/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10580201
Fermi was a brainlet.

That aliens are already all around us but cloaked. Or there is ultra galactic council which told other aylmaos not to go there and just stay put. Both of those are pretty respectable theories which i just made up.

>>10580201
grey goo. We invent weaponized self replicating tiny robots. Worst case scenario is that they replicate so fast that the entire earth gets covered in them in a matter of hours. Life goes extinct because it gets baked to death by the waste heat generated. The tiny robots get baked to death by their own waste heat.

Forever alone in the universe

>>10580201
The most plausible explanation is that the universe is really fucking big and old, and the chances of complex intelligent life not only existing in the same cosmically insignificant time frame as us but also within "earshot" of our current methods of searching for them, coupled with the idea that we'd even know what to look for and understand the signs of them searching back, is close to zero.

Humans are the earliest intelligent lifeforms to exist in the Universe

>>10580239
>>10580245
Wew

>>10580245
If the universe exists on the principle birth and death then yes. We might be big Ayys.

>>10580201
It comes down the the vast distances in the universe and the scarcity of life in it. If you just think about how rar life is and amount of space seperating each star system...it's no surprise that we havn't made contact with life. Just think...if there was let say 1000 star systems with intelegent life on them in our galaxy at any give time.....you sitll will never be aware of their existance.

There is a great filter that dooms all advanced civilizations before they colonize space. Its called leftism.

>>10580326
Is the leftism here in the room with us, right now?

The fact that stars are visible at the night sky at all is direct evidence that humanity is the only advanced species in the universe.

The Fermi Paradox is most likely the jump from prokaryote to eukaryote. Because the chance of a mitochondrial prokaryote invading another cell and forming a mutual chemical bond that allows for the harvesting of oxygen for the sake of producing ATP is extremely unlikely.

To give you a sense of scale. Even if every single atom in the universe was a habitable planet with life on it the chance of that happening on any of those planets is still basically 0. Yet it happened on Earth. Which means it probably will never happen ever again in the universe and all other lifeforms are prokaryotes and humanity is the only advanced species in the universe.

Stars being visible already confirms us to be the only advanced species. But the mitochondria being vital for advanced evolution is the silver bullet that solves the fermi paradox.

>>10580201
There is no paradox, at least yet. We simply don't yet have the technological means to detect extrasolar life.
The only sorts of signs we can possibly detect right now are:
-Dyson swarms around a star (which probably isn't even a realistically useful means of harvesting energy, aliens would probably discover a far more efficient means of getting large amounts of energy)
-Directed radio beams (why would they be beaming signals at us? We've only been giving off detectable signals for about 70 years [forming a 70 ly radius sphere, which is minuscule on the scale of the galaxy], and our signals fade into background noise after a few light years. From interstellar distances, Earth hasn't detectably changed for many millions of years. Why would anyone be beaming at us for that long?)
-Ungodly powerful energy releases, which would have to be more and more powerful to be detected as we look out to further distances (what reason would a technologically advanced civilization have to just blindly waste astronomical amounts of energy?)

The Fermi Paradox is like looking at a surface with your naked eyes and asking why you can't see any microbes.

>>10580344
No

>>10580358
>which probably isn't even a realistically useful means of harvesting energy, aliens would probably discover a far more efficient means of getting large amounts of energy

Entropy still applies. There's only 4*10^69 J in the entire universe. Stars burning waste away a lot of precious energy towards entropy. So an advanced species would always extinguish the stars even if they have a superior form of power generation since entropy still applies.

Stars being visible at all basically implies there isn't a species advanced enough to extinguish the stars. We have the ability to detect dyson swarms and have searched for any dyson swarm in our galaxy and the closest million galaxies and have found 0 evidence (which would be very easy to detect) of such a structure.

An advanced species not extinguishing all stars is the same as robbing itself out of millions of years of existence every day. Thus stars being visible is direct and definite proof of there being no advanced species in the universe EVEN if they have a better energy generation method than dyson swarms.

>>10580201
The answer is right in front of us. Space travel is extremely resource intensive and requires special economic circumstances to make colonization a viable strategy. That coupled with the limit of c, and you have very few civilizations travelling out of their solar systems. Maybe in several hundred thousand years it will be more common.

>>10580201
Fermi was a globalist from the deep space

>>10580238
What if the robots were about as smart as dogs? Could they build a space economy?

>>10580397
This gets made obsolete with Von Neumann probes. Just have one self-replicated AI guide probe that uses astroids to slowly colonize the rest of the universe and the entire Milky Way galaxy would be a human colony within a million years.

Universe exists 13.6 billion years yet no one has done that yet despite it basically costing 0 resources while the rewards are incomprehensibly large.

>>10580384
>only 10^69 J
>ONLY 10^69 J
LMAO

A stable civilization does not require an entire star's worth of energy. There's basically nothing to do with that much energy. Relativistic space travel takes far less than an entire star's energy output.

Dyson swarms are just something we dreamed up to take a wild guess at what an advanced civilization might end up doing. It's just a pipe dream, like how people used to think ornithopters would be how people would fly in the future. We shouldn't take our wild guesses about the future seriously.

>>10580419
Why are you assuming a non-human civilization would be similar to our civilization?

>>10580419
"Only" because of entropy which means it's a diminishing amount of usable energy. Every day that stars burn is less and less energy for you to use eventually.

>A stable civilization does not require an entire star's worth of energy. There's basically nothing to do with that much energy. Relativistic space travel takes far less than an entire star's energy output.
True, but they'd still try to extinguish all stars so that their energy don't get wasted towards entropy. the 4*10^69 J is everything that existence will EVER have. After that has gone towards entropy the universe will die the heat death. So it's in the best interest of an advanced species to collect all matter in the universe and extinguish all stars so that as little energy as possible gets wasted towards entropy.

Like you said youself the amount of energy a single star produces is far beyond what the civilization needs. Which means the billions of stars burning a single day wastes billions of years of existence of that species because all that energy is now going towards entropy instead of being used for the civilization.

Therefor EVERY advanced species would immediately try to extinguish all stars as to avoid wasting finite energy towards entropy. Us seeing stars in the sky point towards humanity being the only advanced species because no other advanced species would allow such wasteful processes to exist.

>>10580432
Why are you assuming an advanced race, far more technologically capable and intelligent than us, would do exactly what we naively imagine they would do? There are without a doubt far more efficient methods of power generation that we simply don't know about. FFS, we thought stars burned chemically until we found out it would burn out in a few thousand years if it did.

>>10580384
Which do you think more likely, a race that discovers how to harness stars first, or a race that discovers how to extinguish them entirely? Why would you do the latter if you could do the former?

>>10580452
>Why are you assuming an advanced race, far more technologically capable and intelligent than us, would do exactly what we naively imagine they would do?
Because the laws of physics still applies to everyone in the universe. They still need energy to keep their processes (life or otherwise) going. Which means they are still beholden to rationality based on trying to survive for as long as possible.

You can extrapolate these basic things that are universal among all beings in the universe to mean that they will try to extinguish all stars as to preserve as much energy (existence/survival) as possible.

We know the total amount of energy is 4*10^69 and rapidly declining due to stars so it's a no-brainer they would do everything in their power to stop stars from existing.

But we still see stars, thus there are no advanced species out there.

>>10580459
>Why would you do the latter if you could do the former?
Maybe there is a better or more efficient way for energy generation than burning stars. Or maybe you have no use for large amounts of energy so you extinguish stars and only keep a couple burning to save energy.

For example the most efficient power generation humans know of right now aren't actually stars but black holes. So it would make more sense for them to extinguish all stars and then combine them all into a supermassive black hole with just enough material left over to build a large "dyson swarm" around the black hole to harness it's energy.

>>10580409
Also proves that intelligent machines are much harder to make than we thought. The engineering problem of making a probe capable of autonomous action, with an expected operating window of thousands of years, which then seeks out resources, catalogues data, and makes copies of itself, has been handwaved by theorists as some technology that is inevitable, which may be true, but we don't even know if the von Neumann probe will be feasible. I think the model for the spread of those probes vastly overestimates their efficiency.

Red dwarfs will continue to supply vast amounts of energy to prospective civilizations for many many trillions of years. For an advanced civilization to plan out that far is simply stupid.
What would you do for that long? What plans would you make, what things would you not have already done a million times over?

Any intelligent civilization will know that its identity and goals will shift dramatically many times over across such vast timescales.
For trillions of years, the Universe will have an overabundant supply of energy. Harvesting and storing such unimaginable quantities of energy (if such a thing is even theoretically feasible) is a pointless goal for a civilization.

>>10580384
>Stars being visible at all basically implies there isn't a species advanced enough to extinguish the stars.
i'm not sure why you think an advanced alien race would necessarily destroy stars. it would be like the cosmic version of fossil fuels, destroying your environment just to power some lame shit. call me an optimist but i'd like to believe by that point any sentient beings would have grown beyond those measures, and they're just as likely to have come up with more efficient and less destructive methods of energy production. perhaps our entire universe is a byproduct of an alien method of creating unfathomable amounts of energy in the first place.

Dear Op my theories

1 The speeds required in a vehicle to make interstellar flight feasible, are also in fact the speeds required to kill a planet.


2 Life is extremely common, but most life bearing worlds have no landmasses. Super smart whales and squids are not likely to use the same technology that we have,

>>10580478
Personally I think it's far more likely that any sufficiently technologically advanced species would go inward, creating virtual reality utopias, rather than outward towards galactic or universal colonization.

As a very simple analogy, do you think the inevitable invention of realistic sex bots is going to make men more financially and socially ambitious and seek out more real females, or stay at home and fuck their perfect sexbot waifus 24/7?

>>10580495
The civilization itself will most likely don't even think about it. What most likely is the case is that all members of the species live in a simulation and they'd just have AI slowly gather all resources in the universe for them. More energy means a longer existence, it's that simple.

And you can say "why would you want to live longer than a couple trillions of years" but that's a dumb question. Why would you want to live longer than a single day? Why not kill yourself now if the heat death of the universe is inevitable in the long-term.

It also costs nothing to let AI gather those resources for future use and if you want to end your existence after those trillions of years you can still do so. The gathering of the resources doesn't change that.

There is basically no reason to NOT gather the resources and extinguish the stars.

>>10580510
also fucking gravity is a bitch and any species with that much of a need to expand are more likely to kill themselves first.

