[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 76 KB, 1200x575, 9565194352167.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15987091 No.15987091 [Reply] [Original]

Where are all the Aliens !?

>> No.15987097

they aren't required

>> No.15987106

Yes

>> No.15987116

>>15987091
We are holding their kids for ransom in special cages designed and constructed by the Obama administration and revealed to the public during the Trump administration

>> No.15987137

>>15987091
Grabby aliens

>> No.15987141

They will never reveal themselves to the unclean (vaxed)

Only purebloods will be invited onto the ships to explore the universe

>> No.15987148

>>15987141
DO NOT, under no circumstances, enter the ships!

>> No.15987174

>>15987148
what is the worst that could happen tho?

>> No.15987363

>>15987091
There is NO empirical evidence for aliens. Belief in aliens is not scientific.

>> No.15987371

>>15987363
>There is NO empirical evidence for aliens
Life on earth

>> No.15987394

>>15987371
Life on earth isn't aliens. There is no empirical evidence for life off earth, e.g. aliens.

>> No.15987446

>>15987394
Jingoism isn't science.

>> No.15987454

>>15987446
what we know about the universe and its laws has some implications on biological aliens on Earth. the chances they are compatible with surface conditions are retarded small, for gravity, temperature, pressure, air composition (if they breathe), luminosity and a bunch of other things are retarded low.

>> No.15987460

>>15987371
Life on Earth and the conspicuous absence of aliens is good reason to rethink your own incorrect philosphical or metaphysical commitments.

>> No.15987465

>>15987371
life on earth does absolutely NOT require aliens in the universe. we can pop up without any other form of life existing in the universe. but we clearly needed the local life for us to appear.
you just think aliens should be in the universe, just that them not existing is a pretty valid move. they are not required.
actually, literally everything you see in the observable universe is absolutely required for us to be here, minus exactly any aliens. they literally don't have to exist, if they don't, the universe is still valid.

>> No.15987475

>>15987446
Believing in something without ANY empirical evidence for it isn't science.

>> No.15987497
File: 635 KB, 1080x1090, m2-res_1090p.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15987497

The Friday before last, select congress members questioned the Intelligence Insepector General of the Intelligence Community about UAP's and the claims that David Grusch made back in July. Many of the members left the meeting saying that the claims David Grusch made were credible. More hearings are on the way.

>> No.15987506

>>15987465
>NOT require
I know, a lot of stuff isn't necessary for the things to be the way they are, for instance, it isn't necessary for there to be a single atom of gold in any other planet of the solar system to explain the solar system as we currently understand it, gold was only needed in the dust ring that would eventually become Earth, as no phenomena requires it to be present in any other planet, do you believe this to be case?

>> No.15987517

>>15987506
>as no phenomena requires it to be present in any other planet, do you believe this to be case?
why wouldn't other supernovae create gold? can they even?

>> No.15987521

>>15987517
I mean they have to create gold for us to be here.

>> No.15987536

>>15987517
I'm specifically talking about the solar system and its planets, we have found gold in asteroids and in the moon, but gold in other planets isn't required, yet believing this to be the case is stupid, why?

>> No.15987543

>>15987536
I don't follow anon. not sure what you're stuck on. the universe obeys its laws, everywhere, at least that seems to be the agreement. for us to be here supernovae have to make gold, they do it everywhere in the universe.
but for us to be here, aliens are absolutely not required, they do not play a role in our appearance here. we can pop up without them. hence, they are not required in this universe.
not sure how to explain it better.

>> No.15987545

>>15987543 me
>they are not required in this universe
I mean looking back at the universe, and how we got here, no aliens still makes sense. they do not have to exist for us to exist. supernovae need to make gold for us to exist.

>> No.15987546

>>15987543
Erm ok, it just mean that its statically unlikely to be the case, despite being unnecessary, I find it statistically unlikely for there not to be life in any other place in the universe (just as there not being a single atom of gold in any other planet in the solar system - not the same likelihood tho, its just to illustrate the point)

>> No.15987560

>>15987546
>its statically unlikely to be the case, despite being unnecessary,
well, in a weird sense when you look at us we don't have much extra unneeded stuff, we're pretty efficient.

>> No.15987562

>>15987546
but yeah I can understand the "seems pretty weird" argument, considering statistics, but still, if permitted by the universe's laws, it's a valid move and have to accept it. doesn't break any laws. that's how it goes. supposing we really don't discover aliens later.

>> No.15987566

Other dimension. You can see them with psychedelics.

>> No.15987585

>>15987546
I guess the schizo part in me is trying to build an argument for us being the result of a sort of cosmological natural selection but not necessarily with all of Lee Smolin's details on his version. as in for all possible variations of mass and constants and all of that. for (Us) to appear here a series of events NEEDED to take place, but not aliens. if we look back and see the minimum needed for just us to be here, but no aliens, that's pretty strange and looks like we are the product of this weird cosmological darwinism. lack of aliens could be an argument for it, even if not proof.

