Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe? Announcing the arrival of...
How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?
Seeking colloquialism for “just because”
Can a USB port passively 'listen only'?
A coin, having probability p of landing heads and probability of q=(1-p) of landing on heads.
What's the meaning of 間時肆拾貳 at a car parking sign
Echoing a tail command produces unexpected output?
English words in a non-english sci-fi novel
How to find all the available tools in mac terminal?
What is the logic behind the Maharil's explanation of why we don't say שעשה ניסים on Pesach?
What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?
51k Euros annually for a family of 4 in Berlin: Is it enough?
Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?
Fundamental Solution of the Pell Equation
Overriding an object in memory with placement new
Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics
How to answer "Have you ever been terminated?"
Identifying polygons that intersect with another layer using QGIS?
What does an IRS interview request entail when called in to verify expenses for a sole proprietor small business?
Is it ethical to give a final exam after the professor has quit before teaching the remaining chapters of the course?
How do pianists reach extremely loud dynamics?
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
Extract all GPU name, model and GPU ram
Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
The network's official Twitter account is up and running again. What content…Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?Society without starsCan a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?What can cause the aliens not to understand our signal?Electric Universe: What is the timeframe of a plasma storm in which both stars survive but are altered?How possible is it that a moon in another star system could be habitable?What type of black hole/rip in the universe would swallow the solar system within 1-10-100 years?Could astronauts find their bearings in the Universe after being transported 6 gigalightyears from Earth?Can the future theoretically be predicted through analyzing the exact patterns of the universe?Designing an Earth-like alien that can survive the harsh conditions of this desert planetCould an advanced alien race prevent the death of the universe?
$begingroup$
Throughout history, humanity has made a few scientific blunders where a scientific principle held as fact for hundreds of even thousands of years is found to be completely or mostly false.
Our solar system is of a finite size. I have an idea based on aliens making a scientific blunder that is obviously (to us) not true. The aliens believe that there is no possibility of alien life because they think that the universe functionally ends at the edge of their solar system. Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions. Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
• Assume the aliens are identical to humans in terms of intelligence/curiosity
• The technology is close to 1950s Earth. (No artificial satellites or advanced computers, but electricity and flight)
I particularly want to know of any evidence that sharply contradicts the hypothesis that the universe ends at the solar system, or any reason a society could not have discovered that a star system is finite without first confirming that the universe is larger.
space science
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Throughout history, humanity has made a few scientific blunders where a scientific principle held as fact for hundreds of even thousands of years is found to be completely or mostly false.
Our solar system is of a finite size. I have an idea based on aliens making a scientific blunder that is obviously (to us) not true. The aliens believe that there is no possibility of alien life because they think that the universe functionally ends at the edge of their solar system. Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions. Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
• Assume the aliens are identical to humans in terms of intelligence/curiosity
• The technology is close to 1950s Earth. (No artificial satellites or advanced computers, but electricity and flight)
I particularly want to know of any evidence that sharply contradicts the hypothesis that the universe ends at the solar system, or any reason a society could not have discovered that a star system is finite without first confirming that the universe is larger.
space science
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
23
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
21
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Throughout history, humanity has made a few scientific blunders where a scientific principle held as fact for hundreds of even thousands of years is found to be completely or mostly false.
Our solar system is of a finite size. I have an idea based on aliens making a scientific blunder that is obviously (to us) not true. The aliens believe that there is no possibility of alien life because they think that the universe functionally ends at the edge of their solar system. Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions. Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
• Assume the aliens are identical to humans in terms of intelligence/curiosity
• The technology is close to 1950s Earth. (No artificial satellites or advanced computers, but electricity and flight)
I particularly want to know of any evidence that sharply contradicts the hypothesis that the universe ends at the solar system, or any reason a society could not have discovered that a star system is finite without first confirming that the universe is larger.
space science
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Throughout history, humanity has made a few scientific blunders where a scientific principle held as fact for hundreds of even thousands of years is found to be completely or mostly false.
Our solar system is of a finite size. I have an idea based on aliens making a scientific blunder that is obviously (to us) not true. The aliens believe that there is no possibility of alien life because they think that the universe functionally ends at the edge of their solar system. Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions. Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
• Assume the aliens are identical to humans in terms of intelligence/curiosity
• The technology is close to 1950s Earth. (No artificial satellites or advanced computers, but electricity and flight)
I particularly want to know of any evidence that sharply contradicts the hypothesis that the universe ends at the solar system, or any reason a society could not have discovered that a star system is finite without first confirming that the universe is larger.
space science
space science
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 20 hours ago
ElessarElessar
5615
5615
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Elessar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
23
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
21
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
23
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
21
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago
23
23
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
12
12
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
21
21
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
According to astronomer Greg Aldering, the scale of the void is such that "If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn't have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s."
If your aliens live on isolated star(though it would be hard to explain - see star formation process) in the middle of void then they simply would not see anything until they get telescopes powerful enough.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Maybe the aliens' planet is perpetually overcast, like Venus or Titan. They may be able to deduce that their planet has a sun from the day-night cycle and how the brightest spot on the sky moves, and they may also deduce the existence of a moon, if it is bright enough, but they would not be aware of the existance of other stars or planets. This would of course require that no planes had penetrated the cloud cover, but if it is high enough, that might not be a problem.
It may also be that the planet is tide-locked, always facing the same side towards the sun, and only the sunny side is habitable, the rest being far too cold, even for planes. With the sun perpetually high in the sky, stars would be nigh-invisible.
The planet may also be orbiting a multiple star system, and there is always at least one sun in the sky, clouding out stars. Isaac Asimov used this in his classic short story "Nightfall".
Finally, the solar system may be situated in an interstellar cloud of dust or gas that obscures other stars. The light from the sun might even make the dust or gas glow, further obscuring any stars.
Otherwise, if the stars are visible, even technology far below 1950s level would show that stars are distant, very bright objects similar in nature to the planet's sun.
Of course, it may be that your aliens don't rely on sight, but rather sonar or some such. They might still have a limited sense of sight that can detect major light sources, but isn't precise enough at a distance to make out stars or other planets. Basically, they are all very near-sighted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a way to do it, but it comes with a hefty price. Put your solar system in a nebula or other dust cloud that (mostly) obscures the stars around you.
The reality is that things like stellar parallax are always going to get the better of your scientists because there's simply a more compelling argument for the universe extending beyond the solar system. Even with rudimentary experimental observations, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the universe is vastly larger than the solar system.