I'm looking at you, Humans

>>10580245
in the end it turns out the real ayylmao were the friends we made along the way

>>10580513
I understand the analogy but there will always be a group of actors who need to maintain those systems and they will be critical to preserving and even expanding those types of societies. Even the matrix will need tons of power and maintenance to keep the virtual Utopia going, and the economic prosperity and boom of machine intelligence from a collective virtual economy would allow for space expansion. And they would want to keep that Utopia going above all especially, so they would have to secure energy to maintain it. They would eventually expand, imho.

>>10580513
>Personally I think it's far more likely that any sufficiently technologically advanced species would go inward, creating virtual reality utopias,
Pretty funny since I basically said that >>10580514

I still think they would have AI in the background that gather all resources in the universe for future usage of the civilization though. And we see 0 signs of that happening in our universe.

>>10580505
>and they're just as likely to have come up with more efficient and less destructive methods of energy production.
Yes the chance they will use a more efficient power production method other than stars is very likely. However the laws of physics still apply which means 4*10^69 is the total amount of mass-energy this universe will ever have. Stars burning cause this energy to rapidly deplete towards entropy (rapidly being trillions of years so 10^9 instead of 10^30 years if we extinguished all stars). The large amount of difference in length of existence allowed by our universe is so absurdly huge that you'd have to be crazy not to extinguish all stars.

You could argue they would choose for cultural reasons to let the stars burn. But then every single individual of every single species in the universe would have to decide that. For example I personally would immediately send out a Von Neumann probe to systemically extinguish all stars if I had the technology and ability to do so. And it takes just a single individual in the universe to do that for all stars to disappear, yet we still see stars. Pointing towards humanity being the only advanced species in the universe.

>>10580514
There are many things to do and hope for left after a thousand years.

After a hundred trillion years, what is left that hasn't been seen over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....

Harvesting enormous amounts of energy without a clear goal in mind sounds exactly like the kind of thing an immature civilization would do, not a mature and technologically advanced one.

>They'll all be living in simulations
I f*cking love science XDDDD

>>10580539

Hah for every star you extinguish I'll start one up!

I like how the shine

>>10580245
Ay yo hol up.

We wuz ancients?

>>10580547
>They'll all be living in simulations
>I f*cking love science XDDDD

I didn't say this because I like the idea. I said it because it makes the most sense in terms of energy consumption. Members of a species that are mind uploaded into a computer center are orders of magnitudes more energy-efficient than biological members. Them living in a simulation also means there has to be fewer energy used since they don't need to actually travel through space and do activities that cost a lot of energy in the real world and only relatively cheap processing power in a simulation.

The reason we'd live in a simulation is for the same reason why we'd extinguish all stars in the universe, entropy. We only have 4*10^69 joules available to us. The less we use the longer our existence.

And, again. Just because you personally don't want to exist for trillions of years doesn't mean the entire society decides to do so. And only the members that keep existing decide what the society will do further meaning that the members that decide to end their existence will eventually run out leaving only the ones that will gather all resources in the universe to let the simulation run as long as possible.

>>10580201

If intelligent technological life like ours is common then we are almost certainly Being simulated inside the mind of a futuristic super AI.

If it is extremely rare then we are too far separated by time and space to detect another technological species.

That just because a renowned scientist calls something a paradox, it doesn't mean it is. He just ballparked it but we just don't have enough astronomical data to accurately estimate how probable is it for other intelligent life to develop in our lightcone. And most estimations show it's not really likely.

>>10580584
We have had the hubble scan for telltale signs of dyson sphere/swarms in the closest million galaxies and we found absolutely nothing.

>>10580563
Instead of convincing ourselves that we can actually conclude things about advanced civilizations based on pipe-dream hypotheticals, I'd like to take it back to the facts:

Dyson Swarms are a completely hypothetical human idea, and we should be very skeptical of assuming that any advanced civilization would actually necessarily do such a thing.

The first real scientific hint we will have of the presence of alien life will be analysis of exoplanet atmospheres, which is in development but accurate surveys are still a ways off.

We have an absence of evidence, not an evidence of absence.

Those are the uncontroversial facts. Anything else is just playing around with assumptions and hypotheticals.

>>10580344
>Because the chance of a mitochondrial prokaryote invading another cell and forming a mutual chemical bond that allows for the harvesting of oxygen for the sake of producing ATP is extremely unlikely.

I have no fucking idea what any of that means but it sounds intelligent so whatever, I believe it.

>>10580201
Life in the universe is very rare, intelligent life even more so.

Jonathan Carroll-Nellenback and colleagues published a good paper this year on the Fermi Paradox (pic related) where X= fraction of settled planets.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.04450.pdf

>>10580344
Stars being visible?

Thy Orbulon hast been there, seen that. Thy Orbulon regrets to inform that there is no other live in thou Universe/

>>10580409
Life couldnt possibly have formed in the first 12 billion years or so, though.
I think humans are just early.

>>10580409
>he doesn’t know galaxies also have habitable zones
Yikes

>>10580641
There’s a million chance happenings that have to happen in order for life to exist in the universe and whether or not that can happen is all determined by the size of the star being born to the mass of the planet in order to have enough gravity for certain and special chemical processes to take place.
People, normies, will say “liquid water, therefor life!” Liquid water is a single puzzle piece 100,000,000.
Had earth not been hit by Thea then there wouldn’t be life on this planet and our ball of rock would’ve been dead just like Venus and Mars.

>>10580510
maybe if they became hyperintelligent theyll find a way to develop technology without fire

going straight for bio computers and literally breeding tools sounds like a cool scifi story idea

>>10580607
Lets add some other facts we know
>Total energy in the universe is 4*10^69 J
>Laws of thermodynamics means the amount of usable energy gets lower over time
>Certain natural processes such as stars waste massive amounts of energy towards entropy
>Life always tries to survive and exist for as long as possible because only life with that instinct survives the process of evolution before leaving their planet

Combine all these basic facts together and you can only come to the conclusion that they will immediately extinguish stars when technologically able to. We still see stars and thus no species is capable of doing so.

>>10580642
Dyson swarm makes every star system habitable.

>>10580201
rare earth

We are surrounded by intelligent life, but they exist in a different dimension that is undetectable by us. For example, ants inside our homes have no clue that we exist and they are crawling through our property.

>>10580402
They would be too tiny to be that smart.

>>10580693
Thou dyson swarm would not realistically work.

>>10580690
>Dyson Swarms are a completely hypothetical human idea, and we should be very skeptical of assuming that any advanced civilization would actually necessarily do such a thing.

You keep tacking on this unscientific assumption.

>>10580466
Any energy to be gained from black hole vs star would be lost in moving all the damn starts together to form the black hole. Sometimes I forget /sci/ is just for primary school homework

>>10580695

>>10580690
>Combine all these basic facts together and you can only come to the conclusion that they will immediately extinguish stars when technologically able to.
This is pseud popsci shit. It does not follow from your premises.

>>10580201
Fermi paradox simply doesn’t exist because it makes retarded assumptions like civilizations are an inevitable consequence of an active biosphere.

>>10580326
Back to /pol/, gramps.

>>10580505
They’d just put a Dyson swarm around some shitty red dwarf nearby their home system, like Proxima Centauri for us.

>>10580615
[citation needed]

>>10580653
Thats true but my point still stands that you cant just say nobody has built Von Neumann Probes in the last 13 billion years so another intelligent species will never arrive.
Life hasnt even had the chance to emerge for the largest part of existence until now.

>>10580653
Water probably does equal life. But like isn’t intelligent life necessarily

>>10580701
Dyson swarm is just a large amount of satellites orbiting a star to absorb 100% of it's light. Humanity already has a couple satellites around our sun and that works just fine. No reason why a dyson swarm wouldn't work

>>10580708
Instead of acting condescending you should have allowed me to explain my position instead. Sure a lot of energy gets lost when moving the stars and they are likely to be bigger than the gains from a black hole. However you need to take into account the relativistic effects of having such a huge supermassive black hole. It'll slow time down to such an extent that the rate of entropy would be lower and the total amount of time of existence will be higher, this can have all kinds of benefits for a civilization living in a VR making it a far more lucrative choice than simple star power generation.

>>10580710
>popsci
You know very well that no popsci would ever argue against the existence of aliens. What I said were simple facts, sure my conclusion I make based on that might be flawed but at least try to address it and try to explain how life would choose not to gather resources despite it not costing any extra effort and the gains being massive. And again just a single individual needs to make a self-replicating von neumann probe and it'd be done. Yet the universe is full with stars clearly showing there is no activity of this kind.

>>10580722
13 billion years is a very long time and plenty to colonize entire galaxy group many times over. Conditions for Earthlike planets to form existed since 1-2 billion years after the big bang.

We should already see a galaxy full of life if aliens exist. Fermi paradox is a paradox for a reason.

>>10580731
Thou dost not understand the difference between a few scientific satellites and thousands of large solar panels orbiting thou star similarly to one-another.

>>10580744
It would take planets' worth of material to manufacture enough probes to mostly surround a star, and much more to produce the means of energy storage for the whole thing.
Many stars don't have planets, so this would require importing all that material. Even for systems with planets, the idea of converting whole planets into power generation arrays is simply ludicrous.

The simplest and most realistic explanation is simply that a VN probe is not feasible.

>>10580613
Basically prokaryotes are bacteria. Eukaryotes are single-celled organisms but with a mitochondria in their cells.

Mitochondria were originally a prokaryote that invaded another prokaryote like a parasite. However one time the prokaryote invading the other prokaryote had a huge coincidence.

Both prokaryotes has very weird mutations. The invader (mitochondria) produced a chemical called ATP which produces a lot of energy for its host cell. While the invaded cell (Eukaryote) had a weird evolution where it would absorb oxygen (which is highly toxic!!!). It just turned out that the mitochondria due to its weird mutation could actually use the oxygen to make ATP and thus both not only stayed alive but formed the perfect pact.

Now almost all life on the planet except virusses and bacteria are Eukaryote. Every single cell in your body contains this mitochondria within it.

The chances of this happening are estimated to be -1*10^500. Which is so low that it happening twice in the universe, even in trillions of years time is so low that it's ridiculous. Meaning that that is most likely the great filter. All other life in the universe is prokaryotic.

>>10580700
Couldn't a few million of them network up to have some basic cognition?

>>10580754
Orbulon is right. Even thousands is nothing compared to a Dyson swarm, that would take quadrillions to quintillions of typical-sized satellites.

