What is the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox?

File: 87 KB, 1000x733, 356.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:33:05 2016 No.8430254 [Reply] [Original]

What is the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:35:18 2016 No.8430261 The great filter, imho If those tards don't get fusion going soon, our asses will be filtered greatly just like the other goddamn civilizations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:36:38 2016 No.8430264 >>8430254 Any race inevitably destroys itself once it acquires the technology to do so

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:36:44 2016 No.8430266 File: 275 KB, 1920x1142, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://youtu.be/rDPj5zI66LA Intelligent life is extremely rare.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:38:13 2016 No.8430269 >>8430261 >>8430264 These aren't the most plausible. They're just the most sexy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:41:02 2016 No.8430272 Intergalactic travel is impossible

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:42:30 2016 No.8430276 File: 114 KB, 347x344, 1465864835954.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430272 There's no reason to think this. Bad answer.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:43:03 2016 No.8430278

Because everything that has been done by nature can be replicated by intelligent species, including the creation of the universe itself. To create a huge galactic empire is very energy intensive and also in the end not sustainable, because at some Point you will still run out of solar Systems/galaxies to colonize. Instead you create your Little big bang machines that keeps creating small universes that can be harvested for matter and energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:45:49 2016 No.8430282 >>8430264 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:46:55 2016 No.8430284 >>8430264 >inevitably I would like a citation for this

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:46:58 2016 No.8430286
File: 1.75 MB, 952x1715, 15cbotanical.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430278

>everything done by nature can be replicated by intelligent species

>including the creation of the universe itself.

>you create your Little big bang machines

This is the worst answer so far

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:48:00 2016 No.8430287 >>8430278 >can be replicated by intelligent species, including the creation of the universe itself. back to PHIL100 with you

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:50:18 2016 No.8430291 >>8430287 >>8430286 >Acting like speculations about Alien civilizations are scientific Chill down dudes. My answer is about as good or bad as any in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:53:41 2016 No.8430296 File: 1.27 MB, 1109x900, pkd-galactic-pot-healer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430291 It's not. Not only does yours assume things we don't know, it assumes things which are in opposition to things we know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:56:29 2016 No.8430299 All the other advanced species realized that it's easier to just plug themselves into a happy matrix instead of expanding outwards. Humanity is already going down this path with movies, video games, porn, etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:58:01 2016 No.8430301 >>8430254 The universe is far too large.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 15:59:11 2016 No.8430303 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:05:06 2016 No.8430313 File: 49 KB, 495x480, 1416377149243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430276 >m-muh wormholes you're joking right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:06:32 2016 No.8430316 >>8430296 Since you dont know how universes are created, you can not rule out that you can create a universe within a universe.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:08:10 2016 No.8430320

>>8430313
The universe is too big if you have a lifespan of 80 years. If you have reached practically immortallity travelling for a Million years isnt that dumb. you just lay yourself into a coma and wake up at your Destination a Million years later. Feels like a nap.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:09:07 2016 No.8430322 >>8430254 There is no paradox. The universe is not obliged to satisfy manchild fantasies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:10:10 2016 No.8430325 Aliens evolved to be so intelligent that they are too nihilistic and apathetic to explore the galaxy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:10:39 2016 No.8430327 File: 29 KB, 300x120, et-lie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430254 >the most plausible solution is that is was an inside joke Fermi knew they were here watching nukes, always have

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:13:07 2016 No.8430337 >>8430313 Alright genius, tell me how it's impossible to travel to the Andromeda galaxy. You don't need wormholes to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 16:51:07 2016 No.8430379 >>8430264 Citations needed or do you want me to tip your fedora.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:01:32 2016 No.8430398
File: 22 KB, 252x249, 1452547137380.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430299
i find this the most plausible we are drowning ourselves in distractions already, once we achieve the technology we will move our consciousness into a virtual reality
>checked btw

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:06:03 2016 No.8430408

>>8430337
we dont know if its possible or not, but you have to take into account several things. For one it would take a really really really long time. It is 2 537 000 light years from earth. That means even with relativistic speed it would take almost 3 million years and thats the supposed speed limit without worm holes or some other exotic sci fi method of spacefaring. Other then the distance we don't really know whats in deep space. Lots of dark energy and dark matter probably and we know nothing about how those work. Lots of unknown factors about intergalactic travel

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:12:43 2016 No.8430423 >>8430264 so why aren't we dead yet

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:40:56 2016 No.8430445 >>8430379 >>8430423 We are dying. Look at the dysgenics being practiced in Europe. We're becoming amerifats.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:47:35 2016 No.8430460

>>8430254
I don't know about plausibility, but I'd say that our particular brand of consciousness, understanding and rationality, giving birth to our particular brand of science, technology, and relationship to our environment isn't a necessary outcome of darwinian evolution on every planet. (Read Solaris by Stanislaw Lem for an example of an encounter with a vastly different life form). Fermi postulates anthropomorphic alien life in his reasoning, kind of like your ugly-ass pic.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:52:05 2016 No.8430464
File: 1.11 MB, 4249x3169, Local_Group_and_nearest_galaxies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430408

Given that

-we already know how it could be done

-none of the limitations you've proposed have any supporting evidence

Saying intergalactic travel impossible is bad answer to the Fermi paradox.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:53:12 2016 No.8430471 There wouldn't be a paradox if scientists accepted the feasibility of UFOs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:55:54 2016 No.8430476 >>8430423 Climate change will eventually make humans extinct

