Does anybody else think it's mind boggling that the common conception of the universe is that it is large, and even infinitely so, yet we STILL haven't found any life outside of Earth? How the fuck is this possible?

File: 18 KB, 350x196, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 01:20:28 2015 No.6989880 [Reply] [Original]

Does anybody else think it's mind boggling that the common conception of the universe is that it is large, and even infinitely so, yet we STILL haven't found any life outside of Earth?

How the fuck is this possible?

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 01:49:39 2015 No.6989915

>>6989880
Because space is big and does not have very much density.

Those aliens have to do all the shit we would have to do in order to see us or us them.

And honestly, what's the point of finding life on another planet? All it would do is fulfill a circlejerk of life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 01:51:37 2015 No.6989918 >>6989915 Wouldn't that be the most significant thing in the history of people?

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 01:54:42 2015 No.6989927

>>6989918
Not really, it would be like knowing a penny is on the side of the universe and literally has no effect on us.

Of course, cults would make a big deal out of it, but so would most stupid people.

What practical knowledge would it give us? All the effects would be caused by us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:02:17 2015 No.6989938 >>6989915 It would be exciting. That's a pretty big deal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:04:22 2015 No.6989942 >>6989880 look up the fermi paradox

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:24:12 2015 No.6989980 does anybody else think its mind boggling that op is a universal fag, and even infinitely so, yet we STILL haven't found any fags outside of op?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:25:29 2015 No.6989985 Because practically zero civilizations make it past the great divider. Either we got lucky and somehow made it past or we are about to get absolutely wrecked by it before 2020.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:29:10 2015 No.6989994 >>6989985 haha right, why don't you go look up just how big the universe is.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:32:04 2015 No.6990001

>>6989994

I did there should be as many life bearing planets in our galaxy as grains of sand on earth. (thats using low esimates too).

How many are estimated to go onto create life is impossible to say right now, but you would think at least a million.

We should see some signs of life by now.

We dont so thats a pretty dark sign for us.

Also if they find life on mars at all that guarantees life is common and we will be wiped out 100%

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:40:58 2015 No.6990013 >>6990001 haha you really think that? why don't you count all the sand grains and get back to me. I think ur full of shit. there's no way that there are that many life bearing planets in the galaxy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:53:09 2015 No.6990027 >>6990013 Read all about it here with the math included. http://gizmodo.com/the-fermi-paradox-where-the-hell-are-the-other-earths-1580345495

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:55:00 2015 No.6990033

>>6990013

And some quotes

That would mean there were 10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion intelligent civilizations in the observable universe.

So there are 100 Earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world. Think about that next time you're on the beach.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:55:17 2015 No.6990034 >>6990027 lool you cite me a clickbait gizmodo mag article. the fermi paradox is bullshit anyway b/c it needs us to assign arbitrary values to variables we don't really know the empirical value of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:56:41 2015 No.6990039 >>6990033 yeah next time why don't you get ur own facts straight. u said that in our galaxy there was 1 planet per grain of sand. now ur sayin in the universe there is 1 planet per grain of sand jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:57:19 2015 No.6990040 >>6990034 thats why that article assigns incredibly low values and still ends up with massive numbers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 02:58:27 2015 No.6990043 >>6990039 its called remembering an article from like a year ago and getting the fact the tinyest bit wrong, you should be amazed i managed to find an article i read a year ago that quickly

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:05:59 2015 No.6990059 >>6990040 you don't even know if it really is low or high because you don't have a reference whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:11:38 2015 No.6990071 >>6990059 1 in 9 1 in 9 of the planets we have ever seen has life. no other position is more logical than this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:26:37 2015 No.6990091 >>6990071 loooool are you fucking retarded. we have seen way more planets than 9 hahah get off this fucking board

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:26:56 2015 No.6990092 >>6990071 1 in 8, m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:32:40 2015 No.6990101 >>6990091 Picture evidence please. Cant wait to see this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:36:50 2015 No.6990106 >>6990101 have a look 4 urself faggot pics on the right side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#History_of_detection

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:41:34 2015 No.6990109

>>6990106

yup had a look, no photos at all.

We dont even have a photo of pluto yet.
There is no way we have a photo of any planet ourside our solar system.

