/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11297149
Just build bigger rockets.

>>11297149
Maybe they shouldn't be gay

>>11297168
>To launch the equivalent of an Apollo moon mission, a rocket on a super-Earth would need to have a mass of about 440,000 tons (400,000 metric tons), due to fuel requirements, the study said. That's on the order of the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt.

>"On more-massive planets, spaceflight would be exponentially more expensive," said study author Michael Hippke, an independent researcher affiliated with the Sonneberg Observatory in Germany. "Such civilizations would not have satellite TV, a moon mission or a Hubble Space Telescope."

>>11297149
They have electrogravitronic sooner. How fast are the planets going?

>>11297175
Can't they just detonate a few hydrogen bombs underneath the spaceship to get it flying?

My mom told me that civilizations with small planets have easier access to space because they quickly outgrow their planets. Earth being much bigger can support a larger population so we don't need to go to space so quickly.

>>11297195
Another option is an airbreathing / rocket hybrid system, basically strap jet engines and wings to a rocket, fly it to max altitude then jettison everything that isn't a classical rocket

>>11297201
But small planets are, statistically speaking, likely to have thinner atmospheres due to weak gravity, and thus more cosmic rays/meteors, and thus less hospitable.

>>11297203
>Thinking heavier than air flight would even be possible on super earths.
Anon why?

>>11297149
NUCLEAR
LIGHT
BULB

>>11297209
You just need to think BIG

>>11297209
Greater gravity=Thicker atmosphere
Just need a decent engine

>>11297201
>because they quickly outgrow their planets
the nature of exponential growth makes any size factor practically meaningless

>>11297149
ayy lmao

>>11297149
MARGINALLY delayed space travel.
They will just build bigger rockets.

WE are at the bottom of a VERY deep gravity well and we have no real problems.

>>11297149
>>11297201
bigger planets will have intelligence evolved faster and be far more advanced. not necessarily always, because a lot is up to chance in both evolution and technological advancement, but statistically yes. the bigger the planet the more diverse life it can house. if earth was 2 times its size, with all other of its attributes being similarly sufficient to inhibit life, species on it would have gone to space many millions, if not over a billion years earlier.

>>11297250

That makes things harder in general, that life would need to also consume more energy for everything, and therefore acumulate it so the process of creating a complex civilization becomes longer overall, and thats without accounting without some special requirements along the way like something akin to fossil fuels.

>>11297209
Wouldn't a thicker atmosphere make e.g. helium more buoyant? How does this scale in comparison to the increase in gravity? See NASA's HAVOC.

>>11297279
you don't even know what's p(complex/intelligent life | life) and how that would be affected (possibly impeded) by the stronger gravity

>>11297286
look, mars potentially houses microbes. that's how far that small space for life can get in billions of years. the more resources there are for life, the more diverse it becomes and the easier it is for evolution to really kick off. not to mention, imagine if the devloped world had twice as large population of the same kind of people it inihibits, and twice the resources. do you not think technological advancement would be much faster than it is today?

>>11297175
Just use nuclear.

>>11297149
The average alien on this planet will look like the rock fucked a gorilla. Better for us they don't make it off their planet unless you like being cucked.

>>11297286
fine stronger gravity maybe impedes a little, i just can't see the additional resources not making up for it. a planet with a surface area double the size the earth, would have less than 50% stronger gravity than earth.

>>11297149
help them? they gotta come and help us

>>11297201
yeah because if 50 thousand years ago neanderthals ran out of space they would have started building rockets

>>11297149
maybe the bigger challenge is to build rockets if you are as flat as a pancake

>tfw no extremely muscular alien gf

Could they build space elevators?

>>11297203
On Earth atmospheric part of a space launch where any non-meme air-breathing engine is of any use accounts for no more than like 1 to 3% of the total energy required to reach orbit, so the added weight and complexity is just not worth it. On a super-Earth planet it would likely be even more useless due to higher orbital speeds.

>>11298447
Kek

>>11297149
There are no fucking aliens. When will you onions drinking fuckheads stop making these alien circle jerk threads?

>>11298591
>There are no fucking aliens.
How do you know? The universe is pretty big.

>>11298596
God created Man to his own image, he only made the Universe to entertain us.

>>11298627
There is no God and your idiotic human beliefs are laughable.

>>11298591
>>11298627
>there are no aliens
>we are the center of the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8GA2w-qrcg

>>11298627
>God created Man to his own image

Prove it.

>>11297201
is your mom hot?

>become interplanetary species
>see a huge, lush planet brimming with life
>land there
>the aliens are annoying and passive aggressive
>can't leave because our spacecraft were developed for earth gravity

>>11297149
They use a rail gun to eject mass from their planet until it was smaller.

>>11297250
>I cannot into math

Google "specific impulse"
Bigger rockets burn more fuel lifting themselves.
"Just make it even bigger" is a dead end.

>>11298735
>"Just make it even bigger" is a dead end.

Nope. It’s the right way.

>>11297310
>i just can't see the additional resources not making up for it.
What additional resources, and how would they make up for which limitations?
It didn't take us so long to reach the moon because we couldn't afford Apollo _and_ feed everybody on Earth.
Help me out, please connect the dots for me.

>>11298591
>There are no fucking aliens.
[citation needed]
Let me know when you've checked even one other life-bearing world, and we'll talk.

>>11298739
>>"Just make it even bigger" is a dead end.
>Nope. It’s the right way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#Specific_impulse_in_seconds
No matter how big you make a given type of rocket, it can only accelerate itself at so many g for so many seconds.
Making the rocket bigger doesn't help because it still has to lift its own weight.
This is true even for an ideal rocket where the vehicle's mass is made up 100% of fuel and O2 alone.

>>11298755
>Making the rocket bigger doesn't help because it still has to lift its own weight.

Doesn’t matter. Give it more thrust.

>>11297201
Hello SpaceAnon. How is your space civilization and how’s the family?

>>11298690
This is underrated, and important for future ship building.

>>11298627
>God created Man in his own image
And what does this have to do with aliens?
>>11298649
>There is no God
Objectively wrong.

>>11298656
>carl sagan

>>11297149
>10g surface gravity
Life must be pretty weird on such planets. Humans start fainting at 5g.

>>11298690
I've always had this scenario in my head. Never mind the aliens, what if we tried to settle on a super-Earth just to find out that we couldn't leave it?

>>11298649
>your idiotic human beliefs are laughable
>I’m a human
what did he mean by this?

>>11297175
Why don't they use the power of their own gravity to get them off the planet

>>11298792
>Doesn’t matter. Give it more thrust.

We could it so I don't see why fictional space aliens couldn't. I mean we obviously wouldn't use the conventional method used here on Earth, but we'd come up with a different solution.

>>11298922
>Life must be pretty weird on such planets. Humans start fainting at 5g.
If things were any different, it just wouldn't be the same.

>>11298931
>what if we tried to settle on a super-Earth just to find out that we couldn't leave it?
I'm pretty sure we won't land on a planet we can't leave.
Not sure how dumb you think Buck Rogers is.

>>11298987
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

>>11298907
>>There is no God
>Objectively wrong.

We meant outside of your head.

>>11297149
>trapped by their own gravity
Sounds like us though.
Imagine space travel if we just had the gravity of Europa

>>11299007
>We meant outside of your head.
cringe

>>11299019

that's rich, coming from somebody who believes in "God"

>>11299052
>God follows the constraints time
also
>attempting to understand the motivations of an infinitely smarter being than you

>>11299058
>>attempting to understand the motivations of an infinitely smarter being than you

believing that the intentions and the will of an infinitely smarter being are laid out for you in a book written by middle eastern sheep farmers in bronze age

>>11298735
>"Just make it even bigger" is a dead end.

Fine, "Just make a better rocket". Are you happy now?

No intelligent technological civilization is going to be prevented from space flight just because of the magnitude of the gravity of their planet.

>>11299152
>Fine, "Just make a better rocket". Are you happy now?
If it's that simple, why haven't you done it yet?
Our most promising high specific impulse designs focus on low impulse over a long period.
NERVA and similar designs show some promise, but all possible designs have some limit.
And while I'm not a big fan of the "great filter" hypothesis, this could mean civilizations have to get well past the nuclear weapons stage before even considering space flight.