Hiding all but your brightest night time stars though helps mask this problem, especially if the dust in the clouds drifts a little, sometimes blocking out one star, other times blocking out another. Many of the observations that were made of the stars in early times were only possible because we could always see them, meaning that we could tell which stars were moving, and at what speed, and how their course 'drifted' across the sky through a given year, meaning that we could learn a lot about our universe even without telescopes. But, if you have a strong dust cloud say at the same location as our Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt, then it might be harder to even know that the star we can see today is the same star as the one we could see over in this other place in the sky 3 months ago, before the cloud shifted a little.
Arguably, many may well end up believing that the dust cloud contains certain highly reflective elements or rocks, that cause it to sparkle in different locations, when they turn just so and reflect the sun back onto the habitable planet.
The trick here is not limiting theory; science does that far too well. It's limiting observation. Make it hard for the observations we've been making since very early history to be made on your planet, and the theories won't form because there's no observations on which to base them. Of course, the only way to limit observations of the stars is to obscure them.
Whether or not that can be done with a nebula in prime, or needs a specific form of dust cloud or other barrier is a deeper question, but from a position of strategy, the easiest way to make your people believe there is a limit to the universe is to hide as much as possible from beyond that limit from their abilities to observe.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Bad eye sight
Humans have really good eye sight, and this is why we know about the stars.
There are three aspects to this, first there is resolution, meaning we can see small dots in the sky.
Second there is near-/far-sightedness. Not every organism can focus beyond a few meters. You don't have to be very far out of focus before the stars simply disappear.
Third, we can see well at night. This is not automatic. Stars doesn't really give off all that much light. If your xenos simply hide at night rather than trying to function, they are likely to be practically blind.
In addition you probably shouldn't have a really big star like Sirius be as close by as Sirius is to us.
Note that these xenos are also likely to miss planets for the same reason.
A species that has poor eye sight probably has other senses that are better: hearing, smell etc.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm surprised nobody answered that on WB.SE, but:
Wouldn't a big Dyson's Sphere do the job?
I remember reading about a Dyson's Sphere large enough to collect all the energy from a solar system, on another thread. This would effectively block all outside interferences.
But this solution depends on what you want in your story. (If you don't want to go hard sci-fi, it will be hard to feature it).
(If anyone is knowledgeable on the topic, feel free to correct me, I only know the general principle)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will push @StigHemmer's idea a little bit further:
They are completely blind.
They might possess some form of synesthesia, allowing them to "see" smells, and even combine that with some infrared sensibility. Heck, even some echolocation like dolphins or bats. With that, they might "see" the sun, even the moon if it is extremely reflective. They can hunt, they can have relationships, they can understand nature. They might build a civilization just fine, even developing some sort of 'writing' based on smells. IMHO it's perfectly possible. The only thing I don't know how they will achieve is flight, but I imagine they would HEAVILY rely on radar.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rogue solar system in interstellar space might fit the description (kind of like a rogue planet). For example gravitational interactions in the past launched the solar system outside of its parent galaxy, and now it is just floating in space faraway from any light, or galaxy. Your species reached scientific maturity after the solar system already disappeared into interstellar space.
In this case the solar system might seem like all that exists, since everything else would not be visible. However in this case the solar system is functionally isolated, and is basically the only "universe" they need to care about.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the biggest issue that cannot be ignored is the stellar parallax from which the parsec is derived from. Assuming decent optics it will be obvious from the parallax that stars are at different distances. This could be circumvented by having closest stellar object be very distant, 100pc or more.
Another is the red shift of the spectral lines but that could be ignored if the distances are not known since it would not be practical to prove the cause of the shift. I think the existing theory of optical illusions would be just as convincing an explanation.
More difficult is the related issue of spectral lines. It would be very hard to come up with a convincing explanation of why the light of the stars resembles that given by specific composition of gas or plasma at specific temperature without speculating that suns are similar but not identical to our own Sun. Not realizing this would be fairly unlikely. Unless your aliens do not have eyes.
Which would kind of explain lack of interest in studying the stars, I guess.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One situation that could cause this for our alien friends (and for us as well) is the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (accelerating). At some point in the far future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point, no light from any of the other galaxies in the universe will ever reach the aliens. Every experiment they perform will conclude that there is nothing else out there except for their local group, which could still be held together by gravity.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
If the alien species follow the scientific reasoning (aka make a model, use the model to make a forecast, check with experiment if the observation validate the forecast: if they do, make another forecast, if they don't, discard the model), their model won't stand the observation.
That's exactly how we got rid of the ether hypothesis: experimental evidences were against the forecast made by the ether model, so it finished down the drain (Michelson and Morley experiment)
Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions.
I assume, without further details on this model, that sooner or later it would become observable that:
- the level of detail of these "artifacts" is extremely fine and not matching any known, in system, source.
- the appearance of these "artifacts" is not affected by the relative position of the observer
- the "artifacts" have a red shift, so whatever is causing them is moving outward, hinting that there is space out there.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootes void is a good plan. There are issues; having a star isolated near the middle is tricky, as stars (especially metal-rich ones) require other stars to form, and don't move that quickly. So the other stars formed with that one would be much closer.
If we ignore that problem, Naked eye astronomy is apparent magnitude 6.5 or so. Naked-eye galaxies are that bright at about 15 Mly away. Telescopes are going to extend that much further.
In 1900 telescopes maxed out at 1.25 m, or 200x larger than the human pupil. The limiting magnitude is then about 6.5+11.5 or 18.
We can presume less interest in telescopes (especially huge ones), so using 1900 numbers for a 1950 society is not unreasonable.
And things barely visible with a telescope might be dismissed as artifacts of some kind; galaxies where spotted for decades before they realized they wheren't local to our galaxy. A similar issue might happen here.
Anyhow, that works out to things roughly 200 times further away, or 5 Gly, or 20 times the size of the Bootes void.
You'd have to limit telescopes to something like 5 times a human eye -- and a telescope that small is going to be used for navigation, let alone astronomy -- to avoid being able to see the edge of the void from its center.
Still, it might take time to work out that those swirls are in fact not visual artifacts.
In theory placing yourself in a dust cloud also helps; but dust clouds generate stars (which also explains your star).
Now, if you want to talk about a local cluster of stars, that become more practical. Aforsaid dust would reduce the apparent magnitude of the galaxies far away, and there would be a handful of close stars. Those stars would all seem to be orbiting each other, and beyond them would be a void.
Unfortunetally being able to see they lack planets becomes a challenge.
What more, in 1950s, people where uncertain if other planets in our solar system lacked (complex macroscopic) life; if you make telescopes worse in your world, they become even less certain; and if you make them as good as our 1950s telescopes, hiding the galaxies outside the void becomes less plausible.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Elessar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144115%2fcan-an-alien-society-believe-that-their-star-system-is-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
11 Answers
11
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
According to astronomer Greg Aldering, the scale of the void is such that "If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn't have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s."