Whatever you think you have seen are just computer simulations. Nobody and i mean nobody has seen a planet outside our solar system.

it sounds like you have fallen for some clickbait somewhere and thought you were clicking on links of actual photos so sorry to dissapoint but we literally do not even have a photo of pluto so there is no way in hell we can take a photo of anything further away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:44:34 2015 No.6990112 File: 93 KB, 610x701, exoplanète.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6990109 > Nobody and i mean nobody has seen a planet outside our solar system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:49:20 2015 No.6990119 >>6990112 You actually think thats a photo and not a computer simulation?

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:50:06 2015 No.6990120

>>6990109
Do I have to do everything for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#mediaviewer/File:444226main_exoplanet20100414-a-full.jpg

They took a vortex coronagraph picture of these planets as they transited across their star. This is breaking new science. These are not computer simulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronagraph#Optical_vortex_coronagraph

In 2008, Hubble used this tech (coronagraphy) to directly observe an exasolar planet.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/fomalhaut.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:52:14 2015 No.6990127 >>6990119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets >direct imaging >computer simulation pick one

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:53:03 2015 No.6990128

>>6990120

stopped reading right here
vortex coronagraph picture

what is that mumbo jumbo, some stupid name for a computer simulation with the word picture dropped in so it sounds like a photo.

Honestly ask yourself this. How come they have not photographed pluto?
They have pointed hubble at it and generated some crappy blurry simulation of what it probably looks like.

The good news is we will actually find out this year because a probe with a camera is about to get there and take the first ever photo of pluto.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:56:15 2015 No.6990132 >>6990128 Maybe because detecting a really small piece of ice a gorillion kilometers away around a medium star reflecting near no light is harder than detecting a super-jupiter reflecting light from a supergiant star ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 03:57:04 2015 No.6990133 If the universe is so big why do we need telescopes to see it? Checkmate, atheists.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 04:04:09 2015 No.6990142

O and one other spoiler for all those who fell for nasa's clickbait.

All those photos you see from hubble are simulations too.

hubble doesnt even have an rgb sensor in it. it has some weird other thing for getting science data not what things actually look like.

Most stuff would just be grey and way way fainter than hubble images imply

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 05:49:22 2015 No.6990227

>>6989880
>Does anybody else think it's mind boggling that the common conception of the universe is that it is large, and even infinitely so, yet we STILL haven't found any life outside of Earth?
>How the fuck is this possible?

>Learning that the universe is so big that they might be x->infinite miles away, rather than just millions of light years

>THIS MAKES IT EVEN MORE CONFUSING THAT WE HAVEN'T MET THEM YET

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 05:52:20 2015 No.6990229

>>6990034
>the fermi paradox is bullshit anyway b/c it needs us to assign arbitrary values to variables we don't really know the empirical value of.

This is true for all values. Just because the sample size is low doesn't mean we cannot assign values. The chance of life arising on an arbitrary planet is .091 if you count Pluto as a planet and .10 if you do not, by Laplace's Law of Succession.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 05:54:45 2015 No.6990230

>>6990132
>Maybe because detecting a really small piece of ice a gorillion kilometers away around a medium star reflecting near no light is harder than detecting a super-jupiter reflecting light from a supergiant star ?

Maybe that's evidence that the planet has not been photographed for the purpose of "Planets we have photos of where we can distinguish whether there are people."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 06:02:29 2015 No.6990236 >>6989880 >STILL we have not even tried, top fucking lel

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 06:43:26 2015 No.6990266

>>6990142

The Hubble has filters to compose RGB photos. If you want to be super-autistic, you can turn down the brightness of your monitor until the stars in the photos look about the right brightness. Then you'll see what the nebulae and shit really look like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 06:52:08 2015 No.6990272 >>6989918 I would be more thrilled to get a raise than this tbh. it would be on the frontpage of news for maybe a month? then who cares

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 08:09:19 2015 No.6990339 >>6989918 Significant, yes, but not the most important. Unless you mean direct communication with another sentient form of life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 10:37:47 2015 No.6990494 >>6989880 >yet we STILL haven't found any life outside of Earth >outside of Earth >implies we have left LEO >something not done by man in nearly 50 years. Yea... I have to agree with this guy >>6990236

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 16:12:26 2015 No.6990934

There could be creatures as intelligent as dolphins or elephants on other worlds, and we'd never know it. Smart as they are, they don't make signals we can listen to across lightyears.