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 17:56:56 2016 No.8430477

>>8430254
Intelligent life is very rare, so rare that even with only sublight travel and modern earth tech we should see dimmed galaxies/stars from dyson swarms but we don't.
The aliens are too far away for their million year old civilisations to be visible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 18:01:40 2016 No.8430488 >>8430477 This is the most plausible answer given the evidence we have.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:07:47 2016 No.8430634 Religion is damn sneaky.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:12:45 2016 No.8430650 >>8430254 There aren't aliens because the universe was created by God for us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:18:25 2016 No.8430662 >>8430254 I like the one where we are first, the ancients. Somebody has to be first.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:21:11 2016 No.8430669 >>8430662 That's historically been a bad sort of assumption to make. The chances we're in any sort of important position in the universe are much less than the chances we aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:26:27 2016 No.8430680 We observed only a negligibly small part of the universe, so it's no fucking surprise we haven't found anything interesting yet.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:26:37 2016 No.8430681

>>8430669
yeah, sure, i get what you are saying, but still, it really like the concept.

>humans where first
>somehow we dont fuck up (we are fucking up in Real Life)
>humans go in to space
>find nothing
>start seeding planets
>build a empire
>shit happens
>no more humans
>entire the lifeforms of our seed planets
>etc..
>we are gods now to these lifeforms.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:35:24 2016 No.8430688

Souls.
The universe was made by God for mankind.
The absolute limit of animal intelligence is represented by crows, dolphins, chimps, et cetera.
Nature can't do better than that and never has, on earth or anywhere else.

It takes the divine spark to get a mind that asks "why"

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:49:05 2016 No.8430710
File: 297 KB, 700x475, orion_landscape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All humanoid types originated in the Orion region, the most densely populated place in the entire galaxy. There are and have been and will continue to be literally millions of colonies.

We are the remnants.

Eons ago, the original humans left for their ancestral home and for greater things. We are the remnants of earlier experiments sold to new owners. The Human Farming Project. They breed half civilized men, dangerous even to their neighbors. For food and giggles and trading DNA.

Such is the somber state of affairs called the human condition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:50:38 2016 No.8430713 >>8430688 >it takes psilocybin to get a mind that asks "why" FYP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEF7Di_nkRk

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 19:50:52 2016 No.8430714 File: 1.11 MB, 1920x1080, 1455095072727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430650 >>8430688 whoa... >>8430662 >>8430680 Those fall within the "life is extremely rare" answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:32:15 2016 No.8430755 We know now that planets are common. Life is common but difficult to detect. Reminder that Tabby's Star is likely inhabited and home to an alien megastructure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:35:36 2016 No.8430759 >>8430755 >Life is common but difficult to detect. no evidence >Tabby's Star is likely inhabited and home to an alien megastructure evidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:40:58 2016 No.8430766 >>8430759 >evidence? The star's pattern of dimming is aperiodic and does not fit any naturalistic explanation. This is mostly undisputed though people are still reluctant to admit the megastructure hypothesis is the most likely (even though it is).

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:46:12 2016 No.8430773 >>8430254 Space is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge as fuck mixed with speed of light limit

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:47:06 2016 No.8430776 >>8430766 Aperiodic dimming is consistent with transits of natural objects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:49:54 2016 No.8430779 test

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:51:30 2016 No.8430783 >>8430464 Its literally impossible unless you can go faster than light. If you are slower than light the universe between galaxies will expand faster than you can cross the distance

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:53:06 2016 No.8430785 >>8430776 But that's wrong you retard. If it were true, nobody would be paying special attention to KIC 8462852 in the first place because it would be identical to all other cases of stars orbited by natural objects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:54:46 2016 No.8430786 >>8430783 Except for Andromeda and the nearby dwarfs I mean, those we can reach

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:55:38 2016 No.8430787

>>8430783

You don't need to travel faster than the speed of light to reach the galaxies in our local group. Without ftl there are galaxies beyond our local group that we could reach too.

Beyond that, there are galaxies that would require ftl to reach (probably impossible).

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:58:36 2016 No.8430790 >>8430714 It's not necessarily that rare, universe is just extremely big and we examined small part of it. It's like you'd say there's no oil on the earth because you dug all of your backyard and found none

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:59:07 2016 No.8430791 There is an advanced godlike civilization that has already figured out interstellar travel. They destroy other civilizations that are still developing to prevent them from reaching their status .

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 20:59:33 2016 No.8430792

>>8430785

Where are you getting your ideas from? It can't be from the actual researchers. All of them accept the possibility that it might be a mega-structure, but all of them think it's more likely explained by natural phenomena.

Do you think you're just smarter than them? Or are you one of those people that thinks its all a conspiracy?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:02:23 2016 No.8430798

>>8430792

It's very simple, anon. Explain specifically why anyone's paying attention to KIC 8462852 if it's already explained in terms of "transit of natural objects," or GTFO. SETI explicitly stated it hasn't been explained yet, so I doubt you'll be able to take the first option.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:03:09 2016 No.8430801 >>8430792 >all of them think it's more likely explained by natural phenomena By which model? No one has put forth a naturalistic model that explains all the data.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:06:26 2016 No.8430807

>>8430801
non-existence of an accurate model doesn't imply aliums, it implies that there is some phenomenon taking place which is either not accurately categorized in terms of known science/natural models *or* is a totally new physical phenomenon which requires new physics (or science, etc.).

I don't know the propagating degrees of freedom in a high-Tc superconductor. That doesn't mean they must be little aliums propagating with dyson spheres so I can't see them, it's typically taken to mean there is some new physics or non-trivial application of current ideas needed to explain what's going on.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:07:14 2016 No.8430809

>>8430681
>No more humans
There will always be humans.