If your aliens live on isolated star(though it would be hard to explain - see star formation process) in the middle of void then they simply would not see anything until they get telescopes powerful enough.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to astronomer Greg Aldering, the scale of the void is such that "If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn't have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s."
If your aliens live on isolated star(though it would be hard to explain - see star formation process) in the middle of void then they simply would not see anything until they get telescopes powerful enough.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to astronomer Greg Aldering, the scale of the void is such that "If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn't have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s."
If your aliens live on isolated star(though it would be hard to explain - see star formation process) in the middle of void then they simply would not see anything until they get telescopes powerful enough.
$endgroup$
According to astronomer Greg Aldering, the scale of the void is such that "If the Milky Way had been in the center of the Boötes void, we wouldn't have known there were other galaxies until the 1960s."
If your aliens live on isolated star(though it would be hard to explain - see star formation process) in the middle of void then they simply would not see anything until they get telescopes powerful enough.
answered 19 hours ago
VashuVashu
2,878515
2,878515
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1, I like this. I realized that making the star distant from other stars would solve some of the issues but it did not occur to me that if the star is distant enough you won't be able to distinguish individual stars just galaxies with the light of stars with different spectra smudged together: Such stars are intergalactic stars and they form normally and are then ejected from the galaxy they form in. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_star
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
18 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related to this, Can a star be so distant/isolated that its 'Earth' can't see other stars?
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't see a problem. Have the star ejected by gravity assist from galaxy collision between star formation and planet formation.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Maybe the aliens' planet is perpetually overcast, like Venus or Titan. They may be able to deduce that their planet has a sun from the day-night cycle and how the brightest spot on the sky moves, and they may also deduce the existence of a moon, if it is bright enough, but they would not be aware of the existance of other stars or planets. This would of course require that no planes had penetrated the cloud cover, but if it is high enough, that might not be a problem.
It may also be that the planet is tide-locked, always facing the same side towards the sun, and only the sunny side is habitable, the rest being far too cold, even for planes. With the sun perpetually high in the sky, stars would be nigh-invisible.
The planet may also be orbiting a multiple star system, and there is always at least one sun in the sky, clouding out stars. Isaac Asimov used this in his classic short story "Nightfall".
Finally, the solar system may be situated in an interstellar cloud of dust or gas that obscures other stars. The light from the sun might even make the dust or gas glow, further obscuring any stars.
Otherwise, if the stars are visible, even technology far below 1950s level would show that stars are distant, very bright objects similar in nature to the planet's sun.
Of course, it may be that your aliens don't rely on sight, but rather sonar or some such. They might still have a limited sense of sight that can detect major light sources, but isn't precise enough at a distance to make out stars or other planets. Basically, they are all very near-sighted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Maybe the aliens' planet is perpetually overcast, like Venus or Titan. They may be able to deduce that their planet has a sun from the day-night cycle and how the brightest spot on the sky moves, and they may also deduce the existence of a moon, if it is bright enough, but they would not be aware of the existance of other stars or planets. This would of course require that no planes had penetrated the cloud cover, but if it is high enough, that might not be a problem.
It may also be that the planet is tide-locked, always facing the same side towards the sun, and only the sunny side is habitable, the rest being far too cold, even for planes. With the sun perpetually high in the sky, stars would be nigh-invisible.
The planet may also be orbiting a multiple star system, and there is always at least one sun in the sky, clouding out stars. Isaac Asimov used this in his classic short story "Nightfall".
Finally, the solar system may be situated in an interstellar cloud of dust or gas that obscures other stars. The light from the sun might even make the dust or gas glow, further obscuring any stars.
Otherwise, if the stars are visible, even technology far below 1950s level would show that stars are distant, very bright objects similar in nature to the planet's sun.
Of course, it may be that your aliens don't rely on sight, but rather sonar or some such. They might still have a limited sense of sight that can detect major light sources, but isn't precise enough at a distance to make out stars or other planets. Basically, they are all very near-sighted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Maybe the aliens' planet is perpetually overcast, like Venus or Titan. They may be able to deduce that their planet has a sun from the day-night cycle and how the brightest spot on the sky moves, and they may also deduce the existence of a moon, if it is bright enough, but they would not be aware of the existance of other stars or planets. This would of course require that no planes had penetrated the cloud cover, but if it is high enough, that might not be a problem.
It may also be that the planet is tide-locked, always facing the same side towards the sun, and only the sunny side is habitable, the rest being far too cold, even for planes. With the sun perpetually high in the sky, stars would be nigh-invisible.
The planet may also be orbiting a multiple star system, and there is always at least one sun in the sky, clouding out stars. Isaac Asimov used this in his classic short story "Nightfall".
Finally, the solar system may be situated in an interstellar cloud of dust or gas that obscures other stars. The light from the sun might even make the dust or gas glow, further obscuring any stars.
Otherwise, if the stars are visible, even technology far below 1950s level would show that stars are distant, very bright objects similar in nature to the planet's sun.
Of course, it may be that your aliens don't rely on sight, but rather sonar or some such. They might still have a limited sense of sight that can detect major light sources, but isn't precise enough at a distance to make out stars or other planets. Basically, they are all very near-sighted.
$endgroup$
Maybe the aliens' planet is perpetually overcast, like Venus or Titan. They may be able to deduce that their planet has a sun from the day-night cycle and how the brightest spot on the sky moves, and they may also deduce the existence of a moon, if it is bright enough, but they would not be aware of the existance of other stars or planets. This would of course require that no planes had penetrated the cloud cover, but if it is high enough, that might not be a problem.
It may also be that the planet is tide-locked, always facing the same side towards the sun, and only the sunny side is habitable, the rest being far too cold, even for planes. With the sun perpetually high in the sky, stars would be nigh-invisible.
The planet may also be orbiting a multiple star system, and there is always at least one sun in the sky, clouding out stars. Isaac Asimov used this in his classic short story "Nightfall".
Finally, the solar system may be situated in an interstellar cloud of dust or gas that obscures other stars. The light from the sun might even make the dust or gas glow, further obscuring any stars.
Otherwise, if the stars are visible, even technology far below 1950s level would show that stars are distant, very bright objects similar in nature to the planet's sun.
Of course, it may be that your aliens don't rely on sight, but rather sonar or some such. They might still have a limited sense of sight that can detect major light sources, but isn't precise enough at a distance to make out stars or other planets. Basically, they are all very near-sighted.
answered 17 hours ago
Klaus Æ. MogensenKlaus Æ. Mogensen
1,6381410
1,6381410
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a way to do it, but it comes with a hefty price. Put your solar system in a nebula or other dust cloud that (mostly) obscures the stars around you.
