. yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but what if we mask as a silicon-based planet and end up getting invaded by silicon-reavers? That'd be not good.

  64. Infinite by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    "According to their math, it would take 10 continuous hours of shining a 30 MW laser once a year

    I'm confused. From someone's (something's) perspective, isn't earth always transiting the Sun? Wouldn't you need to blast lasers in an infinite number of directions continuously?

  65. Add THAT to the Drake equation... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Add THAT to the Drake equation! The factor of potential alien life that is actively hiding from US! Can you blame them?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.