But hey, maybe you can just hand-wave that away too.

>>11298591
I mean, we're here

>>11298922
Would probably be BSCs and fungi-analogues on land.
Oceans could potentially support more complex life

>>11299101
>believing that the intentions and the will of an infinitely smarter being are laid out for you in a book written by middle eastern sheep farmers in bronze age
What is wrong with this?

>>11297293
Not necessarily, because technological progress is driven by lack of resources, not abundance
Nobody would bother with Haber-Bosh reactors if we had ultra-rich soil everywhere, for example.

>>11299329
not him, but...

>>11299421
see also...

>>11299421
>>11299427
>all acts of God occured in this circle
he created the whole universe
also
>what is the Holy Spirit
also
>the universe big Earth small so God not real
?

>>11299446
In case you're still missing it, the point is whoever wrote the bible didn't have the slightest clue as to the scale of the universe.
"The only way to know my father is through knowing me", so I guess 99.999999999% of all sentient beings are going to burn in hell, amirite?

>>11299007
>We
You're delusional.

>>11299421
>>11299427
>world is big
therefore...?

>>11299489
>whoever wrote the bible didn't have the slightest clue as to the scale of the universe
>whoever wrote the bible didn't have the slightest clue as to the number of atoms in a beach
>whoever wrote the bible didn't have the slightest clue as to the enormous pressure inside our star
>whoever wrote the bible didn't have the slightest clue as to the number of chromosomes in a human being
>[other hundreds of random facts]
and this matters because...?
>99.999999999% of all sentient beings are going to burn in hell
lol is that what you believe?

>>11299007
>We
and that's what I meant too

>>11299546
It matters because okay, what if the Chinese or Indians are right? God is sorta a dick to play favorites like that and not even give the favorites basics healthcare.

>>11299558
And than there's the aliens and if they're more advanced and have their own beliefs. If they are better enjoy having to worship the alien god since the power of god is tied to the amount of worship they have at and how much will to power that faith can muster. Might makes right applies to faith, how about that?

>>11299567
(Cont'd)
The implications are pretty fucked too since it means if say, communists won and Christianity was scrubbed from the record everyone basically would be doomed to hell if Christianity is right. Maybe you don't care if the alien squids fester and fry in hell, and probably don't care if the Indians or Chinese do, but man oh man, if Christianity (along with Judaism) as a faith collapses everyone will be in hell.

>>11299558
>It matters because okay, what if the Chinese or Indians are right?
what if the earth is flat
what if vaccines are bad for people
what if hypothetical group b is correct with no reason as to why they would be?
>And than there's the aliens and if they're more advanced and have their own beliefs. If they are better enjoy having to worship the alien god since the power of god is tied to the amount of worship they have at and how much will to power that faith can muster.
>God becomes God only through faith
look up what omnipotent means
also
read Kant

>>11299578
God in itself is a hypothetical because I see no reason to see the god of Abraham as anymore than the theological equivalent of the local land lord.

>>11299576
>The implications are pretty fucked too since it means if say, communists won and Christianity was scrubbed from the record everyone basically would be doomed to hell if Christianity is right. Maybe you don't care if the alien squids fester and fry in hell, and probably don't care if the Indians or Chinese do, but man oh man, if Christianity (along with Judaism) as a faith collapses everyone will be in hell.
good thing the Christians won then

The only true god is everything and everywhere and his laws are the laws of physics. Anything else is just silly fairy tales.

>>11299582
Like say there is god, why would humans in the Middle East get what god is right? Our intuition may lean towards saying "there has to be one" but the details being all wrong and limited by the cosmovision and material culture of the time can't be ruled out.

>>11299582
>God in itself is a hypothetical because I see
>It's a hypothetical because of my personal opinion and nothing else

>>11299589
>Like say there is god, why would humans in the Middle East get what god is right?
Because God talked to them

>>11299597
Why would god only talk to them? Lots of people to talk to, maybe god talked to lots of people around the universe but everyone understood it all differently.

>>11299592
I hold to faith in the human spirit and do not submit to a creator tyrant so easily. We were granted free will to advance the species, not mutilate it.

>>11299597
So god threw all those cave men and women in hell till the jews came around?

Kinda fucked up of god. Favoritism of one group of humanity over all others. No wonder people hate jews, classic sibling resentment.

>>11299614
>So god threw all those cave men and women in hell till the jews came around?
maybe, so?
>>11299608
>Why would god only talk to them?
He didn't
>>11299608
>tyrant
on what grounds

>>11299614
And kinda why I can't really dislike Jews too much, for they were enabled by god to behave like entitled brats who think they're chosen to run the world.

>>11299618
That's kinda fucked up, eternal torture without any way out of it. Just let them go to oblivion they had no way they could've chosen to worship god.

>>11299618
What grounds?

Dude annihilated whole civilizations just to make a point.

>>11299626
>That's kinda fucked up, eternal torture without any way out of it. Just let them go to oblivion they had no way they could've chosen to worship god.
and this matters how? how does this disprove His existence?
>>11299633
>Dude annihilated whole civilizations just to make a point.
so?

>>11299583
>good thing the Christians won then
If they're right, 2/3 of modern humans (plus imperfect Christians) are still doomed to the eternal lake of fire.
What a dick Yahweh is.

>>11299648
>What a dick Yahweh is.
and you get to judge his actions why?

>>11299637
I'm not even trying to disprove god's existence, more questioning why humans should continue this abusive relationship with god other than god using will to power whenever we cross god.

It would be deceptive to act like I believe in the god of Abraham entirely, my belief is more than god's existence will be something more than the god we mere humans can imagine. Something far grander and universal to the true, unfiltered reality. The Christian god is a muddled shadow at best of the actual, true and pure god that governs cosmic reality.

>>11299650
Rather authoritarian thinking in that statement.

>>11299658
For the most qualified out of any being that has ever existed and could ever be conceived it is right to like His authority.
>>11299651
>more questioning why humans should continue this abusive relationship
It isn't abusive.

>>11299558
>>11299567
>>11299576
>>11299614
>>11299626
Wrong. That's literally a heresy called Feeneyism.

>>11299648
See >>11299675

>>11299671
I dunno man, damning anyone but the Jews to hell for millennia on end is pretty fucked up.

>>11299682
>I dunno
Correct

>>11299682
Your comment reveals that you have a very poor understanding of the doctrine of hell. I suggest actually trying to read what you're attacking before doing so.

>>11299688
And I don't just mean in an "objective" way, but according to the *self-declared* beliefs of the very people you're referring to.

>>11299682
>>11299675
>>11299648
>>11299626
>>11299614
>>11299576
>>11299558
see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Just add more boosters, it's like ayys never played KSP.

>>11299688
>>11299693
Oh I see, god just damns people to hell because they were to dumb to notice their obvious existence in nature. That makes me wonder however, if this god of Christianity is the right one than. What if it's just yet another false god like Jupiter? And the actual god we have continued to fail to notice due to rejected the actual god in favor of this god of Abraham we constructed?

>>11299650
>and you get to judge his actions why?
Because he's a fictional character invented by desert nomads intent on controlling their own population.
Had their imagination even begun to capture the scope of the universe, I'd probably have more respect for their invention.
Same if they had put their fearmongering political fiction to better use.
So sad their invention still carries so much force.
Never mind how many people have been killed in the name of their literary device, just think of all the repressed sexuality, how many people passed on how many orgasms over the last few thousand years, just to promote the political empowerment of those unworthy/dishonest enough to exploit this poorly-written fiction.

>>11298907
>Objectively wrong.

Prove God exists

>>11299766
>Because he's a fictional character invented by desert nomads intent on controlling their own population.
p.s....
Assuming everything every Christian faith has ever claimed is true (let's just hand-wave away the obvious contradictions): I get to question God's existence because he's granted me both intellect and free will.

fwi: In real life, I'm an actual deist, and DO believe in God, but find the Christian version of God horribly offensive, only the more so because it's an obvious perversion based on political self-serving motivations.

>>11298986
>Doesn’t matter. Give it more thrust

It’d work, gay retard. Heavier craft need more thrust to accelerate, so put more and bigger engines on it.

>>11299184
>Our most promising high specific impulse designs focus on low impulse over a long period.