The reality is that things like stellar parallax are always going to get the better of your scientists because there's simply a more compelling argument for the universe extending beyond the solar system. Even with rudimentary experimental observations, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the universe is vastly larger than the solar system.
Hiding all but your brightest night time stars though helps mask this problem, especially if the dust in the clouds drifts a little, sometimes blocking out one star, other times blocking out another. Many of the observations that were made of the stars in early times were only possible because we could always see them, meaning that we could tell which stars were moving, and at what speed, and how their course 'drifted' across the sky through a given year, meaning that we could learn a lot about our universe even without telescopes. But, if you have a strong dust cloud say at the same location as our Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt, then it might be harder to even know that the star we can see today is the same star as the one we could see over in this other place in the sky 3 months ago, before the cloud shifted a little.
Arguably, many may well end up believing that the dust cloud contains certain highly reflective elements or rocks, that cause it to sparkle in different locations, when they turn just so and reflect the sun back onto the habitable planet.
The trick here is not limiting theory; science does that far too well. It's limiting observation. Make it hard for the observations we've been making since very early history to be made on your planet, and the theories won't form because there's no observations on which to base them. Of course, the only way to limit observations of the stars is to obscure them.
Whether or not that can be done with a nebula in prime, or needs a specific form of dust cloud or other barrier is a deeper question, but from a position of strategy, the easiest way to make your people believe there is a limit to the universe is to hide as much as possible from beyond that limit from their abilities to observe.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a way to do it, but it comes with a hefty price. Put your solar system in a nebula or other dust cloud that (mostly) obscures the stars around you.
The reality is that things like stellar parallax are always going to get the better of your scientists because there's simply a more compelling argument for the universe extending beyond the solar system. Even with rudimentary experimental observations, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the universe is vastly larger than the solar system.
Hiding all but your brightest night time stars though helps mask this problem, especially if the dust in the clouds drifts a little, sometimes blocking out one star, other times blocking out another. Many of the observations that were made of the stars in early times were only possible because we could always see them, meaning that we could tell which stars were moving, and at what speed, and how their course 'drifted' across the sky through a given year, meaning that we could learn a lot about our universe even without telescopes. But, if you have a strong dust cloud say at the same location as our Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt, then it might be harder to even know that the star we can see today is the same star as the one we could see over in this other place in the sky 3 months ago, before the cloud shifted a little.
Arguably, many may well end up believing that the dust cloud contains certain highly reflective elements or rocks, that cause it to sparkle in different locations, when they turn just so and reflect the sun back onto the habitable planet.
The trick here is not limiting theory; science does that far too well. It's limiting observation. Make it hard for the observations we've been making since very early history to be made on your planet, and the theories won't form because there's no observations on which to base them. Of course, the only way to limit observations of the stars is to obscure them.
Whether or not that can be done with a nebula in prime, or needs a specific form of dust cloud or other barrier is a deeper question, but from a position of strategy, the easiest way to make your people believe there is a limit to the universe is to hide as much as possible from beyond that limit from their abilities to observe.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a way to do it, but it comes with a hefty price. Put your solar system in a nebula or other dust cloud that (mostly) obscures the stars around you.
The reality is that things like stellar parallax are always going to get the better of your scientists because there's simply a more compelling argument for the universe extending beyond the solar system. Even with rudimentary experimental observations, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the universe is vastly larger than the solar system.
Hiding all but your brightest night time stars though helps mask this problem, especially if the dust in the clouds drifts a little, sometimes blocking out one star, other times blocking out another. Many of the observations that were made of the stars in early times were only possible because we could always see them, meaning that we could tell which stars were moving, and at what speed, and how their course 'drifted' across the sky through a given year, meaning that we could learn a lot about our universe even without telescopes. But, if you have a strong dust cloud say at the same location as our Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt, then it might be harder to even know that the star we can see today is the same star as the one we could see over in this other place in the sky 3 months ago, before the cloud shifted a little.
Arguably, many may well end up believing that the dust cloud contains certain highly reflective elements or rocks, that cause it to sparkle in different locations, when they turn just so and reflect the sun back onto the habitable planet.
The trick here is not limiting theory; science does that far too well. It's limiting observation. Make it hard for the observations we've been making since very early history to be made on your planet, and the theories won't form because there's no observations on which to base them. Of course, the only way to limit observations of the stars is to obscure them.
Whether or not that can be done with a nebula in prime, or needs a specific form of dust cloud or other barrier is a deeper question, but from a position of strategy, the easiest way to make your people believe there is a limit to the universe is to hide as much as possible from beyond that limit from their abilities to observe.
$endgroup$
There is a way to do it, but it comes with a hefty price. Put your solar system in a nebula or other dust cloud that (mostly) obscures the stars around you.
The reality is that things like stellar parallax are always going to get the better of your scientists because there's simply a more compelling argument for the universe extending beyond the solar system. Even with rudimentary experimental observations, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the universe is vastly larger than the solar system.
Hiding all but your brightest night time stars though helps mask this problem, especially if the dust in the clouds drifts a little, sometimes blocking out one star, other times blocking out another. Many of the observations that were made of the stars in early times were only possible because we could always see them, meaning that we could tell which stars were moving, and at what speed, and how their course 'drifted' across the sky through a given year, meaning that we could learn a lot about our universe even without telescopes. But, if you have a strong dust cloud say at the same location as our Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt, then it might be harder to even know that the star we can see today is the same star as the one we could see over in this other place in the sky 3 months ago, before the cloud shifted a little.
Arguably, many may well end up believing that the dust cloud contains certain highly reflective elements or rocks, that cause it to sparkle in different locations, when they turn just so and reflect the sun back onto the habitable planet.
The trick here is not limiting theory; science does that far too well. It's limiting observation. Make it hard for the observations we've been making since very early history to be made on your planet, and the theories won't form because there's no observations on which to base them. Of course, the only way to limit observations of the stars is to obscure them.
Whether or not that can be done with a nebula in prime, or needs a specific form of dust cloud or other barrier is a deeper question, but from a position of strategy, the easiest way to make your people believe there is a limit to the universe is to hide as much as possible from beyond that limit from their abilities to observe.
answered 19 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
33.1k674132
33.1k674132
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Bad eye sight
Humans have really good eye sight, and this is why we know about the stars.
There are three aspects to this, first there is resolution, meaning we can see small dots in the sky.
Second there is near-/far-sightedness. Not every organism can focus beyond a few meters. You don't have to be very far out of focus before the stars simply disappear.