>>10580768
Imagine a cascading failure of collisions in a constellation that massive. You would need to constant tend the orbit of failing orbiters push them down before they fucked everything up. Quadrillions of dollars down the drain if maintenance fails.

>>10580731
THOUEST DOTH NOT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY

>>10580775
*Constantly

>>10580775
Oh shit, I forgot about CMEs. That'd be a huge challenge to overcome. One good CME and a good portion of station keeping guidance would be off the rails, leading to a cascade failure.

>>10580777
Whomst is thou 'Testiculon'?

>>10580775
Precisely.

>>10580777
What if he has a "relative" grasp on the concept

>>10580766
>-1*10^500
So either negative probability or tautology, depending on how stupid you are.

>>10580201
god

>>10580766
>Now almost all life on the planet except virusses and bacteria are Eukaryote.
This is a stupid statement, almost all life on Earth is prokaryotes.

>The chances of this happening are estimated to be -1*10^500.
Assuming you meant 10^-500, [citation needed]. This number is ass-pulled. Completely ridiculous, and shows a severe lack of understanding in how cellular biology works.

>>10580767
not when they are designed as a weapon. It doesn't matter if they do, because they get destroyed by their own waste heat.

>>10580725
Water does not equal life you fucking brainlet.
>temperature
>pressure
>mixture
Those are just three of the millions of other things.
Kill yourself before another retarded thought enters that crevasse of a brain cavity you have.

>>10580201
life is too uncommon to cross paths

>>10580766
>Forgetting archaea

>The chances of this happening are estimated to be -1*10^500. Which is so low that it happening twice in the universe, even in trillions of years time is so low that it's ridiculous. Meaning that that is most likely the great filter. All other life in the universe is prokaryotic.

Not true. We’ve actually observed endosymbiosis evolve multiple times in the lab.

>>10580835
There’s a handful of things.

>>10580835
Water implies a certain temperature and pressure faggot.

>>10580760
You can use starlifting to get materials for construction straight from the star itself you don't need planets or asteroids.

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

>>10580754
No we'd just use hundreds of millions of smaller satellites if bigger ones aren't possible which is all relatively easy to do. and beam the power to wherever it's needed.

>>10580801
>This is a stupid statement, almost all life on Earth is prokaryotes
Sure by mass but I mean the diversity and complexity is caused by this Eukaryote development.

>>10580845
The endosymbiosis at the level of mitochondria has never happened since the very first time it did. Other forms of it are far less rare since it's the way mitochondria use oxygen and produce ATP which makes it so extraordinary and absolutely rare for it to happen. Not the fact that they formed a symbiosis.

>>10580889
>The endosymbiosis at the level of mitochondria has never happened since the very first time it did. Other forms of it are far less rare since it's the way mitochondria use oxygen and produce ATP which makes it so extraordinary and absolutely rare for it to happen. Not the fact that they formed a symbiosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9127737

Endosymbiosis between bacteria and protozoan. The bacteria provides ATP to the Protozoa.

>>10580344
Stop posting this absolutely retarded opinion everywhere
>hurr aliens can't exist without blocking all stars but humans can lol

>>10580949
The fact that the entire surface of a planet isn’t covered in solar panels proves there can’t be an Information Age civilization on it. *pffft*

>>10580690
>tfw the only way to delay the universe heat death is to kill ourselves since life accelerates entropy

>>10580873
No it doesn’t you fucking mong. Go study Europa and then come back to suck my cock because you know I’m right.
What about the flowing water on Mars, huh?
>what is salinity
Jesus can you imagine being this fucking retarded.

>>10581001
Entropy is an infinite resource though.

>>10580949
>hurr aliens can't exist without blocking all stars but humans can lol

Modern civilization is few hundred years old, which is a blink of an eye on cosmic scales.

We will very soon cover the Earth in solar panels and then stars in the galaxy, assuming we wont go extinct.

Lack of any observed megaengineering projects such as this is evidence that we are alone.

>>10580889
Even large solar panels aren't very effective, smaller ones would be essentially useless.

'Beaming' the power to a central station would also cause a further loss of efficiency.

>>10581019
“No it doesn’t you fucking mong. Go study Europa and then come back to suck my cock because you know I’m right.”

The pressure of Europa’s internal ocean and it’s temperature are both within scales found here, m8.

>What about the flowing water on Mars, huh?

The water that existed on Mars long ago existed in an atmosphere much denser than what it has now, and at warmer temperatures than what exist now.

>>10581034
You don’t even say how in either of those examples could imply there’s life because there is water. No shit in mars past when it had hundreds of times more volcanism than it had now was it a mystery that water existed. But you’re dancing around your claim: water implies life.

>Dyson bullshit
>hurr durr, lets cover a star in satellites

Why the hell would any civilization do that? How is capturing a star's light output any more advantageous than burning hydrogen of nearby gas giants in fusion reactors?

>>10581040
I didn’t claim water implies life. Different anon, sorry.

>>10580201
That we cannot notice aliens at our current level.

Something minor, like a spaceship, we would have no way of noticing it or telling it from something natural, unless it passes through our solar systema nd even then it would be more a matter of luck to tell it from a random piece of rock flying through.

Something major, like artificial planets or stars, we would have no way of knowing they are not natural.

That we cannot notice aliens at our current level.

Something minor, like a spaceship, we would have no way of noticing it, unless it passes through our solar system and even then it would be more a matter of luck to tell it from a random piece of rock flying through.

Something major, like artificial planets or stars, we would have no way of knowing they are not natural.

>>10581043
The point is that either way you wouldn't see stars in the sky because either the stars get broken down in hydrogen for fusion reactors and future usage instead of letting them burn or you build dyson swarms around them. But stars are still visible meaning there are no advanced species in the universe.

>>10581044
Okay well getting back to the water thing, the ocean of Europa is probably a heavy mixture of ammonia and many other saline chemicals. Just like on mars. It takes a multiple cycles (think carbon dioxide cycle) to filter water like on earth.
Other things about mars: the Viking missions. They conducted 4 different types of test and found zero evidence of any kind of life.
When the rover did dig about an inch into the ground it hit ice, which was interesting but still doesn’t imply life. It was possible an ancient mars, Noahchian area could’ve had single cells life, but that would be hard to prove. The origin (black vent theory) wouldn't be possible because chemical reactions needed wouldn’t happen under mar’s gravity.

>>10581057
If we couldn’t see a star then how would we know it was there in the first place?

>>10580245
The "elder race" theory is hated on /sci/

>>10581061
>Okay well getting back to the water thing, the ocean of Europa is probably a heavy mixture of ammonia and many other saline chemicals. Just like on mars. It takes a multiple cycles (think carbon dioxide cycle) to filter water like on earth.

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/mkivelso/refs/PUBLICATIONS/HandChyba%20Europa%20Icarus07.pdf

“ the ice and liquid water layers on Europa fall within
the limits of Fig. 2 (A = 0.7) then, by standard definitions
of “freshwater” environments on Earth [broadly meaning
<3 g salt kg−1 (Barlow, 2003)], Europa’s ocean would be a H2O
freshwater ocean, though admittedly more salty than most ter-
restrial lakes. Indeed, in this case, the putative global ocean of
Europa could be more like the mildly saline environment of
Pyramid Lake, Nevada than like the Earth’s ocean.”

Sounds safe to me tbqh, especially for microbes entirely capable of evolving halophilic characteristics.

>Other things about mars: the Viking missions. They conducted 4 different types of test and found zero evidence of any kind of life.
When the rover did dig about an inch into the ground it hit ice, which was interesting but still doesn’t imply life. It was possible an ancient mars, Noahchian area could’ve had single cells life, but that would be hard to prove.

Life on Mars would be a few meters beneath the ground because that’s necessary to compensate for the weak magnetic field. Some rock can do the same job.

>The origin (black vent theory) wouldn't be possible because chemical reactions needed wouldn’t happen under mar’s gravity.

Life arising around black smokers isn’t the only model, and I’d like a citation. Gravity is very weak on molecular scales so I’m not sure how you’d get that conclusion.

>>10581093
There’s an “if” at the start of that paragraph, sorry.

>>10581065
Because it would give off infrared radiation due to entropy. We used Hubble to look for this in our milky way galaxy and the nearest million galaxies and we found nothing. And yes the hubble space telescope is more than powerful enough to even detect a single star being encapsulated by a dyson swarm in another galaxy because it gives off a very signature radiation.

>>10580201
Any immortal and self improving consciousness will come to the same conclusion: existence is pointless. Humanity has one century left.

>paradox
never understood how this was some sort of contradiction lol

>>10580591
But that's only paradoxical if you think a priori that it's highly probable that other intelligent beinga exist out there.

>>10581125
Not even true. You’d also have to assume that building Dyson swarms is possible, practical, and worthwhile in comparison to skipping the middle man of solar panels and using fusion at home.

>>10581133
You'd still extinguish all stars even if you'd use fusion because the stars waste large amounts of energy towards entropy. That is energy your civilization will never be able to use anymore and forever wasted.

>>10580591
>dyson sphere
nigger. If fucking communism dosent work, if the fucking roman empire cant survive, if western civilization cant even sustain itself, HOW THE FUCK would any civilization ever be able to organize itself to create a dyson sphere. a literal structure encapsulating a fucking star. Do you not get how retarded you sound? This is the great irony with space autists, they constantly babble on about higher civilizations but they refuse to acknowledge we are IN the timeline where we dont "colonize space". We are here till mass starvation, economic collapse, then we will go to a lower form of culture untill the star dies. There is no paradox, this is reality.

>>10580201
The Milky Way is a retard galaxy full of lifeforms with no space travel.

>>10581147
>You'd still extinguish all stars even if you'd use fusion because the stars waste large amounts of energy towards entropy.

Dubious. There’s so much hydrogen laying about that we’d never need to loot it from stars, and if we did, there’s zero reason to believe that whatever smidgen of hydrogen a Star is losing due to said activity would be discernible at any distance within the thirteen billion years that the universe has been around.

>That is energy your civilization will never be able to use anymore and forever wasted.

Hold on let me bother myself about an issue that won’t exist for billions of years.

>>10581148
>Western civilization

No such thing. There is literally nothing the supposed “West” shares with itself it doesn’t often share with other cultures and nations aside from skintone, because it’s racist nonsense.

>HOW THE FUCK would any civilization ever be able to organize itself to create a dyson sphere. a literal structure encapsulating a fucking star

Wtf how could we tunnel under the English strait. Wtf how could we build the Hoover dam. Omg feats are impossible because I said so

>>10581179
>Hold on let me bother myself about an issue that won’t exist for billions of years.