>> No.15987599

>>15987091
If we ever meet intelligent aliens they'll look nothing like humanoids or animals.
If you happen to have seen the 2014 lucy movie, you'll most likely remember the living black goop scene.
If we ever meet an alien spaceship, it would most likely be a giant ball entirely made of that lucy goop.
The outer layer of the ball would shape itself into a shield to protect itself from projectiles and radiation while the inner goop would shape itself as a super computer.
The super-computer will be hosting millions if not billions of consciousnesses that will keep themselves entertained.
One interesting thing to consider is how this ball of lucy goop will replenish itself of energy and materials since it would lose some while traveling in space.
One possible scenario is that it will locate nearby planets along its trajectory then spit out small parts of itself at high speed towards these planets.
Once a spit hit a planet, it will start to grow by consuming its resources.
By the time the mothership comes near the planet, the spits will have built rockets or mass drivers to send the necessary ressources into space.
Another interesting scenario is when the spaceship will get close to a star.
It will flatten itself into a giant pancake and it will shape its surface as a solar panel and a solar sail.
If ever meet that kind of aliens we're fucked beyond our wildest nightmares.
Let's just hope they'll come to the conclusion that space colonization is pointless and that eternal tourism is all that matters.

>> No.15987610

>>15987599
>By the time the mothership comes near the planet
well, a Von Neumann probe would assemble the mothership, that's the thing. bio aliens need not travel, only their identity whatever saved as data on the probe. at most reassembled at destination but why would you use your primitive biological body, as an alien, in completely different conditions than your homeworld, when you can be active on way more advanced and adapted hardware? makes no sense, it's primitive and offers no real advantage. we should really most likely come in contact with their tech, not with bio-them, if ever we make contact,

>> No.15987621

>>15987091
when was the last time you looked up?

>> No.15987662
File: 5 KB, 225x225, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15987662

>>15987091
It's retarded to think we would have seen aliens by now.
Think. In our own galaxy alone, there could be tens of alien civilizations at our own tech level, and we wouldn't have a clue. Because our telescopes aren't good enough, we haven't been looking very long, and there's debris obscuring parts of the galaxy.
People assume we'd pick up stray radio signals or something from aliens at our tech level, but that's not realistic. They'd be extremely weak if detectable at all. And there'd be almost no hope of even recognizing them as signals unless they're exactly what we are looking for.
Even if they once emitted detectable, recognizable signals, they might have stopped long ago leaving nothing for us to detect. Not that they died, they could have just switched to more direct ways of communication, like lasers and cables, for efficiency.

Our biggest hope to see aliens, is for them to directly contact us.
And who knows how they'd do that? They could be here on Earth, effortlessly evading detection while probing your mom's butthole every week.

>> No.15987679

>>15987662
isn't one of the arguments that we should have seen massive objects in the universe? dyson spheres and shit like that?

>> No.15987824

>>15987679
Our predictions of future technology usually don't pan out as we expect. Like flying cars, self-tying shoes, human flight, or AI rivaling Picaso. Dyson spheres and dyson swarms could easily be a wrong extrapolation of technology from when Dyson envisioned them. It's a megastructure sized assumption aliens would build these things, and we ultimately don't know what we don't know.

>> No.15987830

>>15987824
I usually agree with those arguments but why isn't there at least one species who fucked off in the universe to colonize it? some may go to smaller folded dimensions or whatever the fuck it's called, but ALL of them? zero trace of expansion or mass scale energy capture? what is inevitably discovered by ALL intelligent life in the universe, such that there's no trace of them? at least large scale?

>> No.15989387

https://youtu.be/VeKAugzOWis

>> No.15989389

>>15987394
>find type of rock on Earth
>"Perhaps this rock is on other planets, forming under similar conditions"
>"HURR HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! WHERE IS PROOF?!"

>> No.15989394

>>15987091
They don't exist, sorry. Of course, if your metaphysical assumptions were correct then they would; that's what we call falsification.

>> No.15989484

>>15989389
>believing in something despite a complete lack of empirical evidence
religion

>> No.15989509

>>15989484
>there's no empirical evidence for considering a probability
Retard.

>> No.15989545

>>15989509
Literally no empirical evidence of life outside of Earth. The Rare Earth Hypothesis is consistent with all observations thus-far made.

>> No.15989564

>>15989545
The Rare Earth hypothesis is nothing but anthrocentrism. There is nothing particularly special about life as a mechanical process.
The one following a religion here is you, especially because you assume that "life on other planets = UFO's must exist". The reality is that life is as inevitable in the Universe as quartz. Perhaps quartz is not everywhere, but does not require a once in sextillion chance occurrence. That's stupid.

>> No.15989603

>>15989564
>There is nothing particularly special about life as a mechanical process.
hence the fishiness of not detecting any by now, out there. even if every solar system has some form of life, still pretty fucking weird for it not being out there with large structures and shit
>they do something else
all of them? really?
>no because there's like only two or three intelligent
yeah that's not weird at all

>> No.15989622

>>15989564
>life is as inevitable in the Universe as quartz.
Wrong conceptually and disproven empirically.

What religious beliefs do you have that require this to be the case? I think it's time you deconverted.

>> No.15989646

>>15987091
Theyre very far away, and thats why were never gonna have a contact with them

>> No.15989676

>>15989564
>The Rare Earth hypothesis is nothing but anthrocentrism.
The Rare Earth Hypothesis is consistent with all empirical observations. Your objection to it is religious in nature.