You dumbass, specific impulse is not the issue for launch vehicles. THRUST is. No one gets to orbit using ion engines

>>11299446
>he created the whole universe

Prove it.

>>11299796
You're a little late to the thread, my poorly-educated friend.
See:>>11298755
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#Specific_impulse_in_seconds
>No matter how big you make a given type of rocket, it can only accelerate itself at so many g for so many seconds.
>Making the rocket bigger doesn't help because it still has to lift its own weight.
>This is true even for an ideal rocket where the vehicle's mass is made up 100% of fuel and O2 alone.

>>11299790
KCA

>>11299792
The actual god was never to be understood at the limited vision of the agrarian cult societies. The actual god will be something much more humble, it just is something that wanted to make a universe. Maybe it fucked some cosmic thot and it has been stuck paying child support for this universe ever since. That's why god is a bit negligent, since the negligent thot known as the devil who runs the universe only lets god come by once every few millennia.

>>11299812
>You're a little late to the thread, my poorly-educated friend

You’re wrong, and a gay retard who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
A planet with higher gravity would necessitate bigger rockets because the payload would have to be a smaller percentage of the craft’s mass to attain the necessary delta/v

>>11299811
K.C.A.
>>11299766
>Because he's a fictional character invented by desert nomads intent on controlling their own population.
Proof?
>>11299792
>I get to question God's existence because he's granted me both intellect and free will.
how does that follow?

>>11299833
Arguing with you is boring as fuck because you don't even engage in arguments, you cherry pick and ask rhetorical questions. Step it up you cuck.

>>11299824
Is that really your “proof” God exists?
The KCA is just a bunch of non sequiturs and dubious assumptions. All arguments for the universe having a “cause” are simply impossible because time is part of the universe.

>>11299833
>K.C.A.

Retarded argument.
>>11299849

>>11299842
>questioning logic is "rhetorical" and "cherry picking"
How were your """""arguments"""""" stronger as a whole than what I had shown was wrong with the foundations of them?
>>11299849
>because time is part of the universe
A. Proof?
B. Why does this matter?

>>11299860
You didn't disprove shit, all you did was cherry pick because "uhh no that's not what the sect I agree with believes even though they say god is appearing in nature and you get hell for being too dumb to see god"

>>11299884
How did I cherry pick?
And how have you proven any of your arguments?

>>11298999
What if it was an emergency kind of thing?

>>11299860
>A. Proof?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

>B. Why does this matter?

There is no causality without time and time is part of the universe, so the universe can not be caused as this is saying causality was caused, so the universe is uncaused. Even independent of this physics problem that obliterates the retardation that is the KCA, it’s just a fallacy of composition. Causality applying to things within the universe does not mean causality applies to the universe itself. William Lane Craig notably rejects Einstein’s theory of relativity because it makes his shitty argument invalid.

>>11299899
I proved all my arguments by actually giving my reasoning and logic while all you do is go "nuh uh"

For one you never can explain why Christian god isn't only some other faker like that jackass Jupiter while the real god continues to not be known because we waste our time with these scam gods.

>>11299955
>asking me to prove a negative

>>11299955
Jupiter is nicer than Yahweh Sabaoth, war god of Canaanite Jews

>>11297149
Nonsense, if chemical rockets don't cut it just use low yield nuclear warheads to Orion yourself into space.

>>11299960
Ha, can't even argue this with me. You worship fake god just like the rest. Real god is not known by our species. We barely just stopped sniffing glue.
>>11299963
I'm not saying Yahweh was better (if anything the opposite), only that Jupiter was somewhat a jackass himself.

>>11300025
>do a thing that conforms to my unfair way of argument and only my way of arguing
>lol you can't argue lmo

>>11300025
>You worship fake god just like the rest.
Not him but Jesus is God.
>>11299849
Causation is more fundamental than time. Time is relational, not absolute.

>>11299849
>The KCA is just a bunch of non sequiturs and dubious assumptions.
name 1 (one)

>>11299790
>Prove God exists
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument (cosmological fine-tuning)
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Reason
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Evil
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Ontological Argument(s)
The Argument from Miracles (the Resurrection)
All in TBCTNT

religion literally ruined this thread, thanks a lot dude

>>11298627
this post was me btw and it was a blatant joke hope i had nothing to do with starting it

>>11300205
> Causation is more fundamental than time

Share one iota of empirical evidence to prove this.

>>11300219
All of those arguments are dogshit, but that’s what you get when you have a pre-determined conclusion and will do anything to try and “prove” it.

>>11300208
>name 1 (one)

KK
“Everything that begins to exist has a cause”
Assumption with no evidence.
“The universe began to exist”
Assumption with no evidence.
“Therefore the universe had a cause”
Not possible, since causality doesn’t exist without the universe.

Apologetics are the philosophical equivalent of vomit.

>>11297175
It's not expensive if they don't have space jews making you think everything revolves around money

>>11299831
Still not undrstanding specific impulse, I see.
Just read the damn Wikipedia article.

>>11297175

"On more-massive planets, spaceflight would be exponentially more expensive,"

but the planet is like 3 times the size of earth which means they have 3 times the resources this sound stuopid

>>11300415
>which means they have 3 times the resources
We've been over this.
Space flight isn't difficult because of the sheer volume of materials involved, certainly not on a planetary scale.
The problem is that the technologies we've been using wouldn't be adequate to reach orbit on a significantly larger planet, regardless of how big you make the rockets.

It's more or less moot, since the article seeks to explain why we haven't been visited (recently) by people from such planets, while they might not be particularly interested in Earth if it isn't very similar to their own world.

>>11300118
Bitch you argue with rhetorical questions of no substance. It's pathetic.

>>11300468
mayhaps earth is so otherworldy and different to a planet of their own that they wouldn't even consider it habitable by any form of life

>>11297149
just use nukes or railguns forehead

>>11298690
You just tie long rope to a drop ship and pull them back up when done. Problem?

>>11300494
>just use nukes or railguns forehead
Orion/nukes do have much greater potential, but what radioactive horrors would you visit on a planet just to start up a basic space program?
Railguns sound more promising, but I don't have any numbers to work with, so I can't really say much.

>>11300219
Literally all of those arguments are debunked.
The only "plausible" definition for god is undecidable. This means you would have to take gods existence as an axiom, and someone taking gods inexistence as an axiom would technically be equally as correct as you.
Although taking gods inexistence as an axioms makes more sence imo as there's no necessity for such being.
By the way the plausible definition im talking about would be something like:
"Let god be the entity that created the universe".
Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are all logically impossible.

Space elevators

>>11298922
Aliens would be really wide and low

>>11300288
>Assumption with no evidence.
Find me something that exists that was provably uncaused
>Assumption with no evidence.
Astronomers would like to have a word with you.
>Not possible, since causality doesn’t exist without the universe.
Proof?

>>11300476
>Bitch you argue with rhetorical questions of no substance
>point out legitimate issues with argument and ask for basic proof
>waaaaaaaaaaaah it's rhetorical

>>11300548
>Space elevators
Exponentially less feesable than here on Earth, requiring even more exotic/hypothetical/fictional materials.

>>11297149
>retards are still grasping at straws that would explain the lack of technological societies outside of earth with an answer other than “there aren’t any”
>b-but there’s a lot of planets! Therefore there must be a lot of ayy lmaos!

>>11300724

Religitard detected

>>11300740
>Religitard detected
Indeed.
The _real_ question is "why would you _expect_ to have proof of aliens?".
Visitors?
We've had oceans for 4 billion years. Let's say we've attracted a MILLION "take me to your leader" style visits (not counting your average fly-by or hillbilly probe).
That's a visit every 4000 years, on average.
Even a thousand years ago (or much less), an alien visit would be remembered as a god, demons or angels descending from the heavens, not an actual E.T. encounter.

Radio? Still nope. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly
>with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years

Truth is, we've NEVER gone anywhere, and rely strictly on dem aliens announcing themselves to us.
Nah, we've gt no realistic expectation of noticing alien life, even if the galaxy is TEEMING with space-empires and such.