I would enjoy sitting around in a comfy planet governor's office governing a planet.

>>8430791
That is one solution. But why haven't they reached Earth? Which of the beginning galaxies did they come from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:08:12 2016 No.8430811 >>8430807 >it's typically taken to mean there is some new physics The existence of non-Earth based organisms is way less radical a suggestion than the proposal of "new physics."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:12:04 2016 No.8430816 >>8430809 >But why haven't they reached Earth? Because we don't space transportation yet. They are waiting to see if we would destroy ourselves first. As soon as we step foot on Mars, we are toast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:12:18 2016 No.8430817 intelligence shrinks into nanostructures until it disappears. maybe aliens are hiding in the cores of their original planets playing vidya.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:16:00 2016 No.8430821

>>8430798

>Explain specifically why anyone's paying attention

Kepler looks at dimming of stars to determine the presence of objects (planets) around them.

Many planets were discovered this way.

One star showed very interesting dimming that can't be explained by a planet.

This is because 1) much more light is blocked at times than would be blocked by a planet, 2) the dimming doesn't occur at regular intervals like it would with a planet, and 3) the dimming is variable (sometimes more light is blocked than at other times).

Scientists are now trying to determine exactly why that is.

We've never observed similar dimming before.

Do you really think that astronomers don't care or wouldn't pay attention to natural objects? What do you think astronomers do all the time?

>SETI explicitly stated it hasn't been explained yet

There are plenty of explanations, the scientists just don't agree. Here are some current hypotheses:

-it's a dust cloud
-it's a cloud of comets
-it's a cloud of dust and comets
-it's debris from the breakup or collision of small objects
-it's debris from the breakup or collision of large objects
-it's any or all of these things in various combinations
-it's a megastructure

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:30:37 2016 No.8430846 >>8430299 Great perspective. Although I think there will always be outliers who give way to the powerful curiosity that lies within them. Science is more titillating to some than playing the sims. This is just basic human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:41:20 2016 No.8430867 I have the answer to the paradox. Aliens become so advanced that they leave the universe to exist in a state in-between where they are free to waifu and chill for an eternity without worry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:45:22 2016 No.8430876 Prime directive

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:48:44 2016 No.8430882 >>8430254 The best answer? Life is extremely rare, it's impossible to travel faster than light, and extrasolar travel isn't worth it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 21:52:48 2016 No.8430891 >>8430266 This. I don't understand why any more explanation is necessary

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:00:34 2016 No.8430906 >>8430817 kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:22:06 2016 No.8430939 >>8430477 >>8430755 >>8430790 so rare it's never happened anywhere except on earth. >>8430650 this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:24:31 2016 No.8430940 >>8430882 That's the most boring answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:28:35 2016 No.8430949 >>8430882 >life is extremely rare Why not just say life is entirely "unique" to earth. Until there is another confirmed instance of a 2nd genesis occurring, this is the only acceptable and correct answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:28:58 2016 No.8430950 >>8430882 I agree that the first two parts are likely, but >extrasolar travel isn't worth it Extrasolar travel is a must for any sufficiently long-lived civilization.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:35:27 2016 No.8430959

>>8430949

>Why not just say life is entirely "unique" to earth.

Because it's stupid to assume that's true given the size of our observable universe. If you really want to say something like that, a better phrasing would be "known life is entirely unique to earth."

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:37:56 2016 No.8430965

>>8430959
>it's stupid to assume truth and facts are truth and facts
wha?
>a better phrasing would be "known life is entirely unique to earth."
adding the 'known' is redundant and unscientific because it implies things that are unfactual.

since when is /sci/ opposed to truth, fact, and proper reasoned language?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:41:56 2016 No.8430971 >>8430254 1. That the universe is a large fucking place 2. That intelligent life is a rarity in this universe 3. Many intelligent beings, societies, etc have better things to do than hone in on a radio source no bigger than 200 light years wide.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:42:49 2016 No.8430973

>>8430965

It's neither truth nor fact that "life is entirely unique to Earth." It's a guess, and a bad one. "Known life is entirely unique to earth" is a true statement.

>adding the 'known' is redundant

No it isn't. There's a difference between what's known and what exists. Thousands of new insect species are still discovered each year for example. If you tried to conflate the population of known species with the population of species, you'd be leaving out large amounts of the existing population.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:44:09 2016 No.8430976

>>8430971
>intelligent life is a rarity
wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "unique" to earth? looking for accuracy, after all this is /sci/
>Many intelligent beings, societies, etc have better things to do than hone in on a radio source no bigger than 200 light years wide.
imagining the motivations of non-existent and undiscovered life? wow.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:49:07 2016 No.8430989

>>8430320
There are a billion things that can go catastrophically wrong on such a millenia-long journey.

That is, if it ever becomes economically feasible or sensible to launch such a spacecraft.

That is, if such a cure or suspension of aging is or can ever be found.

Even just an attempt of such a mission requires a unique mix of desperation, recklessness, wealth and sophistication. The galaxy in which even one occurs might be rare indeed.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:52:55 2016 No.8430997

>>8430976

>wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "unique" to earth?

That line in his post is one of three *possible* explanations for the Fermi Paradox. There's no "accurate" figure for the amount of life in a proposed possibility. Also, you can't even say it's true life is unique to Earth. We only know the life that's been discovered by us so far is unique to Earth, which leaves a very large amount of room for yet to be discovered life in the vastness of the observable universe we haven't thoroughly examined yet.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:58:10 2016 No.8431006

>>8430989

Your response to that person is correct. But that person is wrong about what that kind of journey would take.