Third, we can see well at night. This is not automatic. Stars doesn't really give off all that much light. If your xenos simply hide at night rather than trying to function, they are likely to be practically blind.
In addition you probably shouldn't have a really big star like Sirius be as close by as Sirius is to us.
Note that these xenos are also likely to miss planets for the same reason.
A species that has poor eye sight probably has other senses that are better: hearing, smell etc.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Bad eye sight
Humans have really good eye sight, and this is why we know about the stars.
There are three aspects to this, first there is resolution, meaning we can see small dots in the sky.
Second there is near-/far-sightedness. Not every organism can focus beyond a few meters. You don't have to be very far out of focus before the stars simply disappear.
Third, we can see well at night. This is not automatic. Stars doesn't really give off all that much light. If your xenos simply hide at night rather than trying to function, they are likely to be practically blind.
In addition you probably shouldn't have a really big star like Sirius be as close by as Sirius is to us.
Note that these xenos are also likely to miss planets for the same reason.
A species that has poor eye sight probably has other senses that are better: hearing, smell etc.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Bad eye sight
Humans have really good eye sight, and this is why we know about the stars.
There are three aspects to this, first there is resolution, meaning we can see small dots in the sky.
Second there is near-/far-sightedness. Not every organism can focus beyond a few meters. You don't have to be very far out of focus before the stars simply disappear.
Third, we can see well at night. This is not automatic. Stars doesn't really give off all that much light. If your xenos simply hide at night rather than trying to function, they are likely to be practically blind.
In addition you probably shouldn't have a really big star like Sirius be as close by as Sirius is to us.
Note that these xenos are also likely to miss planets for the same reason.
A species that has poor eye sight probably has other senses that are better: hearing, smell etc.
$endgroup$
Bad eye sight
Humans have really good eye sight, and this is why we know about the stars.
There are three aspects to this, first there is resolution, meaning we can see small dots in the sky.
Second there is near-/far-sightedness. Not every organism can focus beyond a few meters. You don't have to be very far out of focus before the stars simply disappear.
Third, we can see well at night. This is not automatic. Stars doesn't really give off all that much light. If your xenos simply hide at night rather than trying to function, they are likely to be practically blind.
In addition you probably shouldn't have a really big star like Sirius be as close by as Sirius is to us.
Note that these xenos are also likely to miss planets for the same reason.
A species that has poor eye sight probably has other senses that are better: hearing, smell etc.
answered 16 hours ago
Stig HemmerStig Hemmer
8,1481633
8,1481633
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
While this is a valid answer for primitive species, the 1950 technology does allow for telescopes. Human eyesight is not good enough to see the satellites of Mars or Jupiter, but we detected those with telescopes well before that. A short-sighted race would have many good reasons to develop technology to see things afar - like enemy troops. I'd expect such a race to invent spyglasses, binoculars and telescopes far earlier than us, precisely because our sight is so good already.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rekesoft that can solve near-sightedness, but it can't solve the lack of night vision. The discovery of stars would have to wait until - well, the military would most likely use infrared cameras, so no dice here - until somebody decides they really want to take a photo at night. And I do believe that Earthlings got that tech quite a bit later than when they landed on the Moon.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JohnDvorak Bad night vision and no night vision are very different things, I think. We don't use a special organ to see in the dark, it's the same eyes, and I don't think you can't completely lack night vision except by being blind. Once they build a telescope to look for enemy campfires in the dark I suppose they can spot the brightest stars or near planets also.
$endgroup$
– Rekesoft
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm surprised nobody answered that on WB.SE, but:
Wouldn't a big Dyson's Sphere do the job?
I remember reading about a Dyson's Sphere large enough to collect all the energy from a solar system, on another thread. This would effectively block all outside interferences.
But this solution depends on what you want in your story. (If you don't want to go hard sci-fi, it will be hard to feature it).
(If anyone is knowledgeable on the topic, feel free to correct me, I only know the general principle)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm surprised nobody answered that on WB.SE, but:
Wouldn't a big Dyson's Sphere do the job?
I remember reading about a Dyson's Sphere large enough to collect all the energy from a solar system, on another thread. This would effectively block all outside interferences.
But this solution depends on what you want in your story. (If you don't want to go hard sci-fi, it will be hard to feature it).
(If anyone is knowledgeable on the topic, feel free to correct me, I only know the general principle)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm surprised nobody answered that on WB.SE, but:
Wouldn't a big Dyson's Sphere do the job?
I remember reading about a Dyson's Sphere large enough to collect all the energy from a solar system, on another thread. This would effectively block all outside interferences.
But this solution depends on what you want in your story. (If you don't want to go hard sci-fi, it will be hard to feature it).
(If anyone is knowledgeable on the topic, feel free to correct me, I only know the general principle)
$endgroup$
I'm surprised nobody answered that on WB.SE, but:
Wouldn't a big Dyson's Sphere do the job?
I remember reading about a Dyson's Sphere large enough to collect all the energy from a solar system, on another thread. This would effectively block all outside interferences.
But this solution depends on what you want in your story. (If you don't want to go hard sci-fi, it will be hard to feature it).
(If anyone is knowledgeable on the topic, feel free to correct me, I only know the general principle)
edited 18 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
NyakouaiNyakouai
2,07811230
2,07811230
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, precursor technology. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. You would still expect some other precursor artifacts as well, though. At the very least the drop pod which Adam and Eve arrived in and a post-apocalyptic wasteland planet somewhere nearby.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will push @StigHemmer's idea a little bit further:
They are completely blind.
They might possess some form of synesthesia, allowing them to "see" smells, and even combine that with some infrared sensibility. Heck, even some echolocation like dolphins or bats. With that, they might "see" the sun, even the moon if it is extremely reflective. They can hunt, they can have relationships, they can understand nature. They might build a civilization just fine, even developing some sort of 'writing' based on smells. IMHO it's perfectly possible. The only thing I don't know how they will achieve is flight, but I imagine they would HEAVILY rely on radar.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will push @StigHemmer's idea a little bit further:
They are completely blind.
They might possess some form of synesthesia, allowing them to "see" smells, and even combine that with some infrared sensibility. Heck, even some echolocation like dolphins or bats. With that, they might "see" the sun, even the moon if it is extremely reflective. They can hunt, they can have relationships, they can understand nature. They might build a civilization just fine, even developing some sort of 'writing' based on smells. IMHO it's perfectly possible. The only thing I don't know how they will achieve is flight, but I imagine they would HEAVILY rely on radar.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will push @StigHemmer's idea a little bit further:
They are completely blind.