>>11297149
We need to escape our solar system first... properly

>>11300740
>haha dude you don’t believe in magical space daddies? You must believe in magical sky Daddy then xD
Nice try, faggot. I’ve never set foot in a church, I’m as much of a non believing heathen as anyone. The fact of the matter is that there is zero evidence for ayy lmaos, just like there’s zero evidence for god. Given that tremendous effort has been spent on finding evidence for both, I think it’s safe to say that neither exist.
>>11300747
I’ll believe in your new age space religion when you can muster some evidence besides for “dude big numbers lmao”. There’s no sort of signals (radio or otherwise) that have been observed that aren’t consistent with natural phenomena. There’s no tech signatures, there’s no biosignatures, there’s nothing we’ve observed in the galaxy that points to aliens existing. Sure, there could be millions of planets that support simple life forms. But there’s no reason to believe that until we’ve either observed alien life, or we have a comprehensive understanding of abiogenesis. Even if there are though, we are still in an incredibly early point of the period in which the universe could sustain life. It took a billion years for unicellular life to develop on earth, and 3.5 billion more for us to take our first clumsy steps towards space exploration. That means that it took us roughly 1/3rd of the time that has passed since the first rocky planets formed to even begin dabbling in space flight. Add in all of the various extinction scenarios we could’ve faced and the barriers to technological advancement, and it’s no fucking wonder we’ve never observed anyone else in the universe.

>>11300770
>when you can muster some evidence
My entire argument is based on the unlikelihood of evidence presenting itself.
The rest of your pasta only supports my argument, or is based on your own unsupported nonsense.
Just go back o /b/, or /x/ or wherever.

>>11300774
>pasta
Go google search what I said and find out where I copied it from, nigger.
>My entire argument is based on the unlikelihood of evidence presenting itself.
Right. Just like your parents’ argument when they say that evidence for God is impossible because he wants you to take it on faith. So you’re in the exact same camp as “religitards”, then. Thank you for conceding that.
>The rest of your pasta only supports my argument, or is based on your own unsupported nonsense.
I actually provided some figures. You copy pasted a fucking Wikipedia article.
>Just go back o /b/, or /x/ or wherever.
“Stop making me look stupid!”

>>11300740

>go to sleep
>wake up
>people still argue about their flavors of imaginary bearded space dude they want as their master
We could be on Mars ages ago of not for shit like this

>>11300468
You know heavier elements with different properties are probably a factor in how they fuel rockets. Or even chemical properties change under different levels of gravity.

this thread is full of <100 iq subhumans arguing against each other, claiming that skydaddy is real and also claiming that He is not

>>11297306
they'll be smaller so they don't collapse under their own weight
>getting cucked by a manlet

>>11297175
>To launch the equivalent of an Apollo moon mission, a rocket on a super-Earth would need to have a mass of about 440,000 tons (400,000 metric tons), due to fuel requirements, the study said. That's on the order of the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt.
I am probably not the only one who would have paid to see a pyramid being launched into space.

Also the atmosphere would be thicker and deeper offering significantly more air resistance.

What are the chances there would be a really tall mountain on a super earth? Perhaps that one could be useful to start from?

>>11297216
>explodes on your launch pad irradiating the surrounding area

>>11300784
>So you’re in the exact same camp as “religitards”, then.
No, I'm not claiming aliens exist, even though circumstances are certainly suggesting it's more likely than not. Instead I'm refuting the claim that we can know that they don't exist.
Proof of aliens is less likely than some assume, not "impossible because they want us to take it on faith".
That's also a poor argument for the existence of God, because the only reason to believe faith is required is because any hypothetical God has refused to show himself.
In Genesis, he used to come and talk to Adam and Eve, but nothing in the modern day?

>I actually provided some figures.
There are numbers in your argument, but I'll still stand by: > only supports my argument, or is based on your own unsupported nonsense.

I'm not even sure why you think we disagree about alien life probably going unnoticed.

>You copy pasted a fucking Wikipedia article.
I copied part of a single sentence to provide a source for my claim. And this was bad because?

>“Stop making me look stupid!”
Oh, I want you to go away because you're unreasonably hostile, and keep dragging the conversation about aliens into the realm of theology because you (apparently) have a chip on your shoulder about faith, not because you're casting anybody but yourself in a negative light.

>>11300824
>You know heavier elements with different properties are probably a factor in how they fuel rockets.
"Super Earths" don't have higher gravity because they're made of denser material, they're just plain larger.
It's unlikely they have access to some exotic material we don't, and I can't see why you'd think "heavier elements" would make good rocket fuel.

>Or even chemical properties change under different levels of gravity.
Are you suggesting something like lead becomes flammable under 2-5g?
Remember, "Super-Earths" wouldn't have hundreds of g's of gravity, probably not even tens of g's.
The Wikipedia article mentions Gliese 876 d:
>super-Earth Gliese 876 d would have a surface gravity between 1.9g and 3.3g

So we aren't talking about conditions as extreme as you seem to imply.

>>11301155

>>11301173
>"Super Earths" don't have higher gravity because they're made of denser material, they're just plain larger.
Not him, but are you sure about this?
Earth crust is made of silicates with a low density. Planets around metal rich stars might have an entirely different composition with more metal and perhaps 3 times the mass.

>>11301214
>Not him, but are you sure about this?
No, but does it really matter?
Would a higher concentration of lead and gold improve chances of space flight?
OK, maybe more uranium, plutonium, thorium, etc make nuclear technology more prolific in everyday life, but we aren't talking about materials that are so rare here that we can't use them for space flight.

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth#Density_and_bulk_composition

The jury is still out on how/why super Earths are so super, but I'm still not getting new forms of space flight from a denser crust.

For me, it still comes back to specific impulse.

>>11301251
>Would a higher concentration of lead and gold improve chances of space flight?
Not at all, I agree with you on that part, that climbing out of a deep gravity well like that will be painful.

>>11301155
I never claimed that aliens exist. I specifically said it’s totally possible that there is other life out there. But the lack of any evidence whatsoever paired with our complete lack of knowledge of how abiogenesis works gives me some skepticism that the universe is teeming with life. What I find very unlikely is the existence of other technological civilizations. It took 4.5 billion years for life to develop crude technology like metalworking. A few thousand years after metalworking, we are already beginning to explore space. Unless every other technological civilization just happens to be at the exact same level that we are (which is unlikely given that a few thousand years is nothing on cosmological timelines), other technological civilizations would probably be millions of years more advanced. And we still haven’t detected any tech signatures, interstellar propulsion engines, megastructures, signals, etc. An interstellar civilization could devote 0.0001 of its resources to finding other life or broadcasting messages to primitives, and it would amount to dozens of Earths doing the same thing. It’s not hard to imagine that some of them wouldn’t want to do this, but it is hard to imagine that NONE of them would. Especially given that Earth would not pose a threat to them, nor would any other civilization that wasn't also interstellar. You claiming that “Space is big dude, therefore there’s no way Earth is unique” is like an African tribesman with no understanding of biology learning that there are 7 billion people, and deciding that that means there’s no way he has unique fingerprints or DNA.
>unnecessary hostility
Blow me, faggot. You claimed that anyone who didn’t believe something that has absolutely zero evidence is a religious retard. If you can’t handle the banter or opposing viewpoints, you should be bantering or broadcasting your viewpoints.

>>11301335
>>unnecessary hostility
>Blow me, faggot.

>>11297149

Planets that are smaller than Earth loses their atmosphere quickly due lower gravity and weaker magnetosphere and geological activity. Planets that are much bigger than Earth captures A LOT more hydrogen and become either ocean worlds or gas giants.

>>11301546

Incidentally, just because you have an ocean world, it doesn't mean that it is filled with life. Most of the ocean's life is concentrated in very specific areas, namely, where light can reach them. The deeper you go, the less life concentrations you find, and most of the life on the deeper levels depends on the white snow, ak detritus, from above.

>>11298447
Why would having large breasts help with rocketry?

>>11301557
Not to mention that aquatic life probably has a much, much harder route to developing technology. Octopi and dolphins are just as smart, if not smarter than the primates that evolved into humans. And they’ve existed in that state for millions of years without developing any technology. Fire permitted humanity to discover pottery, cooked food, metallurgy, and countless other technology that made their development possible. It’s very hard to imagine technology emerging without fire, and that’s obviously impossible for aquatic life. It would even be much less likely to be harnessed by landborne life on a planet that was wetter or had a less favorable atmosphere than earth.

