This may sound strange to some people because humanity has been capable of getting off its planet for quite a while now. But if you were an alien living on a much bigger planet, the cost of getting into space could just be too high.
HD 215497 b, hot "Super-Earth" planet.
Tyrogthekreeper at en.wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons
A German astrophysicists Michael Hippke came with another possible explanation of the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox is, in simple terms, the question “where is everybody?”. Since the forces of probability force us to acknowledge that there are likely millions of planets where life could develop and plenty of time has passed for it to develop a big problem lies before us. Why can’t we see any signs of intelligent life in the observable universe?
His explanation has everything to do with gravity. The force that keeps us tied to the ground. And to counteract this force you need massive amounts of fuel. For example, it takes over 400 000 kilograms (900 000 lbs) of fuel to launch the Falcon 9 rocket into space. And even one of the smallest modern rockets – New Shepard developed by Blue Origin requires 50 000 kilograms of fuel (110 000 lbs).
If our hypothetical aliens live on a super-earth – a rocky planet that is up to ten times the size of the Earth – they could require massively more fuel to get to space. Micheal Hippke calculated the amount of fuel needed to escape Kepley-20b. This super-earth planet was discovered in 2011 and has a mass of about 9.7 Earth. Because of its higher gravity, he calculated a rocket would have to use 104 times the fuel as a similar rocket would have to use here on Earth. That takes us from 50 000 kilograms to 5 200 000 kilograms (11 464 000 lbs) of fuel needed to leave the planets gravitational influence.
This makes spaceflight a very uneconomical proposition. Potentially even almost impossible for larger planets. If aliens on even larger planets wanted to go into space they could not use chemical propellants because they just don’t provide enough thrust.
This explanation doesn’t fully answer the question posed by the Fermi Paradox as life is statistically probable to exist even on planets that are similarly sized and massive as our Earth. But it does provide a part of the answer. Maybe the majority of technologically based life has just developed on massive planets and going into space is not a thing that is as easily accessible to them as it is for us. Maybe we are just the lucky ones.
Sources:
- https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-needed-for-a-satellite-to-reach-its-intended-orbital-velocity
- https://www.space.com/40375-super-earth-exoplanets-hard-aliens-launch.html
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.04727.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-20b
- If you like the content I’m producing about science maybe you will like the content I produce about gaming as well! Be sure to check out my other blogs!
- @gaming-trail Where we are your everyday source of gaming-news!
- @kralizec Where I review video games and make commentaries about video games!
Really cool perspective on an answer to the Fermi Paradox.
Opinion incoming.
I also think that another reason for us not seing any other lifeforms in the universe is because leaving the own solar system is unfeasible. Think about us as humans. Where would we go and why? There are no incentives (or even economics) to do so. And on top of that, even if we wanted to, going to the nearest star (Alpha Centauri) would take 4.37 light years. Or in other words, 4.13425091 × 10^13 km. So I would say that we as species we will never see aliens.
Sum up these facts with the others like the ones you posted about and... it won't be possible.
Anyway, good post! :D
As I understand the Fermi Paradox, part of it is also the question why can't we see any evidence of the aliens, not only why haven't we met them in person. For example, we haven't we heard any alien radio signals. Why haven't we detected any Dyson Spheres/Swarms around any stars?
Getting to other stars will be quite unpopular unless some sort of FTL drive is possible, that is obviously a problem. But it is also solvable by things like generational ships, cryostasis (even if you send just embryos that would be later raised on the planet once the infrastructure is set up by machines).
Hi, I found some acronyms/abbreviations in this post. This is how they expand:
Too bad aliens, planets, and gravity all don't exist. Time to stop believing in silly space fairy tales, and wake up to reality.
I am not claiming that aliens exist. But statistically, it is probable.
If planets don't exist, on what exactly are we living right now? And what can you see with a telescope when you look at let's say Venus or Mars?
You live on a plane, just like all the proofs and common sense shows. Somehow, you were indoctrinated to believe something other than what is obvious.
This plane is an enclosed system, which allows nothing in, and nothing out. This includes mystical space creatures you talk about.
Obviously you haven't actually looked through a telescope recently or you would see what I and everyone else sees, which are wandering stars made of what appears to be light reflections, and not solid space balls.
This is mars:
This is CGI:
As for venus, I am shocked that people are still dumb enough to believe they can look up in the night sky and see what they believe is a planet that is always closer to the sun.
If venus were truly a planet closer to the sun, the dark side of the earth would never be able to see this.
Sorry, I do not want to engage in a conversation with a person who believes in conspiracy theories. I prefer empirical evidence.
Well hopefully one day you actually wake the fuck up and realize you've been lied to. It's very easy to do the scientific experiments yourself, but I see you would rather stay stuck in your belief system since it's probably more comfortable for you to handle.
I would like to hear your opinion on the moon in that case, if gravity doesn't exist then why is there a huge spherical rock right beside our planet?
This theory brought me a good chuckle.
Unfortunately, it will be thrown out when scientists acknowledge massless objects.
And that will be the death nail of the theory that gravity is caused by mass.
okay? what exactly would you consider a massless object?
That is a hard one to describe.
Because it doesn't lose the F=ma mass.
But it does lose its F=Gm1m2 / d2 mass.
Okay, math won't really help me as I don't have a mathematical background. I only try to popularize science.
Could you perhaps describe it in laymans terms?
Imagine a baseball.
It takes energy to throw it. That is, increasing its momentum. The first formula.
The baseball falls towards the ground after it leaves your hand. We call this force gravity.
Modern scientists mistakenly believe this is due to mass. The second formula.
So, a massless object would be a baseball that would take energy to throw, but wouldn't fall toward the ground. It would just float there.
As far as I understand gravity is caused by the fact that mass affects spacetime and curves it.
Yep, that is what the science books say, and it is based off an insane, rich guy who did experiments with huge (some say gold) balls in a barn. Never repeated.
And there is a lot of evidence that it is not the case. If gravity was based off of mass, then would the gravitational constant vary over the surface of the earth? I mean a mountain is tiny thing compared to the supposed diameter of the earth. The gravitational constant (big G, in the formula above) varies greatly from place to place and time to time.
Perhaps some of them do, but not all of them
Only with our current knowledge regarding space travel.
Hello! Good article! I'm interested in the them of ICO and crypto-currency, I'll subscribe to your channel. I hope you will also like my content and reviews of the most profitable bounties and ICO, subscribe to me @toni.crypto
There will be a lot of interesting!