We've only been making that kind of noise for a century or so, and if there were another human like technology nearby, it would have to be within about twenty light years for us to hear it.

TL;DR: we haven't been looking long enough or hard enough to make any reasonable assumptions

Maybe when we turn on the JWT we'll start seeing all kinds of hallmarks of biology on exoplanets.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 16:59:26 2015 No.6991014
File: 1.94 MB, 2795x2795, 1362354852936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6989880
>yet we STILL haven't found any life outside of Earth?
Because we've literally just started to look. We've sifted through a cup of water from the Pacific ocean and complaining we haven't found any whales yet. For all we know there could be other life in our own solar system on Europa or Titan or Mars or some other body, we just don't know yet because we haven't even begun to look.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 17:06:47 2015 No.6991032
File: 17 KB, 320x203, calvin+and+hobbes+intelligent+life-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pic related.

I like to think that smart people on earth built all those arrays and telescopes looking for intelligent life in space because they couldn't find any on earth, lol

Yes I'll admit I'm one of the dumb ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 20:36:38 2015 No.6991561 >>6989918 Of course it would be. It would change Earth civilisations completely.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 21:32:28 2015 No.6991694

our instruments are not sensitive enough nor have we actually looked very hard in our own solar system. if we actually take a hard look at mars, europa, titan, etc. we may find life. We haven't directly looked for life yet really. If we do find life in our own solar system on a body besides Earth, that would seem to indicate that life is absolutely everywhere in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 21:34:00 2015 No.6991700 >>6991014 true but a cup of water from the pacific ocean would be full of life. There isn't a place on Earth where you can't find life.

Anonymous Mon Jan 5 21:50:05 2015 No.6991740

>>6989880
Well, think about it. How would we find life?

We can't look for signs of biological life elsewhere in the universe - telescopes powerful enough to look at exoplanets have only existed for the last decade or so, and they're still struggling to learn anything about the actual conditions on those planets.

And signs of intelligent life? Our current searches could only find very large megaprojects that would substantially change the appearance of a star, or extremely powerful radio messages either specifically directed at us or beamed at all directions into the void - neither of which is it certain that an alien civilization would do, or even want to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 22:09:26 2015 No.6991782 It wouldn't be called Fermis Paradox if there was an easy answer. But, consider the following: "Bill Nye's Answer to the Fermi Paradox" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdJvFMAbPF8

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 5 22:23:30 2015 No.6991815 >>6989942 Interesting article on this topic btw. http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-theories-on-why-we-arent-visited-by-aliens-yet

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 01:15:21 2015 No.6992046 >>6991782 All these retarded commenters who have no idea what the Fermi paradox actually is but feel the need to give their opinion on this subject.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:36:34 2015 No.6992188 >>6990142 Holy shit you're autistic, and you also don't know what computer simulation means. A simulation would be the computer creating the data (or extrapolating it from initial data), the Hubble pictures are directly imaged you dolt

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:38:24 2015 No.6992195 >>6989927 Perhaps we could learn from them and they could learn from us. Are you a troll? I thought /sci/ was relatively troll free.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:40:20 2015 No.6992199 >>6992195 >>>6989927 > I thought /sci/ was relatively troll free You thought wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:40:42 2015 No.6992201 Type 2, a civilization with enough technology to harness energy from its system's host star Do we not do this with solar panels?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:43:25 2015 No.6992206 >>6991700 >can't into babby's first analogy Is /sci/ officially the densest board on 4chan?

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:44:06 2015 No.6992207
File: 326 KB, 751x1063, 1416808457048.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't think it's mind-boggling. I think we're mind-bogglingly small in an isolated and remote corner of an insignificant part of a minor galaxy.

I want to make some analogy about islands, like we're some primitive little tribe on an island in the middle of a vast empty sea with MILLIONS of insignificant islands, but even that doesn't do the scale justice.

There's like, the busy parts of the universe, say the Virgo Supercluster. That's a dense network of disparate galactic metropolii. Then there's the distant rural backwaters that the aliens rarely visit and don't usually think about.