>>11301335
>You claiming that “Space is big dude, therefore there’s no way Earth is unique” is like an African tribesman with no understanding of biology learning that there are 7 billion people, and deciding that that means there’s no way he has unique fingerprints or DNA.

Except there aren't 7 billions stars out there.
>7 000 000 000

There are 100 billion stars (at least) in our galaxy alone. And there are about 2 trillions galaxies in the observable universe.
>100 000 000 000 x 2 000 000 000 000 =
200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars by a very conservative estimate (might very well be more)

We are still speaking about the observable universe only.

>>11301714
>200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars by a very conservative estimate (might very well be more)


here is an additional bit of math

if you wanted to name all the stars and needed half a second per star, you would spend about 3.17 billion years naming them

>>11301714
Nice reading comprehension, retard. I was making an analogy. I said that claiming that Earth’s life can’t be unique because there are billions of stars is analogous to believing that your DNA or fingerprints can’t be unique because there are 7 billion people. I never claimed that there were only 7 billion stars. Go back to the post you just replied to, ctrl+f the term “7 billion”, then read the word that directly follows that term.
>7 billion people
You are incredibly dense. And your argument still boils down to “we can’t be the only technological civilization because there are a lot of other stars/planets.” You do realize that there has to have been a species at some point that was the first spacefaring species, right? There’s no evidence whatsoever that it’s not humanity. Unless everyone else just so happens to be at the same level of technological development as us, some would be millions of years ahead of us. It would be much, much easier to detect humanity a million years from now than it is in 2020. I’m repeating the points I’ve made because you’re completely unable to refute them, and the only “””evidence””” you have is the fact that we aren’t the only planet that exists.

>>11298661
>is your mom hot?
You judge.

>>11301335
>we still haven’t detected any tech signatures, interstellar propulsion engines, megastructures, signals, etc
I'm not sure what you're expecting to detect.
Just ask Kardashev, anybody broadcasting their existence would have to be using something with as much power output as a star. Not sure how you'd modulate the output of such a device, but we do see interesting interstellar signals (pulsars and FRBs).
We don't have the ability to detect even nearby megastructures for certain, but we've still got 17 "ambiguous" and 4 "amusing" candidates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
>Identifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques for discriminating between a Dyson sphere and natural sources.
>Fermilab discovered 17 potential "ambiguous" candidates, of which four have been named "amusing but still questionable".
And since we've never built an interstellar drive, I'm not sure why you'd assume we'd be able to detect nearby star-travelers. And if c IS a hard limit, there probably isn't a lot of interstellar traffic.
There's plenty of unanswered questions: Haumea, Tabby's star, the aforementioned FRBs. We don't know nearly enough to assume we'd notice any intelligent life out there, even if they are out flitting around the galaxy.

>>11301769
>some would be millions of years ahead of us
that's exactly the point

>And we still haven’t detected any tech signatures, interstellar propulsion engines, megastructures, signals, etc.

You are assuming a tech level that even is detectable for us. And that's probably ... what? A civilization that is 1000 years ahead of us? And that's mighty generous.

Radio signals for example were essantially non-existant to humans up to the 19th century. What makes you think we have any hope to detect any tech that is several thousands of years ahead of us? Let alone millions?

>>11301809
>I'm not sure what you're expecting to detect.
Exactly what I mentioned. Evidence of a megastructure, such as a ring world, Dyson Sphere, Dyson Swarm (a number of stars getting increasingly dim in a given reaction before seemingly disappearing, without going supernova), any large number of weird objects going along a single path that could indicate an interstellar highway, any sort of repeating or sequential narrowband transmission, any sort of debris or defunct tech that is clearly artificial, evidence of Von Neumann probes, any object that is traveling at high speed and showing signs of a propulsion or accelerating/changing direction in a way that isn’t consistent with gravitational forces, the list could go on. I would expect any interstellar empires to employ most of these technologies.
>pulsars or FRB
Pulsars are rotating neutron stars. We’ve known this for decades. FRB’s are a few milliseconds in length at most, and they are incredibly weak. Only 3 of them have ever repeated, and none have shown sequential data. Many have been proven to be interference from manmade instruments.
>17 possible candidates of Dyson construction, none of which are unambiguous
none are condensed into a general location, which would indicate that they’re being built for energy harvesting
>that’s exactly the point
You keep saying that without explaining it. Why would an interstellar empire be harder to detect than humanity is now? Were we harder to detect in the medieval era than we are now? You just fucking brought up megastructures supposed evidence, and now you’re saying that they would be harder to identify as they advanced. Which is it?
>And if c IS a hard limit, there probably isn't a lot of interstellar traffic.
Why would that be the case? These interstellar empires aren’t capable of automated machines like we are? Are self-replicating machines impossible? Doesn’t this contradict the “evidence” you just brought up concerning Dyson Spheres?

>>11301816
>What makes you think we have any hope to detect any tech that is several thousands of years ahead of us? Let alone millions?
The aforementioned tech signatures and megastructures? The fact that we allocate considerable resources to SETI, and a million year old stellar empire could make that effort look like nothing at all? The fact that there are millions of people who have devoted their lives to studying ants and considerable resources have been allocated to SETI, and an interstellar empire who is millions of years more advanced than us would be much more likely to detect us and have an interest in studying us like we study primitive life here? Kudos to you for finally attempting to put forth evidence besides “there’s a bunch of stars, therefore aliens”, though. That shit was so tiresome.

>>11297172
This. All deficits in current human knowledge are due to gays being too busy flicking their wrists and bumming each other to do a job.
Server down? Gay server maintenance bumming.
Someone not responding to emails? Hard to with a cock up your arse.
Can't get off planet? Stop using the rocket as a fist dildo.

>>11301879
>not sure what you're expecting to detect.
>Exactly what I mentioned.
OK, let's check:
> Evidence of a megastructure,
I've already addressed this.

>any large number of weird objects going along a single path
We can't detect "weird objects" (or any objects) smaller than planets, and even then we rely on them periodically transiting a star. So even if somebody got objects as large as planets traveling between the stars, we couldn't detect them, let alone sort through a bunch to find some common "interstellar" highway".

>any sort of repeating or sequential narrowband transmission
We've already addressed (and dismissed) radio signals, or lack thereof.

> any sort of debris or defunct tech that is clearly artificial
Like what? And where? We haven't found a crashed spaceship in the tiny percentage of our own solar system we've thus far explored?

>evidence of Von Neumann probes
See above.

>Again, we've been just barely "watching the skies" for a tiny fraction of the time we've been here, and yeah no super obvious UFO's (so far).
Must not be any intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, sure.

> I would expect any interstellar empires to employ most of these technologies.
So would I. But I'm STILL waiting to hear why we would notice any of this.
You dipped a coffee mug in the ocean, didn't catch a fish, and declared fish fictional.

>Pulsars are rotating neutron stars. We’ve known this for decades.
Of course. My point is: If some hypothetical aliens must surely (as you argue) be broadcasting news of their existence, they'd need a signal as strong as what a star could put out. They aren't going to make transistors the size of Jupiter, now are they?
Assuming any star-faring race is trying to send radio signals we'd notice, they'd almost have to make something like a pulsar through artificial means.

cont...

>>11301929
>cont...
>>11301879
>>17 possible candidates of Dyson construction, none of which are unambiguous
>none are condensed into a general location, which would indicate that they’re being built for energy harvesting
I'm really lost on what you're trying to say here, but I sincerely doubt you checked wit Fermilab to see just where there 17 candidate Dyson Spheres are located.
I'll just call bullshit.

>>11301879
>Why would an interstellar empire be harder to detect than humanity is now?
Because we couldn't detect ourselves at interstellar distances.

Intelligent life is so tiny on a cosmic scale, we're probably all but invisible now, and given current trends towards a larger number of lower powered radio sources, we'll be even harder to detect in the future.

>You just fucking brought up megastructures supposed evidence
I'm pointing out the best we can do is "maybe" with our current technology, and we do have several "maybe"s.
You can't claim (though you have) there are no "nearby megastructures.

Unless you're expecting the aliens to re-arrange the stars themselves to spell out "hello", you should NOT be surprised there's no evidence of neighbors.