>a millenia-long journey

It doesn't have to be that long. With current technology we are capable of reaching relativistic speeds (we haven't built it yet obviously).

>if it ever becomes economically feasible or sensible to launch such a spacecraft.

It is potentially very easy to transition into a post-scarcity society. It would be very easy to fund a craft and to gather the necessary energy.

>That is, if such a cure or suspension of aging is or can ever be found.

won't be necessary in my scenario

If you look at strictly from the scientific or technological perspective, all it takes is constructing a dyson swarm

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 22:58:20 2016 No.8431009

>>8430976

>unique to earth

I'm really talking about finding a suitable planet whose biome is conducive to life within a reasonable distance from our system. It's very unlikely we would find such a system within 20 light years, let alone 2000 light years from our planet.

>imagine the motivations of non-existent and undiscovered life?

We could assume that if any reasonably intelligent sentient race of beings is capable of detecting radio signals from any distance to their own solar system, the chances of a return signal would take many years to reach our own. And that's making the bold assumption they would want to respond, or is capable of understanding what they are listening to.

And mind you by the time they receive our signal (assuming they live 200 light years away) the signal would by then be so degraded it could easily be confused with background noise, or some stellar object, etc. And given that most habitual systems would be located on the outer arms of our galaxy it's highly likely no sentient race could pick up our signal due to enormously distances, line of sight issues involved.

I am just conveying the point the distances are so vast that it's very likely no one is listening. And if they are then they are not likely to respond given the tepid strength of early radio broadcast signals

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:01:07 2016 No.8431010

>>8430973
>life is entirely unique to Earth
why did you add the word "entirely" anon? just make a true statement based on all obtained knowledge without dog whistle words for atheists to signify shit you cannot prove?
>semantics
all of your examples are on earth correct? so why is accurate language so difficult for you. There is no life anywhere except earth, that makes it --unique--. It's the best word for the statement we be agree on. quit being a bitch and just agree. life is unique to earth.
>>8430997
>There's no "accurate" figure for the amount of life in a proposed possibility
>you can't even say it's true life is unique to Earth
provide an example of how life is not unique to earth, this is ground breaking anon!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:03:39 2016 No.8431023 >>8431010 what denomination are you? my Church doesn't have a position on life being unique to Earth.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:07:58 2016 No.8431032

>>8431010

>why did you add the word "entirely" anon?

I didn't. It was quoted from your post.

>atheists

Where did I say I was an atheist?

>There is no life anywhere except earth

There is no *known* life anywhere except Earth. You keep conflating what's known with what exists. The standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) is premised on the Copernican Principle. You're making more of an assumption by declaring all life in existence is on Earth than anyone who's supposing the existence of life on planets other than Earth is.

>provide an example of how life is not unique to earth

We've already established all known life is on Earth, which makes your question inane since you can't simultaneously believe all known life is on Earth and that you know an example of life not on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:11:08 2016 No.8431044 >>8431032 you're just replying to bait posts. Do you think that person actually cares whether say "extremely rare" or "unique to earth"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:11:23 2016 No.8431045 >>8431006 >It is potentially very easy to transition into a post-scarcity society. Care to elaborate?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:13:01 2016 No.8431051

>>8431006

>with current technology we can build ships that can reach relavistic speeds

We can build spacecraft that can approach some fraction of the speed of light, say 20%, using current technologies (nuclear pulse propulsion, NTR rockets) .

But we are about 100 years from developing usable fusion rockets, and maybe even usable antimatter fueled rockets. Both could get us to 80% of c, but it would still take us roughly 300 years to reach the current boundary of our radio signal. Making such ships robotic saves mass, and could subtract 40 years from that journey at best.

Unless some other way can be found to reach our stated objective both ships (likely to be the first generation ships) would take a great deal of time and consume (given today's global gdp) a LOT of resources and capital. Such ships would be prohibitably expensive and would represent the greatest gamble humanity has ever undertaken.

Of course it would represent other firsts, and I for one would like to see the ship successfully reach its destination, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be alive to see this come to pass.

Having said this, I'm a firm believer in investing in technologies that could propel our species,into space. After all I'm a firm believer in the belief that if we want to survive as a species, we must colonize space.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:16:09 2016 No.8431061

>>8430254
No idea. I can only speculate.
I like to think that life isn't too uncommon in the universe and aliens have already visited earth many times. But they don't want to interfere with our affairs as there is no need, also for theirs and our safety.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:19:18 2016 No.8431072

>>8431006

One more thing, I think we would ultimately be able to construct large megastructures such as Dyson swarms, Dyson rings, Dyson spheres, etc.

But we are nowhere near capable of building such grand structures. Maybe a couple of thousand years from now......

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:19:50 2016 No.8431075

>>8431009
taking (((science-fiction))) this literally is bad for your scientific reasoning skills. none of this is provable, fact, or logical. Aliens don't exist. Life is unique to earth.

>>8431023
>>>HIS

>>8431032
>known/what exists
Considering these are all encompassed by the Planet earth, it's safe to say "Life is Unique to Earth". just leave out the words, known, entirely, whatever dogwhistle term, just leave it simple and factual. This should be easy anon.