Then there's the vast empty void, then there's a small and inconsequential little cluster with a handful of typical galaxies, it's like the most forgotten backwoods area that's so far out in the empty wilderness that no one even knows it's there.

We're in the most empty and unremarkable corner of THAT.

It's ridiculous how small and irrelevant we are.

There are probably intergalactic wars taking place right at this very moment on scales we can't even imagine, of import that we'll never comprehend.

Maybe someday we'll be a footnote in some pan-galactic biological index or anthropological survey. I hope so.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:50:18 2015 No.6992215

Because our furthest radio waves are only about 76 lightyears away, and because of the inverse square law they dissipate into nearly nothing before we've ever even had a hope to contact aliens, we'd need a high gain antenna, but for that to be any use, we'd already need to know where aliens are.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:53:43 2015 No.6992222

>>6992206
>bad analogy
>gets called out for it and spergs out

You should have said grains of sands, since you know, our existence on this planet is relevant to that theme and you won't find life on those grains of sand.

While you indeed will find life in that cup of water.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 02:55:36 2015 No.6992225

>>6990119
>Implying a photo is needed
Is the perturbation of orbits causing a distortion in red/blue shift not good enough for you? Are you not convinced by stars dimming on a regular basis? What makes you think a photo is even needed? It's all in the data

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 03:47:28 2015 No.6992315 >>6991014 Hey that's not half bad

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 04:19:13 2015 No.6992359

>>6989918
Yep. The future will eventually remember in history in two segments. Before contact and after contact(and also before spaceflight and after spaceflight).

To answer OP, because we have basically explored one drop of water out of a whole ocean. You can't expect to find any other fish quite yet.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 06:52:36 2015 No.6992724
File: 244 KB, 633x758, 1388708738485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6992207
damn

>Life sparse nearing the outer reaches of this galaxy. Few lifeforms on habitable planets. Probes indicate primitive technologies on one such planet. Nothing else of note.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 07:33:36 2015 No.6992779 >>6989880 That's because we have found life but haven't released it to the public. Those in control truly believe that they will lose some control over us if we knew.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 07:47:12 2015 No.6992798

>an earthlike civilization would not be detectable further than 10ly for radio and 100ly for intercontinental radar
>even then you'd need a massive antenna array just to hear any of the signals
We've detected radio sources in our galaxy, but how do you know the difference between a natural source and an alien intercontinental radar?

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:39:56 2015 No.6992840

>>6989880
>It's it mind-boggling how hard it is to find a needle in a hay stack?

Get the fuck over it. Concerning yourself with the matters that are way out of your reach is stupid. Like all the people wasting time with alien life. In stead of focusing on more important things at hand that don't contain two giants IF-s, too many people are losing precious time. Kind of sad really.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:40:59 2015 No.6992842 >>6992840 Isn't it*

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:50:15 2015 No.6992856
File: 108 KB, 800x697, 1396974895128.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6992222

>quads confirm faggotry

I'm not even the guy that you are replying to, but he didn't made the analogy with "life" in mind, he said whales. It is the most common analogy ever.

If i'm looking for whales in the oceans and i only go through a droplet of it, ofc i won't find whales.

Like if you are looking for life (=whales) in the universe, if you only examine 1light year in diameter sphere of space (=droplet) for life and don't find anything, you can't conclude there isn't life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:51:52 2015 No.6992860 >bawww, why do observations not agree with my beliefs?? Go figure, kid.

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:56:57 2015 No.6992867

The only thing that is unlikely is life not being "common" in the universe, it is just chemistry that needs the right conditions, and probabilities are that there are thousands of planets that have life of some sort across the observable universe.

Just because these planets exist it doesn't make us obligated to find them, as much as we know there could be thousands of planets that used to have life that already perished and we don't really care for them.

I would like us to find evidence of life in another planets sure, but it isn't a main objective of the near future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 08:58:39 2015 No.6992873 >>6992867 Can you please stop spreading ignorance? Just because something is possible, it doesn't need to have a high probability. This is elementary school math.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 09:02:56 2015 No.6992879 >>6992873 Since when did i say it had a high probability? Even if there is only one other planet with life in the universe, everything i said still applies. that's why i said "common".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 09:04:12 2015 No.6992881 >>6992879 >one of out billions and billions of planets >common You need to work on your English.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 09:09:52 2015 No.6992891 >>6992881 Common according to nowadays perspective of extraterrestrial life, which is none. But yes, it wasn't the best choice of words none the less, that's why, again, i said "common" instead of common, i didn't remembered of any better term.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 10:26:47 2015 No.6993044 >>6992779 >we have found life We haven't. What we have found is technically not alive, simply because because they are not paying taxes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:17:39 2015 No.6993256 >>6989880 Good question. Everyone else is as confused as you..