>>11301879
>>And if c IS a hard limit, there probably isn't a lot of interstellar traffic.
>Why would that be the case?
Because if the future dosen't have Star Wars or Star Trek potential, why would any species sphere of influence extend beyond their own solar systems?
Even if we could make engines that propelled ships at 1g, large ships, not just tiny interstellar probes, It's years at a time for round trips, even comms, to the nearest stars. I can't assume the interstellar equivalent of tractor trailers en mass.

>>11301929
>I’ve already addressed this
Read my post, I refuted it
>We can't detect "weird objects" (or any objects)
We could if they had interstellar fucking propulsion
>We've already addressed (and dismissed) radio signals, or lack thereof
Radio transmissions aren’t the only kind of transmissions that exist, brainlet.
>Like what? And where? We haven't found a crashed spaceship in the tiny percentage of our own solar system we've thus far explored?
Anything, anywhere. I never said crashed starship, you need to learn to read.
>See above
See above
>>Again, we've been just barely "watching the skies" for a tiny fraction of the time we've been here, and yeah no super obvious UFO's (so far).
>Must not be any intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, sure.
I never typed that. Learn to read,
>So would I. But I'm STILL waiting to hear why we would notice any of this.
Because vast interstellar empires aren’t a covert thing. And because if you insist that people believe something that has no evidence, you’re right back to being a religion.
>You dipped a coffee mug in the ocean, didn't catch a fish, and declared fish fictional.
You dipped the same cup in the ocean and didn’t find Cthulhu. You say “there’s a lot of water I didn’t check, I have now proven that Cthulhu exists.
>f course. My point is: If some hypothetical aliens must surely (as you argue) be broadcasting news of their existence, they'd need a signal as strong as what a star could put out. They aren't going to make transistors the size of Jupiter, now are they?
Assuming any star-faring race is trying to send radio signals we'd notice, they'd almost have to make something like a pulsar through artificial means.
Thanks for admittIng you were wrong. Why bring up natural phenomena at all in this discussion?If they’re ancient interstellar empires who build Dyson spheres, they can afford a star’s worth of energy. We let SETI use entire radar arrays to search for aliens.

>>11301956
>I'll just call bullshit.
Saying “nuh-uh” is a pretty solid argument, m8
>Because we couldn't detect ourselves at interstellar distances.
Yes, and we aren’t an interstellar empire. And saying “I have no evidence because it’s too hard to find” doesn’t count as evidence. If it were, ghosts and vampires would be considered real.
>You can't claim (though you have) there are no "nearby megastructures.
And you can’t claim that vampires aren’t real just because there’s no actual evidence. We don’t have any actual proof, but we do have accounts of people who say they’ve met them. So I guess that’s a maybe, too.
>Because if the future dosen't have Star Wars or Star Trek potential, why would any species sphere of influence extend beyond their own solar systems?
Oh, so you’re admitting that space empires belong in the realm of fiction now? That’s weird, because earlier you said that the universe could be TEEMING with them. Then you wrote a novel worth of supposed evidence for them. That sure was arduous, but I humbly accept your surrender.

>>11301969
>>I’ve already addressed this
>Read my post, I refuted it
ctrl-f "megastructures", 11 instances found, not one refutation by you.

>>11301969
>>We can't detect "weird objects" (or any objects)
>We could if they had interstellar fucking propulsion
Please explain all possible forms of interstellar propulsion (possibly including all possible forms of FTL) and we can go over which would be detectable to current human technology.

>>11301969
>Radio transmissions aren’t the only kind of transmissions that exist, brainlet.
OK, what forms of hypothetical, non-electromagnetic spectrum broadcasts are we supposedly looking for? Help me out, I'm apparently a brainlet. :^)

>Anything, anywhere. I never said crashed starship, you need to learn to read.
You said ", any sort of debris or defunct tech that is clearly artificial, evidence of Von Neumann probes," anything like that on Earth, having come from an interstellar source would have to come (duh) from an interstellar vessel.
So OK, you're complaining not just about "where all the crashed spaceships at?", instead you're suggesting we should have found some kind of interstellar souvenirs left over from non-crashed space ships? My bad bro. ;^)

>I never typed that. Learn to read,
Oops, mis-placed angle bracket. My whole argument is invalid now. You win, oh noooes!
:^0

>Because vast interstellar empires aren’t a covert thing.
STILL waiting to hear how/why we'd notice them.
Any such tech is completely unknown to us, but you're 100% certain we can detect it, even though we're just starting to notice "nearby" planets?

> I have now proven that Cthulhu exists.
You seem confused. I've always claimed we can't rule out interstellar neighbors. YOU'RE the one drawing conclusions, while I'm just saying we aren't equipped to say anything for sure.

>>11301998
>>I'll just call bullshit.
>Saying “nuh-uh” is a pretty solid argument, m8
Do you really think he (you?) checked with Fermilab, researched their claims, and presented a coherent argument against their "maybe" status on 4-17 possible Dyson Spheres based on their locations?

>saying “I have no evidence because it’s too hard to find” doesn’t count as evidence.
I'm not drawing conclusions based on evidence. Just the opposite.

>If it were, ghosts and vampires would be considered real.
Quite the contrary. If people were ill-equipped to detect ghosts and vampires (are they though?), that wouldn't serve as evidence of their existence, now would it?

>>11301998
>so you’re admitting that space empires belong in the realm of fiction now?
You really seem lost here. I'll only say it one more time: we can't tell if the galaxy is teeming with space-empires or not, because we're unable to detect such empires.

Last analogy: Helen Keller can't tell if a flash-bang grenade just went off in her house. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
You can't claim flash-bangs aren't going off, and I'm not claiming there are.
The only wrong people are those that claim to draw conclusions based on Helen's lack of evidence.

>>11301880
>The aforementioned tech signatures and megastructures?
How exactly would we search for "tech signatures" - whatever that is.

Megastructures are meme. Why would any civilization build them at all. There are megastructures in place already - they are called planets. Building rings and spheres is borderline idiotic waste of ressources.

>The fact that we allocate considerable resources to SETI, and a million year old stellar empire could make that effort look like nothing at all?
Not sure what you are trying to say here. SETI searches for radio signals. Why would any civilization use radio unless that's the best they can do (like us). If you are refering to the question why a million year old stellar empire hasn't found us? What makes you so sure they haven't? Just because they didn't come with a fleet and demanded taxes or something?

>The fact that there are millions of people who have devoted their lives to studying ants and considerable resources have been allocated to SETI, and an interstellar empire who is millions of years more advanced than us would be much more likely to detect us and have an interest in studying us like we study primitive life here?
Exactly. Studying primitive life works best when primitive life is not aware of being studied.

>>11302014
>Please explain all possible forms of interstellar propulsion (possibly including all possible forms of FTL).
Are you high? I’m the one claiming that they probably don’t exist.
>OK, what forms of hypothetical, non-electromagnetic spectrum broadcasts are we supposedly looking for? Help me out, I'm apparently a brainlet. :^)
You’ve been using the term “radio” repeatedly. Are you asking what kinds of communication other than radio waves exist? Google search “World wide web”, it’s pretty fascinating stuff.
>OK, you're complaining not just about "where all the crashed spaceships at?"
No, You asked what would serve as “evidence”. That’s one of the dozen or so examples I gave. Are you not aware that not all space-borne technology are spaceships? Google “voyager probe”. Fascinating stuff.
>STILL waiting to hear how/why we'd notice them.
Any such tech is completely unknown to us, but you're 100% certain we can detect it, even though we're just starting to notice "nearby" planets
Because you’ve been posting “””evidence””” that we’ve found for about two hours now? Are you not believing the bullshit you’re spewing either?
>You seem confused. I've always claimed we can't rule out interstellar neighbors. YOU'RE the one drawing conclusions, while I'm just saying we aren't equipped to say anything for sure.
And I’ve specifically said that alien life is possible. But without any evidence, I’m assuming that the universe isn’t “TEEMING with space-empires”, unlike you. You keep saying we can’t find evidence, then posting paragraphs of “evidence” when I point out that the basis for science as a whole is drawing conclusions based on evidence instead of the lack thereof. Why don’t you try to explain to me why it’s dumb to say that vampires probably don’t exist? After all, they’re masters of deception. So I’m not sure what kind of evidence you expect to find.