They might possess some form of synesthesia, allowing them to "see" smells, and even combine that with some infrared sensibility. Heck, even some echolocation like dolphins or bats. With that, they might "see" the sun, even the moon if it is extremely reflective. They can hunt, they can have relationships, they can understand nature. They might build a civilization just fine, even developing some sort of 'writing' based on smells. IMHO it's perfectly possible. The only thing I don't know how they will achieve is flight, but I imagine they would HEAVILY rely on radar.
$endgroup$
I will push @StigHemmer's idea a little bit further:
They are completely blind.
They might possess some form of synesthesia, allowing them to "see" smells, and even combine that with some infrared sensibility. Heck, even some echolocation like dolphins or bats. With that, they might "see" the sun, even the moon if it is extremely reflective. They can hunt, they can have relationships, they can understand nature. They might build a civilization just fine, even developing some sort of 'writing' based on smells. IMHO it's perfectly possible. The only thing I don't know how they will achieve is flight, but I imagine they would HEAVILY rely on radar.
answered 10 hours ago
tfrascarolitfrascaroli
23115
23115
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Bats fly perfectly fine relying on echolocation. They do typically have good eyesight, but they don't rely on it.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Sure, I meant flying by plane, since that is what I think the OP implies in the question. But yes, if the aliens can fly like a bat, then I guess there's no need for planes.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, my bad ;) I could see paragliding or microlights working well as early aircraft, until some sort of radar sensing system could be developed in that case - the biggest hurdle being how to inform the pilot of what the radar is sensing.
$endgroup$
– Baldrickk
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Baldrickk Yes, I was thinking about that. I think the most obvious would be sound, since smell is hard to integrate with electronics, and I don't think it would be the first approach. Other methods could be a vibrating vest, like you "feel" the pressure where the terrain/other objects is closest to you. I really don't know if that makes sense, I guess that's up to the OP to decide.
$endgroup$
– tfrascaroli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rogue solar system in interstellar space might fit the description (kind of like a rogue planet). For example gravitational interactions in the past launched the solar system outside of its parent galaxy, and now it is just floating in space faraway from any light, or galaxy. Your species reached scientific maturity after the solar system already disappeared into interstellar space.
In this case the solar system might seem like all that exists, since everything else would not be visible. However in this case the solar system is functionally isolated, and is basically the only "universe" they need to care about.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rogue solar system in interstellar space might fit the description (kind of like a rogue planet). For example gravitational interactions in the past launched the solar system outside of its parent galaxy, and now it is just floating in space faraway from any light, or galaxy. Your species reached scientific maturity after the solar system already disappeared into interstellar space.
In this case the solar system might seem like all that exists, since everything else would not be visible. However in this case the solar system is functionally isolated, and is basically the only "universe" they need to care about.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rogue solar system in interstellar space might fit the description (kind of like a rogue planet). For example gravitational interactions in the past launched the solar system outside of its parent galaxy, and now it is just floating in space faraway from any light, or galaxy. Your species reached scientific maturity after the solar system already disappeared into interstellar space.
In this case the solar system might seem like all that exists, since everything else would not be visible. However in this case the solar system is functionally isolated, and is basically the only "universe" they need to care about.
$endgroup$
A rogue solar system in interstellar space might fit the description (kind of like a rogue planet). For example gravitational interactions in the past launched the solar system outside of its parent galaxy, and now it is just floating in space faraway from any light, or galaxy. Your species reached scientific maturity after the solar system already disappeared into interstellar space.
In this case the solar system might seem like all that exists, since everything else would not be visible. However in this case the solar system is functionally isolated, and is basically the only "universe" they need to care about.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
Tyler S. LoeperTyler S. Loeper
4,6831732
4,6831732
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The rogue system need not be completely isolated, as long as it is not near a galaxy. All the other galaxies would be 'stars' that were millions of light years away, without significant gravitational impact.
$endgroup$
– James Jenkins
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the biggest issue that cannot be ignored is the stellar parallax from which the parsec is derived from. Assuming decent optics it will be obvious from the parallax that stars are at different distances. This could be circumvented by having closest stellar object be very distant, 100pc or more.
Another is the red shift of the spectral lines but that could be ignored if the distances are not known since it would not be practical to prove the cause of the shift. I think the existing theory of optical illusions would be just as convincing an explanation.
More difficult is the related issue of spectral lines. It would be very hard to come up with a convincing explanation of why the light of the stars resembles that given by specific composition of gas or plasma at specific temperature without speculating that suns are similar but not identical to our own Sun. Not realizing this would be fairly unlikely. Unless your aliens do not have eyes.
Which would kind of explain lack of interest in studying the stars, I guess.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the biggest issue that cannot be ignored is the stellar parallax from which the parsec is derived from. Assuming decent optics it will be obvious from the parallax that stars are at different distances. This could be circumvented by having closest stellar object be very distant, 100pc or more.
Another is the red shift of the spectral lines but that could be ignored if the distances are not known since it would not be practical to prove the cause of the shift. I think the existing theory of optical illusions would be just as convincing an explanation.
More difficult is the related issue of spectral lines. It would be very hard to come up with a convincing explanation of why the light of the stars resembles that given by specific composition of gas or plasma at specific temperature without speculating that suns are similar but not identical to our own Sun. Not realizing this would be fairly unlikely. Unless your aliens do not have eyes.
Which would kind of explain lack of interest in studying the stars, I guess.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the biggest issue that cannot be ignored is the stellar parallax from which the parsec is derived from. Assuming decent optics it will be obvious from the parallax that stars are at different distances. This could be circumvented by having closest stellar object be very distant, 100pc or more.
Another is the red shift of the spectral lines but that could be ignored if the distances are not known since it would not be practical to prove the cause of the shift. I think the existing theory of optical illusions would be just as convincing an explanation.
More difficult is the related issue of spectral lines. It would be very hard to come up with a convincing explanation of why the light of the stars resembles that given by specific composition of gas or plasma at specific temperature without speculating that suns are similar but not identical to our own Sun. Not realizing this would be fairly unlikely. Unless your aliens do not have eyes.
Which would kind of explain lack of interest in studying the stars, I guess.
$endgroup$
I think the biggest issue that cannot be ignored is the stellar parallax from which the parsec is derived from. Assuming decent optics it will be obvious from the parallax that stars are at different distances. This could be circumvented by having closest stellar object be very distant, 100pc or more.
Another is the red shift of the spectral lines but that could be ignored if the distances are not known since it would not be practical to prove the cause of the shift. I think the existing theory of optical illusions would be just as convincing an explanation.
More difficult is the related issue of spectral lines. It would be very hard to come up with a convincing explanation of why the light of the stars resembles that given by specific composition of gas or plasma at specific temperature without speculating that suns are similar but not identical to our own Sun. Not realizing this would be fairly unlikely. Unless your aliens do not have eyes.