That's the point you don't have to bother yourself with it. It basically costs 0 effort to send a single self-replicating von-neumann out that will over time collect all matter in the universe and extinguish all stars. You are acting like the collective species has to go on some grand mission for billions of years. In reality the species will not even notice and just chill in their simulation while on the background all matter gets collected for them and stars extinguished to enlarge their existence.

>>10581148
A dyson swarm is just millions of normal satellites orbitting a star and harvesting its energy. It is not some monolithic structure and we could build it with 2019 technology if we wanted. Also humans won't build it. Instead self-replicating probes would do all the work for us while we don't even think about it.

Not seeing any of this happening in our universe is direct evidence there is no advanced life out there.

>>10581179
>No such thing. There is literally nothing the supposed “West” shares with itself it doesn’t often share with other cultures and nations aside from skintone, because it’s racist nonsense.
kys, no magic robots will ever be made without western economic structure, i know this is bait but im feeling angry and want to reply

>>10581179
>because it’s racist nonsense
literally stop posting

>>10580201
The simplest explanation is that the Drake equation massively underestimates the likelihood of intelligent life evolving and developing sufficiently advanced technology. Occam's razor would imply we are alone.

>>10581189
>It basically costs 0 effort to send a single self-replicating von-neumann out that will over time collect all matter in the universe and extinguish all stars.

There’s no reason to bother with that. Just stay home.

>In reality the species will not even notice and just chill in their simulation while on the background all matter gets collected for them and stars extinguished to enlarge their existence.

Again, no reason to do that. The returns are so distant that no one would even bother.

Most likely answer is the univerese is big and FTL isn't possible meaning that life tends to be very picky about systems worth collonizing rather than taking any shithole.

>>10581196
So...uh....what do you think “western economic structure” is?

>>10581200
No.

>>10580201
They invaded already during ancient Sumerian times. This is a slave planet

>>10580215
This.

>Hurr why can't I see Masked Gobies in the Caribbean from Finland with the naked eye? Hurr their must be some kind of Great Masked Goby Filter DURRRR

>>10580245
Is this a prediction? When are humans scheduled to achieve sapience?

>>10581211
Even /x/ doesn't believe that and they believe anything.

>>10581207
The economic system that has lifted the vast majority of humans out of poverty and the one that is the complete polar opposite to the socialist ideology that grew popular in the 19th century

>>10580201
Distance. And the crazy levels of science, engineering and energy you need to cross it.

>>10580344
>The fact that stars are visible at the night sky at all is direct evidence that humanity is the only advanced species in the universe.
The stars you see are all from our own galaxy

>>10581225
>The economic system that has lifted the vast majority of humans out of poverty and the one that is the complete polar opposite to the socialist ideology that grew popular in the 19th century

Oh, you mean...capitalism? That’s, uh, present in the vast majority of countries, not just the “””west”””, agreeing for the sake of the discussion with your imagined ideas of what capitalism does and what it’s relationship of comparison to socialism is.

>>10581205
>There’s no reason to bother with that. Just stay home.
The reason is that the energy will be wasted towards entropy and thus a direct threat on the long-term existence of the species. 10^9 vs 10^30 years of existence is a really big difference.

>The returns are so distant that no one would even bother.
There is almost no investment (just a single von neumman probe) while the returns are that instead of 10^9 years of existence you get 10^30 years of existence. That difference is so large that I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.

"Nah I don't want literal 21 orders of magnitude more existence for our species because sending out a single probe is too much effort".

You realize that only ONE individual from ONE species only has to launch ONE von neumann probe for all stars to disappear in the universe right? Yet we still see stars. Pointing towards humanity being alone.

>>10581234
You can see andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. Go somewhere without a lot of light polution.

>>10581235
I know youre baiting at this point, but there generally are people as retarded as you act, so ill just say that Western society exists, Capitalism is rooted in, and was originally formulated in western society, and socialism is completely antithetical to your stupid dyson spheres. No amount of psychological reaction formation and self hatred that you exhibit changes these facts.

>>10581243
> Go somewhere without a lot of light polution.
Easier said than done these days in most first world countries.

>>10581240
>The reason is that the energy will be wasted towards entropy and thus a direct threat on the long-term existence of the species. 10^9 vs 10^30 years of existence is a really big difference.

I perceive absolutely no difference between living thirty-seven billion years and living 3 trillion. The scales are so large that I do not care.

>There is almost no investment (just a single von neumman probe)

>Assume that Von Neumann probes are possible and practical
>Build one for a hundred billion or more Zorg-Bucks
>Send one
>It explodes when it collides with a piece of dust at 1% of c.
>Send five more
>Three explode
>Two arrive at their destinations a few centuries later
>They reproduce themselves over a period of a thousand years, using up a total mass of Pluto to produce enough probes to explore the entire galaxy
>No one else is anywhere near close enough to notice
>They visit Sol thirty million years ago and harvest a little asteroid
>No one ever notices

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/ResolvingFermi1983.htm

>>10581251
>I know youre baiting at this point, but there generally are people as retarded as you act,

Insults aren’t an argument, and neither is the claim I’m being disingenuous

>so ill just say that Western society exists,

I reject that premise.

>Capitalism is rooted in, and was originally formulated in western society

Doesn’t follow since premise was rejected

>and socialism is completely antithetical to your stupid dyson spheres

How so? I don’t see how worker ownership and control of the means of production would make building a Dyson sphere unachievable

>>10581093
I was at the University of Colorado where Dr. Michael Russell gave a guest lecture about origins of life on earth. I personally asked in a Q&A session on the importance of size of Mars’ difference compared to Earth, being my thesis is pertaining to the geological history of mars. He said it was impossible. Dr. Michael Russell is one of NASA’s leading Astro-biologist.
https://nai.nasa.gov/directory/russell-michael/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.astrobio.net/mars/could-green-rust-be-a-catalyst-for-martian-life/amp/
The same deal applies with Europa. Sure, water exist and nobody is debating that. But that doesn’t imply life. Not one bit. That water is stuck between two giant layers of ice that are hundreds of Kms long. Those “cat scratches” on its surface implies that the water is extremely saline. That’s exactly what that paper says. The surface temperature of Europa is on average -160 degrees Celsius.
You’re arguing water and saying that only implies life when that is completely not the case. As I have stated before in this thread water does not imply life. There are a million other things that are needed.
You can say “well all life on earth needs water”. All life on earth has several things in common. Example: it is hypothesized that we need plate tectonics to have life. Mars, Venus, Europa, Titan, and every other body in our solar system does not have plate tectonics like on earth.
In order for that “chemical soup” you need active volcanism. In order for you to create proteins out of poly peptide bonds you need that right pressure of water and organic chemicals, etc.
Water does not imply life. Plain and simple. Liquid water is pretty much everywhere in our solar system and our galaxy in all the exoplanets we have studied as well. That does not solely and singularly imply life.

>>10581093
That second link is the green rust theory. That’s the chemical reactions and breakdowns that were going on around the black smokers to create life.

>>10581240
A Von Neumann probe capable of building Dyson swarms is an impossible feat of engineering. That's the end of it.

>>10581293
Dyson swarms are not some mystical grand structures. It's hundreds of millions of normal current day satellites orbiting a star. You could gather the material from astroids, planets and even from the star itself by starlifting.

There is nothing especially special or high-tech about it. It could be built with very rudimentary AI like self-driving cars have right now. Let alone what humanity will be able to build in a couple hundred years.

>>10581283
>He said it was impossible. Dr. Michael Russell is one of NASA’s leading Astro-biologist.

That’s nice, but where’s the experimental data demonstrating that the chemical reactions posited to lead to life in a black smoker origin of life model can not occur at 0.37 G?

>The same deal applies with Europa. Sure, water exist and nobody is debating that. But that doesn’t imply life. Not one bit. That water is stuck between two giant layers of ice that are hundreds of Kms long.

I’m not the anon claiming “water=life”.

>Those “cat scratches” on its surface implies that the water is extremely saline. That’s exactly what that paper says.

Not true. The paper states exactly the opposite.
“
If the ice and liquid water layers on Europa fall within
the limits of Fig. 2 (A = 0.7) then, by standard definitions
of “freshwater” environments on Earth [broadly meaning
<3 g salt kg−1 (Barlow, 2003)], Europa’s ocean would be a H2O
freshwater ocean, though admittedly more salty than most ter-
restrial lakes.”

I don’t know about you, but I do not call things less salty than the ocean “extremely saline”. Microrgoanisms can thrive in water with much greater salt concentrations than those of the ocean here, anyway, so salinity is NOT a habitability constraint for the oceans of Europa.

>The surface temperature of Europa is on average -160 degrees Celsius.

Surface surface surface surface surface surface.

Not ocean temperature.

>You’re arguing water and saying that only implies life when that is completely not the case. As I have stated before in this thread water does not imply life. There are a million other things that are needed.

No I’m not. That’s not me.

>>10581283
>it is hypothesized that we need plate tectonics to have life
What a bewilderingly retarded belief. I am becoming more and more convinced every year that the mass of modern science is nothing more than an Emperor's New Clothes situation and that all "experts" are actually quite retarded and can't even see basic flaws in their ridiculous theories. The Fermi """"Paradox"""" mentioned above is the ultimate example of this. Humans are practically blind in this universe. They SHOULD see nothing when they look into the heavens. That's the expected result. But modern scientists are such anthropocentric religiously humanist narcissists that humans must be some kind of super-genius godlike beings in their minds that nothing can escape. Which is bizarre, when you just look at humans which clearly reveals the entire species is dogshit stupid. Including the so-called "experts".

>>10581293
>>10581313
They are possible but the real question is are they practical? How much energy do you need before you decide to import solar that misses the planet instead of fusion or fission?

>>10581321
Stars are easy because they are already burning. Sure if we found out a better form of energy generation we'd use that instead but we'd still harvest all stars and store their matter somewhere instead of letting it go to waste.

>>10581328
My point is the waste heat from that energy is going to pose a very real threat to life on the planet sooner or later.
I haven't done the math but suspect dyson swams won't be a good idea for planetary power and would only be used to power spacecraft via laser pusher.

>>10581313
Thou art wrong. It is mystical because putting millions of satellites into a similar orbit around a star you'd quickly end up with an ablation cascade. No amount of technological advancement makes it a reasonable proposal except for those who lack a basic understanding of orbital dynamics.