>>11301956
>given current trends towards a larger number of lower powered radio sources, we'll be even harder to detect in the future
For one, night lighting is a big giveaway. It's noticeable, periodic with the rotation of the planet and has rather distinct unnatural spectrum, especially in the last 10s of years with the spread of fluorescent and led lights

>>11302080
>Are you high?
Nope, drunk.

>>11302080
>I’m the one claiming that they probably don’t exist.
Exactly. You're the one claiming that even though we don't have the slightest inkling of how interstellar travel would work, _surely_ we'd notice any aliens traveling anywhere in the galaxy.

>You’ve been using the term “radio” repeatedly. Are you asking what kinds of communication other than radio waves exist? Google search “World wide web”, it’s pretty fascinating stuff.
OK, you're right. I'm sure any potential aliens out there in interstellar space would have a web page by now, or maybe a facebook page. Surely, if they existed, Google would have indexed them by now.
And you want to know If _I'm_ high???

> Are you not aware that not all space-borne technology are spaceships? Google “voyager probe”. Fascinating stuff.
Not here to argue semantics, but you're still claiming the lack of alien artifacts, here on Earth, is proof aliens are super rare or non-existent?
Let's not forget the whole point of this thread is aliens might be out there, but less inclined to space travel if they have trouble leaving their home world.

>I’m assuming that the universe isn’t “TEEMING with space-empires”, unlike you.
Exactly. We have no evidence, because we have no ability to gather evidence. Everything is 100% conjecture... but you're still willing to draw conclusions.
pic related.

>>11302110
>For one, night lighting is a big giveaway. It's noticeable, periodic with the rotation of the planet and has rather distinct unnatural spectrum, especially in the last 10s of years with the spread of fluorescent and led lights
OK, I'm sure any aliens within a few light years have noticed us by now.
WE still don't have such abilities though.
Direct imaged exoplanets are very rare. Just go spend a little time with Google, and let me know what you think of the likelyhood of us noticing night-lighting on how many exoplanets.

>>11301969
>You dipped the same cup in the ocean and didn’t find Cthulhu. You say “there’s a lot of water I didn’t check, I have now proven that Cthulhu exists.

That analogy does not work because thw universe is x times bigger than thw ocean. If the ocean was really as large and undiscovered as the universe, would you make the same joke?

>>11298661
I guess

>>11302228
the performance on a bus like that would be amazing, 650 engine in a 150 body

>>11302231
Given the periodic nature and clearly artificial spectrum of the lighting it's not entirely out of question to detect it even with our current capabilities given long enough observation period and favorable conditions. Direct resolution of the planet is not a necessary requirement either, though it obviously helps.

Imagine how thicc they must be to survive such high gravity.

>>11299960
>asking me to not disprove a false negative fact that is true

>>11300219
>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
not an argument
>The Kalam Cosmological Argument
not an argument
>The Teleological Argument (cosmological fine-tuning)
false
>The Argument from Consciousness
Not metaphysics
>The Argument from Reason
not an argument
>The Moral Argument
not real
>The Argument from Evil
doesn't exist, social construct
>The Argument from Religious Experience
didn't happen
>The Ontological Argument(s)
Not an argument
>The Argument from Miracles (the Resurrection)
didn't happen
>All in TBCTNT
Not an argument
See? I can debate like you too.

>>11298627
No, man created God.

>>11301173
Element 116 in abundant is what oil is for us it's a means for compact energy. Manipulation of gravity would center around their science due to how much heavier gravity is.

>>11298656
>carl sagan
>pepe

>>11297149
Could aliens be living inside a gas giant like Jupiter? Think about it for a second. When people discuss about the possibility of aliens existing on a planet, we always dismiss it with reasons such as "thin atmosphere, high pressure, no oxygen" etc. Fluorine gas would be like oxygen for some aliens. Why do we have to compare any of these conditions with the Goldilocks zone ?
Back to my original proposition, imagine jellyfish like non intelligent aliens living inside Jupiter. Their source of energy is hydrogen which they consume in some manner. Movement is achieved by expelling a part of the consumed gas. They only have a one or two primitive sensory organs. Is this not possible?
There could even be very primitive aliens living in space without a planet whose source of energy is just the radiation from stars.
I'm not familiar with the research that has been done with respect to aliens so I might be wrong with any and all of my points and I welcome any criticism.

>>11297175
That's really inefficient the science aliens probably developed is more about nuclear, electricity and magnetism, and gravitational manipulation. They probably don't use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a scam of laziness and the Petro dollar.

>>11297149
I say we just beam mocking audio to them
>Haha, fucking losers, can't even get into space
>Wow, your planet looks nice from space, not that you'd know.

>>11303429
>not entirely out of question to detect it even with our current capabilities
I'd like to see some numbers on this, color me dubious.

>Direct resolution of the planet is not a necessary requirement either
Perhaps not, but it seems like a likely"neighborhood".
If we can't even isolate a single pixel of a planet, then you're talking about noticing a difference in a star system's emitted light in total.
Considering how little light our own cities produce compared to the light of the sun, I'm still super skeptical.
Lastly, I just tried cross-referencing directly imaged exoplanets against potentially habitable exoplanets (links below), and couldn't find any planet on both lists.
Hardly definitive proof of anything, but that's been my point all along.
The planets scientists like best for potential life aren't close enough to get a better look at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

>>11303662
>Element 116 in abundant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermorium
>Livermorium is a synthetic chemical element with the symbol Lv and has an atomic number of 116.
>It is an extremely radioactive element that has only been created in the laboratory and has not been observed in nature.
>Four isotopes of livermorium are known, with mass numbers between 290 and 293 inclusive; the longest-lived among them is livermorium-293 with a half-life of about 60 milliseconds.

>a half-life of about 60 milliseconds.
>has not been observed in nature.
>60 milliseconds.

>>11297149
>>11297175
Couldn't you launch it off a very high point
and use something like a slingshot or rollercoaster to give it starting momentum

If they really were as intelligent as use they would figure it out

>>11303675
Anyone?

>>11303654
Aw shieet

Anti-gravity?

>>11303675
>Could aliens be living inside a gas giant like Jupiter?
I've always wanted to believe this.
Even as a child, I imagined giant, buoyant alien jellyfish, living dirigibles floating through a world of clouds without any concept of "solid ground".

But the Fermi paradox? I can't imagine even intelligent space dirigible jellyfish creating starships. But if I'm wrong, then maybe this part of the galaxy is dominated by a space-empire of people that wouldn't even look twice at a rocky world like Earth.

All the above also applies to plasma-folk living at the heart of every star.

>>11303905
>But the Fermi paradox?

Doesn’t exist.

>>11300676
>Find me something that exists that was provably uncaused

The universe.

> Astronomers would like to have a word with you.

No, they wouldn’t. Cosmic inflation cosmology does not posit a “beginning of the universe”. To mistake the current inflationary period for the universe’s entire lifespan is an easy error of thinking to lapse into, but definitely an error.

> Proof?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
Causality is the idea that events can lead to future events occuring. Without time, the concept of an “event” is incoherent as is the idea of a “future”, a “past”, and a “present”. Positing that causality exists without time is speaking gibberish.

>>11301546
>Planets that are smaller than Earth loses their atmosphere quickly due lower gravity and weaker magnetosphere and geological activity

Titan would like to have a word with you.

>>11303905
I'm not saying that alien life is supposed to be intelligent. Isn't it possible for these jellyfish like creatures to be living in some gas giant in the universe? That's why I think it's illogical for anyone to claim that aliens don't exist. Intelligent aliens might not exist but non intelligent ones probably do.

>>11303980
>Isn't it possible for these jellyfish like creatures to be living in some gas giant in the universe?
I want to believe, but I'm a code monkey/electrician, so I can't say for sure.

>in the universe?
>Intelligent aliens might not exist
The universe has so many billions of billions of worlds, any given thing that can exist, probably exists somewhere.
Problem is, the universe has so many billions of billions of worlds, and we've only just checked this one, the odds of us running into any given miracle is super-unlikely.

>>11297149
I'll bring the clamps and some equipment to make vaccines.

>>11303707
If we take Earth as a reference, human light emission is indeed miniscule compared to the Sun (I pulled some figures outta the ass and ended up with the number in the order of 10^-17). But if we sample the data over a long enough period, correlations caused by the planet rotation would add up, possibly enhancing the signal above the detectable level. Guessing the artificial light spectrum could also help us to further filter out the unrelated noise. Of course it might still be not enough and there are many other factors that would determine the success.