Which would kind of explain lack of interest in studying the stars, I guess.
answered 19 hours ago
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
35.4k260120
35.4k260120
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
The aliens would also have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the spectral lines of other stars are different from those of their own star. Which might be semi-plausible if the spectra of all remote stars is a strict subset of that of their own star (some kind of wavelength-dependent occlusion could just possibly be used to explain away that), but would be far harder to explain if the spectrum of even one, let alone many, remote stars are even partial supersets of the spectrum of their own star, which is likely to be the case.
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Umm, yes? That is what I was talking about in the third paragraph?
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're probably right. The way I read it was that it didn't touch on the issue of supersets of the system's own star's spectrum; my point was that it would be awfully difficult to explain away that while keeping the idea of stars somehow being "reflections".
$endgroup$
– a CVn♦
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@aCVn Yes, that is the "but not identical" part. I guess we were thinking the same thing but I skipped so much detail it wasn't obvious.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One situation that could cause this for our alien friends (and for us as well) is the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (accelerating). At some point in the far future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point, no light from any of the other galaxies in the universe will ever reach the aliens. Every experiment they perform will conclude that there is nothing else out there except for their local group, which could still be held together by gravity.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One situation that could cause this for our alien friends (and for us as well) is the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (accelerating). At some point in the far future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point, no light from any of the other galaxies in the universe will ever reach the aliens. Every experiment they perform will conclude that there is nothing else out there except for their local group, which could still be held together by gravity.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One situation that could cause this for our alien friends (and for us as well) is the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (accelerating). At some point in the far future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point, no light from any of the other galaxies in the universe will ever reach the aliens. Every experiment they perform will conclude that there is nothing else out there except for their local group, which could still be held together by gravity.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
One situation that could cause this for our alien friends (and for us as well) is the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (accelerating). At some point in the far future, the universe will be expanding faster than the speed of light. At that point, no light from any of the other galaxies in the universe will ever reach the aliens. Every experiment they perform will conclude that there is nothing else out there except for their local group, which could still be held together by gravity.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 12 hours ago
KFoleyKFoley
111
111
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
KFoley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
If the alien species follow the scientific reasoning (aka make a model, use the model to make a forecast, check with experiment if the observation validate the forecast: if they do, make another forecast, if they don't, discard the model), their model won't stand the observation.
That's exactly how we got rid of the ether hypothesis: experimental evidences were against the forecast made by the ether model, so it finished down the drain (Michelson and Morley experiment)
Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions.
I assume, without further details on this model, that sooner or later it would become observable that:
- the level of detail of these "artifacts" is extremely fine and not matching any known, in system, source.
- the appearance of these "artifacts" is not affected by the relative position of the observer
- the "artifacts" have a red shift, so whatever is causing them is moving outward, hinting that there is space out there.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
If the alien species follow the scientific reasoning (aka make a model, use the model to make a forecast, check with experiment if the observation validate the forecast: if they do, make another forecast, if they don't, discard the model), their model won't stand the observation.
That's exactly how we got rid of the ether hypothesis: experimental evidences were against the forecast made by the ether model, so it finished down the drain (Michelson and Morley experiment)
Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions.
I assume, without further details on this model, that sooner or later it would become observable that:
- the level of detail of these "artifacts" is extremely fine and not matching any known, in system, source.
- the appearance of these "artifacts" is not affected by the relative position of the observer
- the "artifacts" have a red shift, so whatever is causing them is moving outward, hinting that there is space out there.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
If the alien species follow the scientific reasoning (aka make a model, use the model to make a forecast, check with experiment if the observation validate the forecast: if they do, make another forecast, if they don't, discard the model), their model won't stand the observation.
That's exactly how we got rid of the ether hypothesis: experimental evidences were against the forecast made by the ether model, so it finished down the drain (Michelson and Morley experiment)
Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions.
I assume, without further details on this model, that sooner or later it would become observable that:
- the level of detail of these "artifacts" is extremely fine and not matching any known, in system, source.
- the appearance of these "artifacts" is not affected by the relative position of the observer
- the "artifacts" have a red shift, so whatever is causing them is moving outward, hinting that there is space out there.
$endgroup$
Could an intelligent species form this hypothesis, or would other scientific principles mean that no thinking race would believe it by this technology level?
If the alien species follow the scientific reasoning (aka make a model, use the model to make a forecast, check with experiment if the observation validate the forecast: if they do, make another forecast, if they don't, discard the model), their model won't stand the observation.
That's exactly how we got rid of the ether hypothesis: experimental evidences were against the forecast made by the ether model, so it finished down the drain (Michelson and Morley experiment)
Stars and other visual and electromagnetic effects from outside their solar system are explained as complex reflections and optical illusions.
I assume, without further details on this model, that sooner or later it would become observable that:
- the level of detail of these "artifacts" is extremely fine and not matching any known, in system, source.
- the appearance of these "artifacts" is not affected by the relative position of the observer
- the "artifacts" have a red shift, so whatever is causing them is moving outward, hinting that there is space out there.
answered 20 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
91.9k29212441
91.9k29212441
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootes void is a good plan. There are issues; having a star isolated near the middle is tricky, as stars (especially metal-rich ones) require other stars to form, and don't move that quickly. So the other stars formed with that one would be much closer.
If we ignore that problem, Naked eye astronomy is apparent magnitude 6.5 or so. Naked-eye galaxies are that bright at about 15 Mly away. Telescopes are going to extend that much further.
In 1900 telescopes maxed out at 1.25 m, or 200x larger than the human pupil. The limiting magnitude is then about 6.5+11.5 or 18.
We can presume less interest in telescopes (especially huge ones), so using 1900 numbers for a 1950 society is not unreasonable.
And things barely visible with a telescope might be dismissed as artifacts of some kind; galaxies where spotted for decades before they realized they wheren't local to our galaxy. A similar issue might happen here.
Anyhow, that works out to things roughly 200 times further away, or 5 Gly, or 20 times the size of the Bootes void.
You'd have to limit telescopes to something like 5 times a human eye -- and a telescope that small is going to be used for navigation, let alone astronomy -- to avoid being able to see the edge of the void from its center.
Still, it might take time to work out that those swirls are in fact not visual artifacts.
In theory placing yourself in a dust cloud also helps; but dust clouds generate stars (which also explains your star).
Now, if you want to talk about a local cluster of stars, that become more practical. Aforsaid dust would reduce the apparent magnitude of the galaxies far away, and there would be a handful of close stars. Those stars would all seem to be orbiting each other, and beyond them would be a void.