>You're making more of an assumption by declaring all life in existence is on Earth
This isn't an assumption, it is a fact. Assuming you'll make a discovery contrary to all understood knowledge about the universe is folly.

honestly, the way you word it, the way you seem upset by simple plain descriptive language... it's almost like it offends your Faith in atheism or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:23:31 2016 No.8431082 >>8431075 I'm making the point of just how long it would take to get to a hypothetical world populated by intelligent beings like us. >inb4 being populated by dicks like you

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:29:14 2016 No.8431095

>>8431045

First I'll defer to the guy that got me interested in this stuff:

Post-Scarcity Civilizations: https://youtu.be/_Kt7883oTd0

Starlifting: https://youtu.be/pzuHxL5FD5U

Spaceship Propulsion: https://youtu.be/wXiitWK_6Qg

The Kardashev Scale: https://youtu.be/dArpj_VxxuQ

Those are some of his videos relevant to this.

I can summarize my thoughts on it though. Scarcity is essentially due to a lack of material and energy. Everything we need boils down to those two things. Given enough material and energy, we can do anything that is allowed by the laws of physics.

The sun is the source of almost all of the energy that we use, and it's also a vast store of material. If we're able to better exploit our sun, all of our basic concerns (food, shelter, protection) will become trivial.

This is accomplished through the construction of a Dyson swarm. A Dyson swarm is a complex of structures which surround a star which gather the energy which otherwise radiates outward and is wasted. These or similar structures may also be used to harvest material from the star (see the starlifting video).

This is all possible given our current level of technology. We're not yet able to fund it. It may require technological breakthroughs that make it less expensive. That's what I mean by it being potentially very easy: it's well within our capabilities.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:32:39 2016 No.8431100

>>8431044

>you're just replying to bait posts

I know, senpai.

>>8431075

>Considering these are all encompassed by the Planet earth, it's safe to say "Life is Unique to Earth"

No, it's not safe to say that. It would only be safe to say that if you believe we've already come anywhere close to finishing the exploration of the rest of our observable universe, which we haven't. It's also pretty suspicious anytime the only instance of X you know of exists in the same very tiny location of the universe you happen to live in. Copernican Principle.

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:33:42 2016 No.8431101

>>8431051

Those are all good points. You're probably more knowledgeable about it than me. I've only recently become interested in this stuff.

>>8431072

Also fair points. I just don't view a few thousand years as that far away. And I don't think it will be that long anyway (though I don't expect it in my lifetime).

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:39:26 2016 No.8431112

>>8431100
Please provide evidence of life outside of planet earth. Remember you are a 'scientist' and should put up or shut up.

Until this evidence is provided. Rational thought (this may be tricky for you) dictates that life is "unique" to Earth. Describing life as "unique" to earth is a rational and true statement of fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:41:13 2016 No.8431115 File: 32 KB, 640x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431112

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:45:14 2016 No.8431123 File: 264 KB, 567x439, ayy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431115 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:45:45 2016 No.8431126 >>8431123 sauce

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:46:36 2016 No.8431131 File: 272 KB, 1600x1289, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431123

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:49:59 2016 No.8431136 >>8431112 >Describing life as "unique" to earth is a rational and true statement of fact. Describing known life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:51:51 2016 No.8431139 >>8431131 that's pretty dope. makes me want a can of raid or a salt shaker.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:52:00 2016 No.8431140 File: 20 KB, 512x208, Raechel_text.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sunday School rules supreme.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:53:52 2016 No.8431143 >>8431136 blow that dog whistle. I bet you use BCE over BC dates don't you?

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:55:44 2016 No.8431147

>>8431112
>Describing life as "unique" to earth is a rational and true statement of fact.
>true statement of fact.
>rational
[citation needed]
Show me those pics you have of every square nanometer down to 4mi below the surface of every single planet in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:56:15 2016 No.8431149 >>8431140 >literally making up fake lifeforms to ridicule you for thinking you're unique

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:56:19 2016 No.8431150 >>8431139 I'm not following......

Anonymous Sat Oct 22 23:57:17 2016 No.8431152

>>8431143

I don't know why you think "known" is a minor distinction. How much of the universe do you think we've really done a good job exploring so far?

>BCE

BCE and BC years are identical numbers. We don't have any reason to believe the population of known life is identical to the population of existing life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:02:03 2016 No.8431159 >>8431147 >>8431152 why are you responding to bait in an otherwise good thread? do you think the person who's baiting you is all of a sudden going to say "you know what, that's a good point, you're right" ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:03:10 2016 No.8431163 >>8430681 and you've just discovered the plot to ~60% of all science fiction

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:04:52 2016 No.8431165 >>8431159 why are you defending them? describing life as unique to earth is hardly a troll move, it's a simple statement that only a fedora would disagree with. Life is literally unique to earth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:04:55 2016 No.8431166 >>8430254 Attenuation

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:05:55 2016 No.8431169 >>8431150 they look like insects or slugs. raid/salt needed to eradicate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:06:00 2016 No.8431170 >>8431165 Why do you think other people believe you're just trolling?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:07:37 2016 No.8431173 File: 252 KB, 485x600, gateway.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431163 I think that just proves their point. Clearly our race has a genetic memory of our past as universal kangz.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:08:11 2016 No.8431174 >>8431170 >life is unique to earth i'm the one being trolled, statements of facts are statements of facts. only the intellectually dishonest or insane would disagree.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:09:22 2016 No.8431178 >>8431166 go on

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:09:58 2016 No.8431180 >>8431174 What if life was discovered on another planet next year? How would you characterize your original claim? That you were mistaken?