>couldn't find any planet on both lists
I believe thay can only image supergiants far away from the star, and small Earth-like planets in the habitable zone are impossible for now.

>>11303980
>That's why I think it's illogical for anyone to claim that aliens don't exist.

It’s outright retarded. There is no reason whatsoever to think that life is exclusive to Earth.

>>11297149
Gravity tariff. Lower gravity worlds have their margins lowered when dealing with hiG's

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

>>11303925
last time i checked titan was a bit more away from the sun or any habitable zone and therefore is getting a lot less solar radiation

>>11303712
*Element 115

>>11297216
>isp of 3060
My dick

>>11297175
This is stupid, almost as soon as they enter the atomic age they'd realize they could use the various nuclear drives, or nuclear pulse propulsion to escape their gravity well. Not only would they have a space program, but it would probably be more robust, efficient, cheap, and significantly larger than our own.

>>11297149
FUCK GRAVITY

>>11298848
>How is your space civilization and how’s the family?

I want to build a starship, but my mom won't let me.

>>11306469
>*Element 115
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium
>Moscovium is a synthetic chemical element
>Moscovium is an extremely radioactive element:
>its most stable known isotope, moscovium-290, has a half-life of only 0.65 seconds.[9]

>>11306554
>almost as soon as they enter the atomic age they'd realize they could use the various nuclear drives, or nuclear pulse propulsion to escape their gravity well.
We've had these options for decades, but don't use them, probably because they're expensive, dirty and otherwise less suitable.
And any option, including NERVA, Orion, etc would be less effective on a world with stronger gravity.
I guess that's the bottom line. Unless being on a super-Earth opens up some new option, they've got the same options we do, except any option would be less effective on their world.

>>11299489
arguably there could have been/could be parallel messiahs on each individual planet and they could all have been the same entity that just appears and disappears every so often

>>11307581
>I guess that's the bottom line. Unless being on a super-Earth opens up some new option, they've got the same options we do, except any option would be less effective on their world.

Yeah, they could just use whatever the aliens are using.

>>11307620
>arguably there could have been/could be parallel messiahs on each individual planet
Hitchen's Razor and Occams Razor would both suggest some con-artists made all this shit up to serve there own purposes.

>>11307632
>Yeah, they could just use whatever the aliens are using.
"They" are the aliens in question.
What am I missing here?

>>11307667
No, anon, we are the aliens.

>born on a planet too big to be an important trade port for the intergalactic community
>born on a planet too small for the ring world aesthetic.

>>11307669
>No, anon, we are the aliens.
Apparently.

>>11307667
>"They" are the aliens in question.

No, I mean the ones here.

>>11307877
>
Still with you ,Anon.

>>11307878
dat tiny penor doe.

>>11297149
my face space we are one of those trapped aliens and only rabbit-sized peoples from jovian moons have any honest shot of becoming type 2 civilisations

BLACK ALIEN AFRICAN AMERICANS CANT JUMP

>>11298690
>>11298931
I'd watch that movie.

>>11300279
>All of those arguments are dogshit
Nope.
>Literally all of those arguments are debunked.
Lie.
>>11303626
Not an argument.

>>11310300
also meant for >>11300541
Why did you reply thrice?
>Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are all logically impossible.
How so?

>>11303922
>The universe.
>provably uncaused
Have you received your Nobel yet?
>Causality is the idea that events can lead to future events occuring.
>Positing that causality exists without time is speaking gibberish.
Utterly wrong. I suggest you read up on the causal calculus?

>>11300541
>Literally all of those arguments are debunked.
source?

>>11301120
Very small . By many million years uplifted sections of mountains are eroded by the elements – wind, rain, ice and gravity. So it will be much more probable that mountains on super Earths would be much lower than on Earth. For example highest volcano on Solar System is located on Mars which has only about 38% of the surface gravity on Earth.

>>11297359
good thing they had lots of space otherwise we would've skipped a lot of technological advancements and just went to space, which is okay but they probably wouldn't have known much about solar radiation, oxygen, etc...

>>11310615
calisto.png

A super earth will probably have a higher gravity. Would that also mean it would be covered in an ocean?

>>11297175
This is like anthropic principle but applied to spaceflight, the guy completely ignores other methods of rocket/non-rocket spacelaunch (Atomic) that other civilizations on high gravity worlds could use instead. We use chemical rockets because they are convenient and relatively low cost/low complexity compared to other methods like nuclear propulsion, but those are options too.

>>11297149
What a fucking retarded proposition. Species evolve to adapt to their environment.

>>11314717
>Atomic
That is hideously messy.

>>11316895
Maybe they eat nuclear waste and every rocket launch is a feast.

>>11297168

>>11297175
see, they'd just figure out automation before going to space, they'd be in exactly the same place we are now when it comes to deep space exploration, the advent of satellites would just be much slower

>>11314717
Just put a rocket on a weather balloon and launch from high up in the atmosphere bro

>>11316900
Unlikely. the radioactivity will ionize the parts their bodes are made of.

>>11297149
I think they should worry about the absence of fossil fuel for those aliens more than gravity, cuz no fossil fuel is a major disadvantage for them to have a meaningful scale of the industry.

>>11316895
Yeah but if we're talking about super earths 5-9x the size of ours then I'd imagine they would have a continent or country dedicated purely to atomic space launch like this

>>11298591
>There are no fucking aliens
not only are there aliens there also other humans and robots in space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX48kGgo6ec

>>11298591
saying that there aren't any with certainty is just as retarded as believing that there are with certainty

>>11298591
>t. Xjjjk88zz

>>11297175
>>11300861

>>11297175
Sucks to be them lol
We should just be flinging asteroids at all these loser planets to be honest

>>11298690
Just build a ladder and climb off

>>11299421
Gotta start somewhere
Why preach to the empty rocks and plasma balls?

>>11299648
Humans exist by consuming the bodies of other living things, and we also spread disease
Are we not just as “evil” as the mosquito?

>>11317302
That would be a humongous balloon, to lift a rocket at least twice the sizeof Saturn V.

>>11297149
Alright /sci/ fags I have a question for you physics and chem people.

>How does gravity affect the way elements bond or form?

>Can we use electrons to form new elements by manipulating protons and neutrons by using electrons as some sort of molecular glue?

>Can Silicon based life exist? It's similar to carbon in that it can bond well with it's 4 valence electrons.

>>11319412
don't worry the atmosphere is thicc

>>11297168
>>11317871
I'm pretty sure ayy lmaos aren't using petroleum it'd be pretty inefficient and stupid.

>>11303980
why would 1 entity exist on a planet? it seems like the universe has to exert alot of energy to spawn 1 creature on a desolate rock moving through space.

what is the equation to determine that 1 rock moving through space contains all the chemistry necessary to match chemistry of the 2nd rock and the chances that both have to collide and both start a new habitable planet, i bet theres millions of other contingencies i'm missing here

>>11319419
1: gravity is so weak on that scale that a whole lot of people would just love to be able to see what it does there, but they can't

2: yeah like, go back to the 40s and 50s, that stuff was new and exciting back then

3: possibly, it would probably not have had time to evolve much yet because reactions would happen on a much slower scale

>>11319425
Like instead of smashing atoms into each other to create new elements. How about trying to electrify the atoms in a containment space while at the same time amplifying gravity? Do you think any thing could happen besides a huge catastrophic explosion?

>>11319427
it doesn't work like that but you might find this popsoi video interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDfB3gnxRhc

>>11319429
I honestly think that electricity and magnetism when applied to Nuclear fusion and gravity manipulation is what can hold the best results for space travel. Rocket fuel is so inefficient it's laughable.

>>11319424
same poster but it really feels like earths uniqueness is millions of contingencies * millions of contingencies * millions of contingencies (a million times like this)

>>11319440
No there's beings out there smarter than us different worlds. Maybe one day we will all know

>>11298627
>it's true because a book written thousands of years ago said so
>*ignores half the Bible anyway*

>>11298690
>use something besides a manned ship to determine gravity ahead of time
Woah

Why are we so alone in this universe bros... It scares me