>>10581336
No what's more likely is that there would be habitats orbiting around the stars as we most likely won't be living on planets anymore as planets are terrible to live on since you can only use the surface and it's a giant gravity trap.

>>10581337
Stop saying "thou" it's a less respectful version of "you"

>>10581319
I don’t think any other life in the universe is intelligent. Naturally, evolution does not favor intelligence.

>>10581031
You are literally just guessing stuff. Prove that aliens would do any of what you just said

>>10580201
I hate it. There is no paradox.

We just haven't been looking. It's been like 60 years that we have been looking.

That's like looking out of your window for 0.5 seconds, not seeing a bird and coming up with the Nobirds Paradox.

There is no other explanation required.

>>10581313
Lmao you're gonna need waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than hundreds of millions of typical satellites for a Dyson swarm that blocks a good chunk of a star's light.

The Dark Forest theory makes the most sense to me.

Any species with any sense is not going to announce its existence and location to the entire universe. That's suicide.

Everyone keeps quiet. Except us dumb fucks.

>>10581313
why would aliens even want to do that?

>>10581313
>>10581402
Doing the rough math, assuming a Dyson swarm within a few solar radii of the Sun (which presents extreme heating issues), you need about a quintillion typical solar satellites to block a decent chunk of the Sun's light.

>>10581410
Because otherwise the energy will be wasted towards entropy which is analogous to shorting your own lifespan.

>>10581404
Dark Forest Theory breaks down once you actually start thinking about it. Instead of staying silent until you detect another species and then sending a projectile at 99% the speed of light to obliterate the surface of the planet and any megastructure they have you can just do the better strategy.

Just make self replicating von neumann probes than impact the surface of every planet in our galaxy with 99% the speed of light. Start bombarding from the center of the galaxy outwards so that it can't be traced back to your system. Afterwards all species will be wiped.

There is no reason to be silent every species in that scenario would just carpet bomb every single planet and then expand afterwards.

Which is also why humanity will never meet another species even if they existed. Because we're going to carpet bomb every other planet long before we have the technology to actually detect life on their surfaces, just to be sure.

We'll know a bit more once someone finally gets to mars and starts drilling for fossils.

>>10581427
Why the fuck would aliens care about the end of the world that is googol years away? If they wanted to live forever they'd just do VR

>>10580344
brainlet hasn't figured out dark matter

>>10580245
Dumbest answer.

>>10581427
>Just make self replicating von neumann probes than impact the surface of every planet in our galaxy with 99% the speed of light. Start bombarding from the center of the galaxy outwards so that it can't be traced back to your system. Afterwards all species will be wiped.
I mean if you read the final book, that, though through a different method, is pretty much what is happening. It's dimensional warfare. The entire solar system is destroyed by being reduced to 2D, with only a few hundred humans escaping it

The reason to remain silent is primarily for less developed civilisations, and there's just no reason to go loud either. Even if the theory isnt perfect id still argue that any civilisation with a real brain for survival will keep quiet. You only need 1 out of 100 civilisations to be genocidal to end it all for you.

>>10581442
why the fuck dont spoilers work?

>>10581446
Only some boards have unironic spoilers

>>10581435
End of the world is only a couple trillion years away. (9 zeroes) harvesting the stars means (30 zeroes) An extremely large amount of potential existence gets lost just because the species didn't launch a single self-replicating probe. That is extremely unlikely.

>>10581437
Entropy=Entropy. Only 4*10^69 J in the universe and stars waste it towards entropy. Doesn't matter what your power source is you'd still put as much effort as possible into extinguishing stars because they are the most wasteful process in the universe right now.

>>10581442
Fuck man I didn't read the third book and got spoiled. Either way that wouldn't really happen as a species would just indiscriminately bomb the entire galaxy instead of bothering to check if there was life or not and immediately encapsulate all the stars afterwards. So it would only be 1 extra step which is the bombardment of all planets in the galaxy before starting to gather all resources.

>>10581485
And why would they care about something that happens trillions of years in the future? A much simpler solution is to jump into VR and slow down time in the simulation

>>10581427
Your tactics are slightly off.

By going through the process of developing these technologies, any species doing so will be able to reasonably infer what a countermeasure looks like. They'll start to realize that this is a game, not a solution, and that everyone will be looking to win the game. That means tracking where these things came from.

Thus, since the inner galaxy is uninhabitable in the first place, it's already been restructured to detect incoming probes.

You have four more planets to preempt my tactics. Guess intelligently.

>>10581357
Thou has no right to command Orbulon's speech.

>>10581446
found the newfag

>>10580215
*devils advocate

I remember a funny theory I saw on 4chan once about aliens avoiding this galaxy/region of space because it causes madness and homicidal actions, and humans are actually the most scary and horrifying type of alien life in the universe. When we finally escape the madness zone everyone will be horrifying of us ("They kill themselves on mass in these things called wars" "I hear they'll hate and slaughter each other just for having different wavelengths of light reflecting off of their body" "they grow intelligent life forms for the purpose of slaughtering and devouring them even though they can survive off of mindless organisms" "I hear their body is full of that highly corrosive substance water, and they can spit it as an attack" etc

>>10581220
After becoming homo

>>10580201
Interstellar space travel and communication is impossible either physically or practically.

>>10581508
You can't defend against a truck-like pillar impacting at 99% the speed of light. It would contain enough energy to instantly destroy all structures and the entire surface of any planet it hits.

You can also do the opposite strategy of bombing the outside of the galaxy first and slowly working your way towards the inside. Or the very painstakingly long method of launching probes in such a way that all planets in the galaxy get hit at the same time.

>>10582016
ive been here 11 years and i just hope they work one day

The aliens are all hiding in my attic

>>10580215
true, he couldn't even figure out that last theorem

>>10580238

That sounds cool, despite all the implications.

Such an extreme event will probably produce and anomalous spectral signature that could be picked up with JWST and it's successors

>>10580238

That sounds cool, despite all the implications.

Such an extreme event will probably produce and anomalous spectral signature that could be picked up with JWST and it's successors.

>>10580238

That sounds cool, despite all the implications.

Such an extreme event will probably produce an anomalous spectral signature that could be picked up with JWST and it's successors.

>>10583098
It could have been picked up even by the hubble, in fact we looked for it and didn't find it.

>>10580402
>>10580238

What if instead of it being grey goo, but more autonomous or semi-autonomous universal constructors with general intelligence similar to a dog, or at least attainable, if in large numbers and networked, which would have the ability to defend themselves, or at least an ability to produce more of themselves and any minion bots until they become kind of a force nature where the creator species no longer has any ways to stop it from doing what it does.

Or perhaps there's a catastrophic event which destroys majority of the creator species, leaving isolated pockets of universal contructors that don't quite know what they're doing, so they would just do what they had been instructed prior to the catastrophe, leading to the aforementioned end - and if members of creator species still exist, they don't know how to interact with the machines, and have even less chances of actually stopping them.

I'm kinda imagining something akin to the giant ghost cities of China's construction bubble that are devoid of life, and only populated by Boston Dynamics etc. -esque automatons that forever repeat the instructions they have been given. They are extremely good at it - including their ability to harvest any resources available - and could even evolve, but would still not be clever enough to think outside their instructions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnWolLQSZic

>>10580402
>>10580238

What if instead of it being grey goo, but more macroscopic and somewhat cruder autonomous or semi-autonomous universal constructors with general intelligence similar to a dog, or at least attainable, if in large numbers and networked, which would have the ability to defend themselves, or at least an ability to produce more of themselves and any minion bots until they become kind of a force nature where the creator species no longer has any ways to stop it from doing what it does.

Or perhaps there's a catastrophic event which destroys majority of the creator species, leaving isolated pockets of universal contructors that don't quite know what they're doing, so they would just do what they had been instructed prior to the catastrophe, leading to the aforementioned end - and if members of creator species still exist, they don't know how to interact with the machines, and have even less chances of actually stopping them.

I'm kinda imagining something akin to the giant ghost cities of China's construction bubble that are devoid of life, and only populated by Boston Dynamics etc. -esque automatons that forever repeat the instructions they have been given. They are extremely good at it - including their ability to harvest any resources available - and could even evolve, but would still not be clever enough to think outside their instructions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnWolLQSZic [Embed]

>>10583103

I'm not talking about radio signals, but viewing the planet directly and picking up information from the light reflected off it.

>>10583127
I'm also not talking about radio signals. I'm talking about the amount of infrared that gets emitted from a solar system that gets converted to grey goo. We actually searched for that and didn't find it. Similar for dyson spheres and other heat generating processes. Remember that Hubble is specialized for infrared so is the perfect satellite to scout for this, and it did. And it found nothing.

>>10583130
>solar system that gets converted to grey goo.

Oh, that's a very fucking extreme event.

But, it could be limited only to the planet of origin, especially if the nanorobots etc. were not very clever nor are able to be. In which case a telescope of hubble caliber is insufficient.

>>10580201
They already came here and observed us closely, they knew that as a civilisation, we're ready to be told the secrets of space and time but as a species we're like children still. Given time they'll show themselves up when we've matured enough.

>>10581376
Expanding and filling out all niches is what life does. And it takes only one alien race out of many to do this. This notion that ALL of them will be strictly isolationist and just stick to their home planet for no good reason is absurd.

>>10581376
Like the other dude said you'd have to explain away how EVERY individual from EVERY race decides to stay isolationist.

You could have a species where 99.999% of them decide to become amish and stay isolationist and just some crazy group decides to expand and within a couple of centuries that group that decides to expand would be the majority and start colonizing the entire galaxy. Yet there are no signs any of this is happening pointing towards the conclusion that humanity is the only advanced species out there.

>>10581404
One problem with this theory is assumption that you can hide a civilization space. Not true, as any advanced civilization can use huge interferometric telescopes located in gravitational focus points of a star to directly image every planet in the local galaxy group. If they exist, they already know we are here.

You cannot hide in space.

>>10583198
This, as well as the fact that you can't really defend at projectiles going 99% the speed of light anyway. It's a "winner takes all" universe where only one intelligence dominates.

Be glad humanity is the first one to arrive as it means we'll be the only species forever and don't have to share our precious finite resources.

>>10583191
After a couple centuries of expanding the empire would break down into local systems that clash with each other. The slowness of movement compared to social development makes this inevitable. It's like expecting a single fungal colony to grow to cover a planet.

>>10583123
>still not be clever enough to think outside their instructions
Then they'd be pretty easy to eventually outsmart. A lot of fear of AI takeover is just repackaged "me am play god!" fearmongering.