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:10:57 2016 No.8431183

>>8431159
Nah, it mostly just feels good to type some shit up, post it and think to myself "Yeah! I got him good there! That'll show em! Victory is mine!"
Also there could be the occasional idiot whom doesn't think they're trolling and actually eats up their shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 00:45:12 2016 No.8431253 >>8431180 >what if >hypothetical fantasy lets keep this to a scientific discussion please. >that you were mistaken I'm not, Life is Unique to planet earth and you are denying rational thought and logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:08:25 2016 No.8431296 >>8431051 Anon there is a chance you might be around 300 years to see such an event if humanity makes medical breakthroughs in combat ageing within this century. >Inb4 Overpopulation meme

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:10:41 2016 No.8431301 >Intelligent life is extremely widespread on a universal scale >Distance between stars that can harbor intelligent life is so immense they can never communicate meaningfully or reach out to each others. That's some scary shit right there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:11:47 2016 No.8431302 >>8431296 Doubtful. You will die anon, you will draw your last breathe, turn blue, die, and grow cold. You should think about this more often.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:14:13 2016 No.8431304 >>8430254 We don't have any evidence for anything to do with it, at all. So there is no solution, let alone one that is the 'most' plausible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:14:13 2016 No.8431305 >>8431301 Meaningful communication could occur with all of the galaxies within our local group and with some outside of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:14:24 2016 No.8431307 >>8430681 What if this has already happened to us and what we consider God now was a another race that preceded us?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:19:05 2016 No.8431313 File: 187 KB, 425x530, theophany1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431307 how would you define God?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:19:24 2016 No.8431315 >>8430791 I see your point but if that was true and life popped up exponentially it'd be a game of whack a mole eventually a civilization would survive and be a threat to the OG would'nt it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:19:34 2016 No.8431317 >>8431305 How exactly ?

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:20:51 2016 No.8431320

>>8431302
>Doubt
We had several threads about combating ageing. Its starting up and making decent progress, Google started Calico 3 years ago and its been doing fine.

SENS is okay I guess, they published some of their results from testing on proteins a month ago. CRISPR will come in handy for the research.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:23:27 2016 No.8431323 >>8431317 There are multiple methods. Radio, laser. and other manipulations of light mostly. Most of them wouldn't be fast, but they would certainly be meaningful.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:23:45 2016 No.8431325 >>8430320 instead of >muh wormholes it's >muh immortality Great rebuttal buddy

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:26:23 2016 No.8431330 >>8430423 because we're only ~70 years off from the bomb. A blink of the eye on the scale of human history. We still fear the bomb as our reaper. Once it becomes common and forgettable, that's when we die.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:29:14 2016 No.8431336 >>8431323 Meaningful as in "Ability to have a back and forth conversation within a generation". If the nearest inhabited star is only 200 light-years away, we're fucked already. Would feel good to know we're not alone at least.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:43:06 2016 No.8431367 >>8430276 watched this interview the other day after his depression short story made it's way to the top of hackernews. what an insufferable cunt this guy was.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:46:22 2016 No.8431375 the reason why we exist is because those that have previously occupied our carrying capacity are extinct.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:48:17 2016 No.8431379

>>8431336

I don't know about a single generation. But as discussed elsewhere in this thread, travel at relativistic speeds is easy. We'll have it in the next couple of thousand of years at the very latest. It could be as soon as a hundred of years or so.

With our current understanding of physics it will be possible to develop methods of travel that will allow us to go anywhere in our galaxy in a matter of months or years.

But if all you want to know is whether or not other such civilizations exist, that's where the bad news comes in.

As far as we know, all of that requires Dyson swarms. We could spot civilizations that use Dyson swarms in galaxies that we could never hope to reach. But we haven't seen them in our galaxy, and we haven't seen them in other galaxies either.

Therein lies the paradox that this thread is about.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:52:01 2016 No.8431388

as the earth has a particular carrying capacity, so then the galaxy and the universe. on earth as humans assimalate more and more biomass into humans, this stunts and diminishes evolution capacity of other animals, humanity appears sentient and alone. This is also true in a galatical sense, in past epochs it may be that extra galatical civilizations existed and studies the early fauna of earth, just like we did. but they are no more. IF they were, then we would be them.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:52:45 2016 No.8431390
File: 205 KB, 1058x1410, 1203812081203810238.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431367

he actually wan't that bad, and his writing isn't awful either. he only seems insufferable because people who want to declare him a genius are insufferable.

you can tell from that interview that he's a self-conscious guy who's terrified of being misunderstood. Not for nothing, his "great work" was interpreted as a hilarious post-modern comedy when he himself viewed it as a work of tragedy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 01:53:09 2016 No.8431392 File: 351 KB, 1979x1895, ayyyy lmao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 02:02:52 2016 No.8431416

>>8431390
>you can tell from that interview that he's a self-conscious guy who's terrified of being misunderstood.

No you can tell (given any sufficient analytical intelligence), that he's a pseudo intellectual egotist who only wants idiots to believe that through his carefully constructed persona

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 02:09:53 2016 No.8431428 File: 147 KB, 500x500, 1456448176599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8431416 Have you read any of his books? He was clearly very talented. We can take this discussion to /lit/ if you want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 02:14:15 2016 No.8431437 they're here already

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 02:38:50 2016 No.8431483 >>8430471 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT72yTGSIUA

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 02:55:31 2016 No.8431513

>>8431336
>good to know we're not alone
are you being ironic? or simply unable to stop yourself from tipping your fedora? You are literally surrounded by billions of humans who will one day teraform and populate these lifeless planets humanity is now discovering.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:00:10 2016 No.8431519 Why doesn't an advance civilization simply leave this universe to populate an empty and newly born universe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:08:53 2016 No.8431531 >>8431519 that's what will eventually happen, there are literally billions and billions of "Class M" planets that are empty and devoid of life just waiting on humanity to bring Life where it could never have possibly developed on its own.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:19:44 2016 No.8431556 >>8431519 Tell us how and we will. According to our understanding of the physical laws of our universe, this is impossible. >>8431531 We can easily settle other planets.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:22:29 2016 No.8431559
File: 500 KB, 954x1022, 1461295285157.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430254
There is no paradox
You are not going to be sending messages to other planets accidentally. Radio waves are little more than background noise at 1 light year. Interstellar communication is done with focused infrared lasers. Being highly focused you are not going to accidentally intercept a message.