Unfortunetally being able to see they lack planets becomes a challenge.
What more, in 1950s, people where uncertain if other planets in our solar system lacked (complex macroscopic) life; if you make telescopes worse in your world, they become even less certain; and if you make them as good as our 1950s telescopes, hiding the galaxies outside the void becomes less plausible.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootes void is a good plan. There are issues; having a star isolated near the middle is tricky, as stars (especially metal-rich ones) require other stars to form, and don't move that quickly. So the other stars formed with that one would be much closer.
If we ignore that problem, Naked eye astronomy is apparent magnitude 6.5 or so. Naked-eye galaxies are that bright at about 15 Mly away. Telescopes are going to extend that much further.
In 1900 telescopes maxed out at 1.25 m, or 200x larger than the human pupil. The limiting magnitude is then about 6.5+11.5 or 18.
We can presume less interest in telescopes (especially huge ones), so using 1900 numbers for a 1950 society is not unreasonable.
And things barely visible with a telescope might be dismissed as artifacts of some kind; galaxies where spotted for decades before they realized they wheren't local to our galaxy. A similar issue might happen here.
Anyhow, that works out to things roughly 200 times further away, or 5 Gly, or 20 times the size of the Bootes void.
You'd have to limit telescopes to something like 5 times a human eye -- and a telescope that small is going to be used for navigation, let alone astronomy -- to avoid being able to see the edge of the void from its center.
Still, it might take time to work out that those swirls are in fact not visual artifacts.
In theory placing yourself in a dust cloud also helps; but dust clouds generate stars (which also explains your star).
Now, if you want to talk about a local cluster of stars, that become more practical. Aforsaid dust would reduce the apparent magnitude of the galaxies far away, and there would be a handful of close stars. Those stars would all seem to be orbiting each other, and beyond them would be a void.
Unfortunetally being able to see they lack planets becomes a challenge.
What more, in 1950s, people where uncertain if other planets in our solar system lacked (complex macroscopic) life; if you make telescopes worse in your world, they become even less certain; and if you make them as good as our 1950s telescopes, hiding the galaxies outside the void becomes less plausible.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Bootes void is a good plan. There are issues; having a star isolated near the middle is tricky, as stars (especially metal-rich ones) require other stars to form, and don't move that quickly. So the other stars formed with that one would be much closer.
If we ignore that problem, Naked eye astronomy is apparent magnitude 6.5 or so. Naked-eye galaxies are that bright at about 15 Mly away. Telescopes are going to extend that much further.
In 1900 telescopes maxed out at 1.25 m, or 200x larger than the human pupil. The limiting magnitude is then about 6.5+11.5 or 18.
We can presume less interest in telescopes (especially huge ones), so using 1900 numbers for a 1950 society is not unreasonable.
And things barely visible with a telescope might be dismissed as artifacts of some kind; galaxies where spotted for decades before they realized they wheren't local to our galaxy. A similar issue might happen here.
Anyhow, that works out to things roughly 200 times further away, or 5 Gly, or 20 times the size of the Bootes void.
You'd have to limit telescopes to something like 5 times a human eye -- and a telescope that small is going to be used for navigation, let alone astronomy -- to avoid being able to see the edge of the void from its center.
Still, it might take time to work out that those swirls are in fact not visual artifacts.
In theory placing yourself in a dust cloud also helps; but dust clouds generate stars (which also explains your star).
Now, if you want to talk about a local cluster of stars, that become more practical. Aforsaid dust would reduce the apparent magnitude of the galaxies far away, and there would be a handful of close stars. Those stars would all seem to be orbiting each other, and beyond them would be a void.
Unfortunetally being able to see they lack planets becomes a challenge.
What more, in 1950s, people where uncertain if other planets in our solar system lacked (complex macroscopic) life; if you make telescopes worse in your world, they become even less certain; and if you make them as good as our 1950s telescopes, hiding the galaxies outside the void becomes less plausible.
$endgroup$
The Bootes void is a good plan. There are issues; having a star isolated near the middle is tricky, as stars (especially metal-rich ones) require other stars to form, and don't move that quickly. So the other stars formed with that one would be much closer.
If we ignore that problem, Naked eye astronomy is apparent magnitude 6.5 or so. Naked-eye galaxies are that bright at about 15 Mly away. Telescopes are going to extend that much further.
In 1900 telescopes maxed out at 1.25 m, or 200x larger than the human pupil. The limiting magnitude is then about 6.5+11.5 or 18.
We can presume less interest in telescopes (especially huge ones), so using 1900 numbers for a 1950 society is not unreasonable.
And things barely visible with a telescope might be dismissed as artifacts of some kind; galaxies where spotted for decades before they realized they wheren't local to our galaxy. A similar issue might happen here.
Anyhow, that works out to things roughly 200 times further away, or 5 Gly, or 20 times the size of the Bootes void.
You'd have to limit telescopes to something like 5 times a human eye -- and a telescope that small is going to be used for navigation, let alone astronomy -- to avoid being able to see the edge of the void from its center.
Still, it might take time to work out that those swirls are in fact not visual artifacts.
In theory placing yourself in a dust cloud also helps; but dust clouds generate stars (which also explains your star).
Now, if you want to talk about a local cluster of stars, that become more practical. Aforsaid dust would reduce the apparent magnitude of the galaxies far away, and there would be a handful of close stars. Those stars would all seem to be orbiting each other, and beyond them would be a void.
Unfortunetally being able to see they lack planets becomes a challenge.
What more, in 1950s, people where uncertain if other planets in our solar system lacked (complex macroscopic) life; if you make telescopes worse in your world, they become even less certain; and if you make them as good as our 1950s telescopes, hiding the galaxies outside the void becomes less plausible.
answered 9 hours ago
YakkYakk
9,07111238
9,07111238
add a comment |
add a comment |
Elessar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Elessar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Elessar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Elessar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144115%2fcan-an-alien-society-believe-that-their-star-system-is-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
23
$begingroup$
What if they can't see the stars?
$endgroup$
– Arcanist Lupus
19 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
a "hardcore" solution would be to place the aliens solar system inside of a dyson sphere...
$endgroup$
– Julian Egner
19 hours ago
12
$begingroup$
and no mention of Krikkit?
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
17 hours ago
21
$begingroup$
well; considering there are actual, real-life humans that believe that the entire universe is a projection on a dome over the earth ('not even the solar system is real'); this premise isn't that difficult to explain: all you need is a charismatic leader and a few scientifically illiterate followers
$endgroup$
– ThisIsMe
17 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@ThisIsMe and then said charismatic leader bans "treasonous" activities, like astronomy...
$endgroup$
– Doktor J
11 hours ago