>>10583207
>projectiles going 99% the speed of light anyway
Confined dust clouds or plasma would be effective at this, when combined with the magnetic field of a star or planet. You'd need megascale engineering to shield a planet of course. You'd also need to shield your star.

>>10581217
More like
>hurr why can't I see Masked Gobies who started out in the Carribean but have spread everywhere with the naked eye? hurr their must be some kind of great masked goby filter durrrr

>>10583234
The point is more that the stars wouldn't be visible in the sky anymore, but they are which is evidence that there are no advanced species in the universe.

>>10580547
Muh maturity
Muh die with dignity

>>10581274
>I perceive absolutely no difference between living thirty-seven billion years and living 3 trillion. The scales are so large that I do not care.
Because you're a retard who will die out.

>>10581495
You can't slow down time to infinity.

>>10581293
>>10581313
The real explanation is that past a certain point it's easier and more interesting to build universes to order rather than fuck around in this one.

>>10582079
>They kill themselves on mass in these things called wars
Ants and various other animals do that too.

>>10583234
The empire may break down but the fragments will keep on growing and fragmenting. Our planet IS covered in fungi.

>>10583238

An AI with a general intelligence of a dog and combined knowledge of mankind that can churn through thousands-millions years worth of data within an hour, including on how to apply it - such as how to replicate any variation of anything ever built by humans, including every logistical step ever required to produce advanced technology, which would naturally include more universal constructors - should have the potential to steamroll the shit out of mankind.

Like if you replaced China's government with people who are moderately mentally retarded to whom everyone next in the power structure would still be magically loyal to. They'd still steamroll the shit out of you. And if you did come and try stop them, they'd ignore you until you result to violence. And after your removal, they would just keep doing what they're doing, and will build around any non-chinese property if you won't accept their terms - or they just demolish any property in the way of their mission and build on top of it.

>>10580201
nobody has made it interstellar let alone intergalactic yet. look at how fucked up, stupid and suicidal we humans are. odds are very high no living human will ever make it out of this solar system

>>10580201
>What are the most plausible solutions to the Fermi paradox?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>10583433

Yeah, it may be the end of al sapient life, and all sapient life is generally very selfish, or at least very tribal in nature, which might in all or most cases mean they can never manage the kind of collective effort to make it happen. Also means that any ideological efforts to reach such a state end catastrophically for all or most civilizations across the universe.

>>10580201
Supposedly we are in the first 8% of habitable planets to be formed in the universe. I didn't look in detail in the research, how hard were their requirements, but usually, astronomers astronomically exaggerate such things(like speaking of billions and billions of habitable worlds in the Milky Way while the vast majority of them are orbiting red dwarfs which makes them very dubious candidates at the very least). Earlier stars were poorer in metals. If we are to extrapolate from here then there is a significant issue with biology itself, evolution here took over 4 billions of years and thats a still long time from the perspective of the current universe. If not the meteroite it could have well taken another 4 billions years for a technologically advanced civilization to emerge. And of course the usual things: space is big and very big. There are serious hurdles to the space colonization as well, we still haven't really overcome basic issues at all, I'm aware of the von Neumann probes calculations but the assumption is it's easy to build them which might not be true - look at our current tech we are unable to properly explore our own system yet and we haven't built anything that even remotely resembles von Neumann probes.

>>10583340
If you mean VR then that doesn't change anything. Because you'd still gather all resources to fuel your VR simulation for as long as possible.

their already here

This is the most pseud thread on /sci/. At least the .999 threads are clear bait and IQ threads and global warming are /pol/masturbation.
This start up star extinguisher poster and many others here are making me think that for all its brainlet was, at least /g/ knows own it’s own business.

>>10583437
Pseud answer to pseud question. Pottery.

>>10582079
Read some stories by Lem. Fables for Robots present similar scenario.

Why don't we take earth and push it closer to the aliens?

>>10580845
These days they actually think it's more likely Eukaryotes descended from a common ancestor to Archaea, and Prokaryotes are the weird dead-end.
>https://www.the-scientist.com/thought-experiment/opinion-archaea-is-our-evolutionary-sister-not-mother-64254

>>10580201
The entire paradox relies on some massive assumptions, namely:
1) the life exists in the first place
2) we could detect it or its technology even if it were right next to us
3) such an advanced civilization would even bother to visit us instead of exploring any other particular area (this is really the biggest assumption; there could be significantly more interesting things or even more interesting interspecies interactions than what's available on Earth, there's literally no reason to assume an advanced alien life form capable of interstellar travel would even bother interacting with us)
4) its even possible for a civilization to advance to a point where interstellar travel is possible (limited resources on a home planet or even nearby planets could hold species to their home solar systems indefinitely in all but incredibly rare cases or all together)
5) assuming the technology to detect distant life would co-exist with the technology to escape your native solar system (another massive boot in this particular ass)

Basically what >>10580215 said. The people arguing that we SHOULD have already been visited are relying on massive assumptions that aren't grounded in logic in the least. Fermi's Paradox is perfect example of analysis vs. rationalization - low-quality thought isn't worth very much, even if you do a lot of it.

>>10583098
Only if you see it in progress. If you don't the only thing to see is a dead planet, because the tiny robots killed themselves with their own waste heat.

>>10581202
>The simplest explanation is that the Drake equation massively underestimates the likelihood of intelligent life evolving and developing sufficiently advanced technology. Occam's razor would imply we are alone.
I think you mean "overestimates." And no, Occam's razor doesn't imply that. You would need a shit ton of assumptions for Earth being the only planet in the entire observable universe with life on it, or even intelligent life. That's a space of 69,064,449,000,000,000,000 (sixty-nine quintillion) times what the Earth occupies. Standard cosmology model does not assume that's the case. In fact Lambda CDM assumes that is not the case per the Copernican principle / Cosmological principle. With no other information it's a bad guess that we're special, for the same reason you wouldn't suppose all the celestial bodies in the night sky were revolving around us. If we look like a unique case based on our own attempts at looking it's probably because we're not in a position to do a very good job looking yet rather than because "omg we're the only thinking creatures in the entire universe!"

>>10580201
We could decide not to grow exponentially and consume all non-renewable resources in what amounts to a geological blink of an eye.

>>10583468
I don't. I mean spacetime engineering to create new big bangs and new spacetimes.

Dyson swarms are not the sign of an advanced civilization.

They are not energy or mass efficient. You do more efficient and far more vast calculations on computers in super cooled voids that you would do with any Dyson brain or swarm.

All advanced alien life retreats to the void because billionth of a Kelvin temp cooled computers can compute an entire civilization off the power consumption of a light bulb.

Stellar collapse and blockage is pointless because that energy is incredibly inefficient due to the amount of heat slowing down computing

hehe cat ham :)

>>10585083
>>energy
so you're just going to let all that starlight go to waste?
>>off the power consumption of a lightbulb
do you have a single fact to back that up? Sure you can do reversible computation, but reversible computation requires that you do not delete anything. This means reversible computation isn't very mass efficient.
>>billionth of a kelvin
In order to keep them a billionth of a kelvin you need to actively refrigerate them because of the CMB. Decreasing temperature does not necessarily speed up computation. Sure according to the Landauer principle the energy necessary to delete a bit of energy decreases

>>10584822
And why are those "massive" assumptions aren't "grounded" in logic?

>>10580215
This is my favorite answer

>>10580201
1- there is life but it's all fungi and jellyfish level crap. We did take an amazing part to get here

2- I like the theory that upper level cognoscence comes from our ancestors having a higher tolerance to psychedelic mushrooms and with each successive generation they expanded their brains more and more. Other planets maybe never developed an equivalent to psychedelic mushrooms.

3- other cognisant lifeforms don't communicate like we do, but rather touch or magnetism or smell or wtvr. We are not detecting these at these distances. They may not even "see" the stars and cosmos and were never curious.
Like seriously tho, the fuck even are eyeballs and how did they develop?

4- fuck you, that's why

5- we live in a void like the Boots void and other galactic civilizations aren't trying to come into our backwater undiscovered Amazon tribe ass corner with no interstellar infrastructure

>>10585213
If you have even a simple multicellular organism it's a one way trip to space dinosaurs then space bears then alien shitposters.
More likely it's all single cell.

>>10585213
>he fuck even are eyeballs and how did they develop
For vertebrates they're an outgrowth of the brain. For cephalopods they're an ingrowth of the skin, but they both ended up looking almost identical. The eyeball has evolved at least three times independently if I recall right.

>>10580766
https://medium.com/@tgof137/on-mitochondria-and-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-life-d6f017d3c110
According to this random asshole on Medium, mitochondria were only beneficial once oxygen in the atmosphere reached a certain level, which is right around the time eukaryotes took off. It could be that the symbiosis happened all the time before then but wasn't of much use without significant oxygen so didn't take over the planet.

>>10580201
Man I see this thread like every fucking day and nobody ever does any research. To every brainlet in this thread: read this incredibly simple article and drop the subject, it's half a century old pseudoscience at this point. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404

>>10585391
>If we set one of the variables in the Drake equation to zero, the problem disappears
Ayys btfo

>>10585412
at least try to understand the paper before you post retarded shit

>>10585161
Because we have a sample size of 1

Why would an advanced species want to deal with us as equals when we're fucking retarded compared to them?

Also we're too violent and conniving to be trusted. If anything they know we are here and have ignored us or they know we are here and have already enslaved us lmao

Homosexuality is the end

>>10580201
we have been concord and enslaved by the aliens.

To me, this is the most terrifying and plausible:
>The statistical likelihood for all conditions necessary for life to be met for such long periods of time as needed is so small that even the enormity of the universe doesn't overcome it. We are probably the only life in our local galaxy cluster or possibly even the observable universe.

What has to happen for life to form, as far as we know just based on ourselves as the only example:
>planet where liquid water can exist for long periods of time
>a long period of stability in local stars, meaning nothing too close goes supernova and destroys life
>a stable solar system that keeps chaotic periods to a minimum. our solar system may be quite unique in its evolution and structure that prevented too many major impacts on Earth
>a planet with a strong magnetic field to protect from radiation
>all of this has to last for quite some time, and then several billion years before multi cellular life could form

It is also not well understood how multicellular life formed, so as far as we know the chances of that happening may be minuscule. Even then, the rise of intelligence is not well understood and may be incredibly rare. All of these rare circumstances put together make it seem like we could truly be the only ones. Although, we won't know for sure until we can study other solar systems more.