FTL travel is not possible. Interstellar travel is EXTREMELY expensive and slow. Most intelligent species would never leave there solar system and those that do would be limited to nearby stars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:26:36 2016 No.8431564 >>8431559 It is very plausible that mortality can more or less be overcome with Technology. An immortal can easily go on a journey that lasts a Million years. If you are afraid to die of boredom simply put yourself into artificial coma.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:27:28 2016 No.8431568

>>8431559

You misunderstand the current interpretation of the paradox which is best phrased as: where are all the Dyson swarms?

This doesn't rely on being able to intercept alien communication.

>Interstellar travel is EXTREMELY expensive and slow

This isn't true. It is relatively fast and very cheap once you have a Dyson swarm. The only barrier is building the will to create a Dyson swarm. We could start it today. But currently that would cost more lives than we're willing to pay (quite rightly).

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:35:23 2016 No.8431586

>>8431564
>It is very plausible that mortality can more or less be overcome with Technology.
No
>An immortal can easily go on a journey that lasts a Million years.
Even if you manage biological immortality (disease and accidents would still kill you) going to the nearest stars would be at the limits of material science. Even in this magical fairy land where you wouldnt die there is no way your spacecraft will be intact 1million years later.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:36:25 2016 No.8431588 >>8431556 >According to our understanding of the physical laws of our universe this is impossible. For now. We hardly even understand our universe. We barely know anything about the universe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:38:18 2016 No.8431592 >>8431586 >No Not that Anon, but citations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:38:36 2016 No.8431593 >>8431568 Maybe Dyson Swarms/Spheres/Rings/Bubbles are impractical or inefficient even for species eons ahead of us?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:41:03 2016 No.8431598 Why worry about a paradox and alien life? Why not just advance ourselves to the point the paradox becomes irrelevant and not worth thinking about in any way?

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:43:00 2016 No.8431603

>>8431593
>>8431568
The Dyson memes need to die already. The real world isn't Star Trek.

>“Dismantling Mercury, just to start, will take 2 x 10^30 Joules, or an amount of energy 100 billion times the US annual energy consumption,” he said. “[Dvorsky] kinda glosses over that point. And how long until his solar collectors gather that much energy back, and we’re in the black?”

>I did the math to figure that out. Dvorsky’s assumption is that the first stage of the Dyson Sphere will consist of one square kilometer, with the solar collectors operating at about 1/3 efficiency – meaning that 1/3 of the energy it collects from the Sun can be turned into useful work.

>A Few More Notes On The Impracticality Of Building A Dyson Sphere

>At one AU – which is the distance of the orbit of the Earth, the Sun emits 1.4 x 10^3 J/sec per square meter. That’s 1.4 x 10^9 J/sec per square kilometer. At one-third efficiency, that’s 4.67 x 10^8 J/sec for the entire Dyson sphere. That sounds like a lot, right? But here’s the thing – if you work it out, it will take 4.28 x 10^28 seconds for the solar collectors to obtain the energy needed to dismantle Mercury.

>That’s about 120 trillion years."

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:46:03 2016 No.8431606 >>8431586 smug asshole. You Arguments are shit. Go fuck yourself. "You can not build a spaceship that can fly for a Million years". How fucking retarded can you be? Of Course you can. Smug asshole. Your Arguments are shit. Go fuck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:49:42 2016 No.8431609 >>8430254 >the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox ... is the elementary observation that it is not a "paradox" at all, but merely a lack of observational data.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:57:49 2016 No.8431617
File: 4 KB, 165x115, 1e8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431606
>Of Course you can

Explain to me how you plan to keep mechanical and electronic systems functioning for longer than all of human history. Systems that will be working on the limits of the materials they are made of can do.

Not to mention do you have any idea how dangerous the acceleration and deceleration phase is? Going to the nearest star you will be LUCKY to manage a 10% success rate. There would be almost no redundancy as the extra weight would exponentially increase the amount of fuel required to accelerate and decelerate the thing (which as i mentioned earlier will more than likely fail).

Technology isn't magic. There are limits and we are closer to those limits than you think.

Star Trek isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 03:59:43 2016 No.8431620 >>8430254 That generation ships or von Neumann probes don't work because no technology lasts that long and that travel at relativistic speeds is impossible because of the humongous energy demands.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:06:41 2016 No.8431634 >>8431620 Not impossible Just REALLY expensive. Relativistic effects at anything achievable would be extremely limited. The energy demands could be met with a Bussard ramjet or a building full of metallic liquid hydrogen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:08:22 2016 No.8431637 They are probably as afraid of us wanting them dead as we are afraid of them wanting us dead. As a result they try to hide themselves as well as they can.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:22:34 2016 No.8431660

>>8431634
>Just REALLY expensive.
Did you find a way to put the energy of the sun into your spaceship's glove compartment yet? If not, it's not just really expensive but impossible.