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:31:04 2015 No.6993295

>>6989880
Space is very very big, and we have seen maybe around 2-3% of solar system.
There could be whole caves under Mars with microbial life and we don't know about it.
You need to realize that we know VERY little about space and we haven's seen even a fraction of percent of the Galaxy out there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:31:58 2015 No.6993300 >>6990001 Lel there aren't even as many planets as grains of sand, so a fortiori there certainly aren't "supposed" to be as many life bearing planets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:32:09 2015 No.6993301 >>6989915 >>6989927 Well alien life is a giant biochemical lab, we could learn a lot of knowledge that could be applied to medicine, chemistry, construction etc. Not to mention intelligent life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:34:33 2015 No.6993310 >>6990339 *sapient

Anonymous Tue Jan 6 12:36:23 2015 No.6993314

>>6991740
>We can't look for signs of biological life elsewhere in the universe - telescopes powerful enough to look at exoplanets have only existed for the last decade or so, and they're still struggling to learn anything about the actual conditions on those planets.

I agree with your overall post but it is actually now becoming possible to detect life by telescopes. We should definitely be able to do it within 30-50 years.
Spoiler:it also means any advanced civilization would know about existence since a long time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 6 13:27:52 2015 No.6993374 File: 59 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6990001 whycum when i see a grain of sand i don't see no life?

Anonymous Wed Jan 7 14:03:43 2015 No.6995233
File: 58 KB, 595x350, 9f842dc9025b650cd3f3009042fc79c0c229d5f2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6989880
If any of you dense motherfuckers think the fermi paradox is real then you have no idea about the kind of effort interstellar travel and communication requires. Unlike what pop-sci bullshiters believe you canot simply pick up a alien TV broadcast. Interstellar communication is done with infrared lasers and are not something you are going to pick up accidently.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 7 14:04:45 2015 No.6995236 >>6989880 >infinitely so wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 7 14:06:04 2015 No.6995242 >>6989880 I don't. You don't realise how huge the universe is and that life isn't as perceivable as you think.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 7 14:07:02 2015 No.6995244 File: 161 KB, 2938x1620, Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-a-faces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6990128 >Honestly ask yourself this. How come they have not photographed pluto? Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 7 16:26:44 2015 No.6995565 read Existence by David Brin if you haven't, it's about alien contact and why it's really difficult to contact other systems.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 15:37:13 2015 No.6997446 File: 781 KB, 1750x875, 1352688071601.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6992207 Man I just don't know anymore. Great post thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 16:48:50 2015 No.6997556 >>6991700 AUTISM U T I S M

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 16:52:56 2015 No.6997564 >>6992207 >Maybe someday we'll be a footnote in some pan-galactic biological index or anthropological survey. I hope so. tips fedora

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 16:56:45 2015 No.6997570 >>6995244 Fuck, I guess you're right. Sorry I insulted you

Anonymous Thu Jan 8 18:54:05 2015 No.6997780

>>6995233
And even lasers are too ineffective/slow. We need something faster than speed of light as a form of communication if we are ever to take contact with some distant planets. Just think of the conversation with light propelled communication: 100 light years before it reaches the other planet and 100 light years before their response comes back to us.

The contact will eb made either by some aliens or by us in the distant future.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 18:55:19 2015 No.6997784 File: 810 KB, 1680x1104, Solvay-Conference-1927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT >MUH FERMI PARADOX

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 18:55:34 2015 No.6997786 File: 91 KB, 1024x768, matrix-red-pill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6989880 Because it's a simulation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 8 18:57:34 2015 No.6997793 >>6997446 Fuck I hate those comparisons - they utterly my/our notion of significance

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 09:37:48 2015 No.6998940 What if all the aliens play a game where they hide from any new life as a prank

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 9 10:29:12 2015 No.6998992 >>6997786 Oh fuck you

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math