>>10580201
the flat earthers were onto something. it appears we are in a dyson sphere and our current reality is being manipulated by highly advanced beings.

>>10585519
The possibility of not being alone is equally terrifying. An bundle of RKVs could come flying out space at any moment taking out the sun and all the planets, for some alien reason we could never comprehend.

>>10585519
I don't mind no intelligent life. Lots of comfy alien animals is just fine with me.

>>10585391
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404
>A single paper written last year about assigning probability distributions to try to make The Fermi Paradox go away means it's been resolved and shouldn't be discussed ever again.
Here, have a paper taking a completely opposite stance that the *most* pessimistic probability assignment for intelligent life only existing on Earth is still only 10^−22 (1 in 10 billion trillion):
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08837
>Only if fbt falls as low as 2.5 * 10^-24 to 2.5 * 10^-22 is it likely that no other technological species has ever arisen in the entire Universe.

>>10580201
Physics effectively forbids relativistic travel in the same way it explicitly forbids FTL travel.

>>10585391
>Man I see this thread like every fucking day and nobody ever does any research.
>*Posts sensationalist bullshit paper championing the most retarded option for attempted resolution*
You're not supposed to operate from the premise we're special, let alone special to the point of being the only case of intelligent life in the entire fucking universe. This is built into the standard cosmology model with the Copernican principle. The only "pseudoscience" here is your own.

>>10580201

>We are first or one of the first.

>Technology hits a wall at some point and nobody makes space empires.

>Every advanced species lives in virtual reality.

>Every advanced species develops some kind of tech that destroys them.

>One advances species in the galaxy destroys all others when they reach a certain point.

>Intelligent life in not common.

The real answer is probably that we are not advanced enough yet. We would not be able to detect ourselves from 20 light years away and all that crap about Dyson spheres is just sci-fi.We though we would have flying cars and moon bases by 1980 too.

>>10585784
B-b-but why can’t wee SEE them rfn, anon?

>>10581061
Imagine being such a walking dunning Krueger.

>>10581240
The fallacy undergirding this entire entropy magic robot nonsense is that for there to be other intelligent life they could exist for long periods of time just like us and destroy themselves in the process of trying to make muh sphere and still exist.

>>10581427
Oh, right. I forgot intelligent life never does anything irrational in the long long term.

>>10586118
The argument is that stars being visible at all in the sky is direct proof that there are no *advanced* species out there.

There can still be life out there that isn't technologically advanced. Stars are only proof of no advanced species existing.

>>10581316
I am the one arguing that and by ‘imply’ I don’t mean in the formal logic way of must exist, but liquid water, at the very least, reduces the other factors from a gorillion things like that other anon says to a small number, enough that if you tell me there are five such planets, one has life I would take that bet, it also happens to correspond with the actual observation that we have now which literally nothing else in this thread does.

>>10586124
You miss the point. EVERY individual in EVERY species needs to be irrational and not make the right choice of launching a single von-neumann probe for stars to still be visible.

That's a really big assumption to assume every single individual in the universe decided not to do the most common sense choice for "reasons".

You need to give a reason for why they ALL decided not to do this besides "just made an irrational choice" to justify stars still being visible 13.6 billion years into the universe's existence. Which is long enough for life to have evolved and snuffed out all stars by now.

Here's my take, life, maybe even intelligent life already exists in the observable universe
It's just that we have no way of finding them. Light takes billions of years to reach us from the farthest corners of the OU. If they exist right now, it's gonna take information about them billions of years to reach us. If they existed billions of years ago, then how exactly are we gonna find them anyway? Our telescopes find planets by searching for shadows they cast on lenses, they don't have enough power to look hard enough to find aliens
Hell life may even exist right here on the solar system (other than earth obvs) on one of Jupiter's moons under the ice https://phys.org/news/2018-12-nuclear-powered-tunnelbot-life-jupiter-icy.html
And just like we are confined to the local group, aliens may be confined to their own groups and never be able to know about us, forget about visiting

>>10586125

Goalposts moved.

>>10586130
Why is it more likely in your view that the proof that there are no advanced civilizations, even if I accept it, that you offer says anything about the Fermi paradox? What if we are near the limit of intelligent life? We might never do anything much more than live around earth and the inner solar system. Still exist.

>>10586142
That was the original statement as made in >>10580344

Maybe a lesson of reading comprehension since "advanced species" has been constantly used.

>>10586141
No, anon, these Fermifags want their ayys and are butthurt hey don’t exist so they want to curb everyone’s enthusiasm. Orcas on Europa wouldn’t be good enough for them.

P.S. the real reason is the astronomy community wants to put up intellectual barriers between it and wacko UFOfags so that they don’t get their funding yanked.

>>10586149
You just BTFO of yourself because in the original post you referenced you included humans in “advanced species.”
>s direct evidence that humanity is the only advanced species in the universe.
Imagine being such a pseud that you have to maintain your illusion of superiority about a subject that is entirely speculative. Are you a philosopher?

>>10586144
Because we humanity already have the technology to build a dyson swarm and in fact are already starting to build it. We already have satellites around our star and are only going to add more and more over time until the star is completely blocked out. Eventually we'll send out von-neumann probes to gather all mass in the universe.

We have the technology (hubble) to look for signs of dyson swarms in the infrared band. We looked out the milky way galaxy and closest million galaxies for this sign and found none. Meaning no other species even constructed a dyson swarm which is within the reach of human technology.

The conclusion is that there are no other species out there that are technologically advanced.

>>10586154
>Because we humanity already have the technology to build a dyson swarm and in fact are already starting to build it.
That’s the end of the road for you. You’re a confirmed retard.

>>10586151
Here I explain why humanity is included in "advanced species" >>10586154

The window of time between a human level civilization and the first star being a dyson swarm is only a couple of centuries or a single millenia.

The chance of another species being in precisely this level of technology is as good as 0 because the duration of this technological stage is so short and we know for certain there are no dyson swarms.

We can conclude with a very good precision that humanity is the most advanced species in the observable universe.

>>10586162

>>10586156
That's not a counter argument. A dyson swarm is a star being obscured by a large amount of satellites. Humanity already has satellites around the sun and adding more on an exponential rate.

Yet we KNOW there are no other such structures in the universe.

>>10586164
Not an argument.

I have both the data and occam's razor at my side.

>>10580201
Life has evolved from single cell to complex organisms only once in the universe. The fateful encounter was a freak accident.

What's with the assumption that extra terrestrial, advanced sapient life even cares about exploring space in the first place?

>>10586215
No it actually happened 6 times on Earth alone.

I think the step is actually 1 lower. We only went from simple prokaryotes to eukaryotes a single time and it only happened once in the universe and only eukaryotes can become multicellular so all life in the universe outside of Earth is single celled.

It's almost the same as you are claiming but sitll an important distinction since eukaryotes have went multicellular multiple times in history. But prokaryotes have only once turned eukaryote.

>>10580201

We can't even see planets outside our own solar system. We had garbage pictures of Pluto before we flew a probe right past it.

People crying about "where are muh ayys" are fucking retarded. When we have constellations of next gen space telescopes and can see the atmosphere on a billion Earth size planets and can't detect any life by then it will mean something. Now we know shit.

And don't even start about Dyson garbage. They are pointless crap.

>>10586162
A Dyson Swarm takes at least a quintillion typical-sized solar satellites in order to noticeably block a star's light. Solar activity such as solar flares and CMEs are incredibly powerful and would heavily damage such a swarm over a short time. Also, a comet or asteroid passing through would destroy satellites, and the debris would trigger a Kessler Syndrome.

Dyson swarms are not a realistically viable technology.

>>10586233
Don't talk like we know perfectly how things happened 3 billion years ago. In fact eukaryotes appeared really fast when you consider how much of a hellhole early Earth was. This means they can appear even in completely horrid environment.

Not to mention every few years they find older and older examples. Now we know life appeared on Earth insanely fast. On Earth that was 20x more chaotic than today and bombarded daily.

>>10580437
what if the stars WERE the collected energy? As in, they use the stars as giant batteries.

>>10586286
Eukaryotes evolved BECAUSE of the completely horrid environment. Which is why it's such a good big filter candidate. You basically need to have a planet that is hospitable enough to form prokaryotes but hostile enough to put pressure to form Eukaryotes and then the environment needs to become more hospitable again so that multicellular complex life can fill out niches.

>>10586297
Stars waste energy. Black holes could be a form of storage or having trillions of gas giants could be a form of storage.

Stars themselves are some of the most wasteful processes out there.

>>10586349
It's disingenuous to assume other life in the Universe would follow the same evolutionary history as Earth. Symbiogenesis was necessary for Earth's life to develop multicellularity, but not necessarily other forms of life.

Honestly, we have no idea if other life would necessarily be cellular, at least anything like Earth life.

Any species building dyson swarms/spheres is probably also advanced enough to use the entire output of the stars. So we shouldn't be looking for stars with only certain radiation, but rather for clusters of dark matter since only the mass would be observable.

>>10586349
This is stupid. Don't pretend we know how everything worked billions of years ago.

Not to mention every solar system will go through the violent early phase before things calm down.

>>10586378
Pretending that we know how super advanced technology would work is idiotic. They may very well live near black holes and use them for energy in ways we don't even theorize yet or stay on their planet forever after discovering infinite energy and just fucking around in virtual space for millions of years.

>>10585545
Being alone is probably the best possible scenario. There is a reason Hawking and other physicists have the same opinion. Aliens would be completely alien to us in appearance, technology, and reasoning. Science fiction has made us think of aliens as basically whacky animals with human logic, but the reality is much more frightening.

>>10580201
they either got destroyed or became machine civilizations. some of them are already in our solar system (oumuamua is a good example) but they're so small we just can't detect them.

>von Neumann probes are a human concept
>inb4 we are the first intelligent life to seriously consider rapid expansion
>aliens have alien reasoning and therefore we can't use our own tendency of expansion as a means to 'disprove' their presence
>inb4 aliens are doing things we have never even thought of because technology is not a linear progression

>>10586283
But this faggot >>10586154 says we can do it already even though the orbital dynamics are so complex!

>>10581389
this, there are no words to describe how vast our universe is. even if there was some alien probe in our solar system it would be extremely hard to notice it.

>>10586641
>using humans as the basis for assuming aliens will expand and extinguish stars while simultaneously arguing we’re unique
You really have to a retarded idiot who ants to sound like the smartest person in the room to believe this.
This is not just a pseud thread, it’s not science or math and belongs on /lit/ with the rest of speculative philosophy or on /x/ with the rest of the ayylmao shit.

just a reminder that boötes void is a proof of an intergalactic mega civilization.

>inb4 but muh waste heat

a puny human concept, they already know how to recycle the waste heat and use every drip o energy they can get.

>>10586641
A Dyson Swarm-building Von Neumann Probe is an utterly impossible feat of engineering.
>>10586283
>>10586278
>>10581389

>>10580437
>Every day that stars burn is less and less energy for you to use eventually.

the amount of Helium is increasing with time, not decreasing. He is more useful for fusion then H2

>>10580201
god mades us

>>10586631
Being completely alone is pretty much impossible.

>>10580437
>universe will exist for 500 billion trillion years but let's recycle all stars to get extra 20 billion

By your logic there should be no trees on Earth because humans should use all of them.

>>10586695
He contains a lot less energy than 2H as you can see in this graph. Also you shouldn't see this as "usable atoms" And instead as mass-energy in general. Stars reduce the total mass-energy usable in the universe due to wasting a lot of it towards entropy. Stopping stars from burning gives the species 21 orders of magnitudes longer existence.

>>10586714
>universe will exist for 500 billion trillion years but let's recycle all stars to get extra 20 billion
No you misunderstand the scale here. The last star will burn out 100 trillion years from now.

Which is 1*10^14 years from now or 100.000.000.000.000 years from now. This is when all mass-energy in the universe will have been wasted towards entropy.

If we stopped all stars from burning and gather all mass-energy in the universe we'd live for 1*10^35 years.

Or 100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 Years

So you'll exist for 100.000.000.000.000 years or
100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years.

And the only cost is launching a SINGLE self-replicating von neumann probe that snuffs out all stars and slowly gather all matter in the universe.

It's time to recognize that seeing stars in the sky is DIRECT evidence of no advanced species existing in the universe.

>>10586729
See
>>10586666

>>10586666
Dyson swarm doesn't even require engineering. It's just a collection of satellites. Which we already have around the star.

And I personally don't think we'll use dyson swarms instead we'll starlift all matter out of a star and store the matter in supermassive black holes which is the most efficient power production method known to physics right now with almost 100% efficiency and it's not known if entropy allows a more energy efficient system than this.

>>10580201
INTELLIGENT life is fucking RARE.

>>10580201
What the paradox doesnt account for is that the universe is so goddamned big that even if there are aliens traveling through space right now they could be about 1400 galactic clusters away

Prove to me right now that we arent alien parasites that assimilated a bunch of monkeys like the Thing.

>>10586756
The paradox is "Why do we see stars in the sky?" Because even a single advanced species would mean all stars would be gone by now.

>>10580409
Oh dear lord, you fell for the Von Neumann probes meme
God help you

>>10586741
First of all, this:
>>10586283
utterly kills any hope of anyone ever building a Dyson swarm. And it doesn't even address the logistics of gathering materials for, manufacturing, and placing into orbit a QUINTILLION satellites. It also doesn't address the constant enormous heat strain of being that close to a star.

Starlifting is just as ridiculous. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to lower a probe into a star, grab a bunch of hot plasma, and lift it out of a star? Do you have any idea of the energy cost involved in such a venture, even just for a few kilograms of material?

And then you have the gall to mention storing it in a SMBH and somehow harvesting the energy out?

Utterly ridiculous nonsense.

>>10586741
You cannot travel faster than light.

>>10586762
The existence of even a single advanced species does not inherently mean that we could no longer see the stars above us. There are stars so fucking far away that the red shift of light means that we cant even see them. There are galaxies so far from where we are and galactic clusters so huge and numerous that an advanced species could not possibly take out that many stars. The paradox is delusional

>>10586765
>Starlifting is just as ridiculous. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to lower a probe into a star, grab a bunch of hot plasma, and lift it out of a star?
Please read the wikipedia article on starlifting as you don't know how it actually works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting

TL;DR: You use the solar wind to push your probe back and gravity to fall back into the sun which causes a "pumping motion" causing matter to spew out from the sun at the top and bottom. You basically use the energy of the star itself to make it remove its own matter.

>>10586767
Never said you could.

>>10580201
Cosmic writer's block. I don't know what types of aliens would make humanity most happy to meet.

>>10586772
We have the technology (hubble) to detect telltale signs of infrared radiation caused by dyson swarms or any similar structures around stars. We've scanned the milky way galaxy and the nearest million galaxies and we have found 0 of these infrared signatures. Most galaxies are only tens of millions of light years away meaning the light is "only" tens of millions of years old. The fact that not even a single star in all of these galaxies have been ocluded is enough to proof that there are no advanced species out there. And the tens of millions of extra years won't make any difference since that's an insignificant amount of time compared to the billions of years gap where life could have evolved and extinguished the stars.

It's time for people to accept that we have enough data to conclusively conclude that humanity is the only advanced species in the observable universe.

>>10586779
>Giant ring stations
>Ungodly magnetic fields
>Ungodly lasers and microwave beams

LOL this is some next level pipe-dream shit

>>10586798
Actually it's time for you to shut up with the same tired assumptions about impossible technologies. We don't know shit about alien life, and it's time for you to acknowledge that.

>>10586704
What makes you so sure? We know next to nothing about how common the conditions found on Earth are in other solar systems. There is no reason to think that life is common.

>>10586798
You might be right about the observable universe except we can barely see anything in the observable universe. The amount of stuff beyond what we can see is so massively more than what our scopes can see that you cannot in good faith as a scientist try to deny the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life

>>10586807
I'm not making assumptions about impossible technologies I'm using the known values of physics and make a occam's razor conclusion based on that.

What we know for certain:
>Total mass-energy in the universe is 4*10^69 J
>Laws of thermodynamics mean the mass-energy of the universe will slowly go towards entropy
>Stars are the most entropic events known to humanity and waste almost all energy in the universe towards entropy
>Evolved lifeforms always want to survive or exist as long as possible because they wouldn't survive the process of evolution if they didn't have this drive

Combine these 4 universal things we know about the universe and you come to the conclusion that any sufficiently advanced species will do everything in its power to extinguish the stars. Yet we still see stars making it very easy to conclude there are no sufficiently advanced species in the universe right now.

Sure we could argue about what the reason is there are no advanced species. But the point is that we can be absolutely sure there aren't advanced species.

Arguments like "They don't care about existence, they like stars for cultural reasons, they have better power production methods" are all invalid because you'd have to assume that every individual of every species decides to do this for it to be true. Just one individual from one species needs to launch a single von-neumann probe and within a couple million years the entire galaxy would have been dimmed. Which again we know hasn't happened in the observable universe yet due to the hubble space telescope.

>>10586818
The Hubble Space Telescope is powerful enough in the infrared spectrum to scan the closest million galaxies for a single star being ocluded. Hubble is specialized in the infrared band which is exactly at what band the dyson swarms and other megastructures would release radiation due to entropy. We can extrapolate from the findings of 1 million galaxies that there are no such structures in the rest of the universe as well.

>>10586823
Same tired shit. We've already covered that star-harvesting von Neumann probes are an utter engineering impossibility. That's the end of it. You keep assuming that these utterly unrealistic and infeasible technologies are possible. That's the damning fault in your argument. The end.

>>10586831
Assuming von neumann probes are impossible only shifts the timeline involved a little bit but doesn't change the conclusion.

What changes is that instead of self-replicating probes you just get local factories producing large amounts of satellites until the entire star is orbited. Something that falls within current technology and would be done eventually anyway.

You basically have to disprove humanity is incapable of orbiting a satellite around the sun (which is impossible since we already did so).

Instead of it taking a couple of millions years to darken the entire milky way galaxy it will take tens of millions of years.

It still doesn't explain why we can still see stars in the sky if there are advanced species out there.

>>10586846
We've also already covered that Dyson swarms are impossible.
>>10586283
This doesn't even address the logistics of gathering materials for, manufacturing, and placing into orbit a QUINTILLION satellites. It also doesn't address the constant enormous heat strain of being that close to a star.

Your entire argument relies on these assumptions, and they're bunk.

>>10586846
>only shifts the timeline involved a little bit
Yes, to the point where it stops being a hypothesis we can observe in this moment, because all those aliens are still waiting for the stars to finish fusing heavy elements for efficient computation crystals.

>>10586826
The Hubble is great but not perfect, why do you think the JWST is being built? The assumption that extraterrestrials are using Dyson swarms is ridiculous. Additionally, if they are so advanced to be near us from wherever the fuck they came from, you think they wouldn't have the ability to reduce or completely mask their energy signature or entropic releases? You're discussing technology that we can not understand and you think that you just know how we are going to detect intelligent life

>>10586729
>The last star will burn out 100 trillion years from now.

And this is not the end of the universe since black holes will last a thousand times longer until everything in the universe starts to fall apart.

>>10586813
>What makes you so sure?

The fact that life appeared on Earth super fast. Earth back then was pretty much hell yet life still appeared.

Dyson spheres are a sci-fi meme.

>>10586919
As are Von Neumann probes

>>10586874
The JWST is a telescope specialized for near ultraviolet and visible light with only weak infrared capabilities. It's not comparable to the hubble which specialized in infrared.

Infrared is especially handy for finding stuff like this. It's the Hubble's specialty and it found nothing.

>>10586909
The difference in existence will still be 21 orders of magnitudes making it a no-brainer to try to stop entropic processes such as stars.

>>10586823
>>Evolved lifeforms always want to survive or exist as long as possible because they wouldn't survive the process of evolution if they didn't have this drive
Sample size of 1 planet.
This nigga.

>>10586915
You're assuming that the conditions of Earth are common, but we have no data to support that.

>>10587154
Wew

>>10580344
Since the universe is mostly empty space it stands to reason that the most advanced form of intelligent life would find a way to inhabit and benefit from empty space. Stars would therefore be small pockets where intelligence has not completely utilized the universe, which is fine-tuned for black holes.

Given the far majority of the mass energy in the universe will be stored in black holes during the lifetime of the universe, Superintelligence will be keen utilizing such a universe to capacity.

>>10586989
For advanced civilization it should make no difference if you are living on a planet or in a space habitat near a black hole.

>>10580384
I think this is kind of making an assumption about their motives. Technological advancement doesn't necessarilt correlate to a mentality for longetivity. An advanced civilization could very well value the beauty of the stars and accept their inevitable fate.