>The energy demands could be met with a Bussard ramjet or a building full of metallic liquid hydrogen.
Show me the calculations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:27:57 2016 No.8431670 >>8431660 >Did you find a way to put the energy of the sun into your spaceship's glove compartment yet? That isn't necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:40:17 2016 No.8431683 >>8431617 If you are going to travel for a Million years stopping somewhere for a couple of centuries to repair everything and refuel is not exactly implausible.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:42:30 2016 No.8431686

>>8431670
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
From that link:
>For example, the Project Longshot concept assumes "a three-order-of-magnitude leap over current propulsion technology".[1]

I said show me the calculations. And by calculations I didn't mean fairy dust.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:43:49 2016 No.8431688 Dark matter is Dyson spheres a r k m a t t e r is Dyson spheres

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:52:29 2016 No.8431693

>>8431617
>Explain to me how you plan to keep mechanical and electronic systems functioning for longer than all of human history. Systems that will be working on the limits of the materials they are made of can do.

With something called "repairing stuff".

>
Not to mention do you have any idea how dangerous the acceleration and deceleration phase is? Going to the nearest star you will be LUCKY to manage a 10% success rate. There would be almost no redundancy as the extra weight would exponentially increase the amount of fuel required to accelerate and decelerate the thing (which as i mentioned earlier will more than likely fail).

When your fuel is out you stop at the next solar System and refuel.

>Technology isn't magic. There are limits and we are closer to those limits than you think.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant who is a smug asshole about his not-Knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 04:55:57 2016 No.8431700 >>8430669 >this, you plebs

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 05:21:16 2016 No.8431719 >>8431688 There's a snoopy thought... That'd mean all the galaxies are surrounded by high-end tier 2 civs with giant opaque spheres.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 05:31:16 2016 No.8431726 File: 56 KB, 735x500, comic2-3051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 05:40:38 2016 No.8431733
File: 48 KB, 437x391, 1-Ufg4bU14xuCuP6kNT_1IIQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430254
Beyond the usual cop-out (intelligent life is just rare as fuck), I've two other possibilities I prefer.

One is, once you have biological immortality, and thus have put a cap on your population, you've no reason to colonize the entire galaxy. You might colonize two or three far reaching systems to avoid extinction by cosmological phenomena, but colonizing anymore than that isn't going to ensure your race's survival any further, thus you've no motive to do so (only way to shore it up any further would be to travel to another galaxy). Any such population capped civilization's energy requirements would be low, and they wouldn't need to build superstructures to travel at relativistic speeds, for as immortals, they'd be in no rush.

This, of course, may also be indicative of a Great Filter, as any civilization bent on unlimited growth would likely use up its planetary resources or destroy its biosphere, before it had the chance to move among the stars. (As the state of our current civilization hints towards.)

The other possibility, is that this universe is doomed. The top quark isn't stable and we're all living in a false vacuum that could collapse at any moment. The only way to confirm this is to build a particle collider with the radius of a small planet, but one would likely be doing that before one started colonizing a galaxy. It may be that every civilization that discovered this, used that same technology to escape this universe into one of their own making. (The creation of universes with even larger particle colliders being theoretically possible - though moving from this one to the one you created, not so much so. Still, something of that ilk maybe the only solution to inevitable destruction.)

Lastly, there's always the possibility that everyone else is smart enough to keep their heads down after learning of the Tyranids.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 06:36:06 2016 No.8431787

>>8431733
>One is, once you have biological immortality, and thus have put a cap on your population, you've no reason to colonize the entire galaxy.
This presumption seems awfully idealistic.
I mean for the most part, the presumptions come off as idealistic.
Eg. Other Civilization(s) that we encounter are/will be on a higher plane of consciousness or infinitely more intelligent than us with the whole universe figured out.
Isn't there a chance of us encountering other beings that know just as much as we do, or maybe have SOME of their shit down, but not be fucking GODS of the universe.
It would be kind of funny, though, us being visited and coming into interaction or, getting a radio signal that is basically like 'ayy we don't rly know shit either lets meet up :))))'
Extra-terrestrials have always been pictured no matter the origin, or kind, in an as idealistic manner as possible.
Sort of downplaying ourselves.
We're kind of masochistic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 06:36:18 2016 No.8431788 >>8430254 Someone has to be first

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 06:54:32 2016 No.8431810

>>8431787
Seems a bit dark for to me, and not terribly promising for us. Though, I suppose, we're about as close to finding immortality as we are to interstellar colonization.

It also makes sense that any species bent on infinite growth wouldn't make it to the stars, and thus no civilization with motive to colonize the entire galaxy, would have the means to do so.

Doesn't mean they aren't dicks though - just means they're practical.

But yes, it's entirely possible we'll run into a galactic civilization where the individual members of the species are basically retarded, compared to us, just with an incredibly large head start, as was the basic plot behind the original X-Com games. (Makes all their pretty tech real easy to reverse engineer and kill them with.)

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 07:00:00 2016 No.8431814
File: 32 KB, 450x338, signs-wtf_were_they_thinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431787
>Extra-terrestrials have always been pictured no matter the origin, or kind, in an as idealistic manner as possible.
You've clearly not been watching the same sci-fi I have.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 07:15:47 2016 No.8431829

>>8430254
They're already here. I'm not talking about alleged abductions, but the most interesting cases of craft sighted by pilots, both military and civilian. Radar returns, ability to lock-on (like in the Tehran case) and certain characteristics, like sound-less flight, incredible maneuverability and speed, greatly beyond our fastest of the fast. You can't mistake that with Venus reflection on other shit when the thing flies right before your cockpit.
With this, I'm damn sure interstellar travel is possible, how - we don't know yet. Certainly they are on a scientific mission right now. Unless it's some experimental craft, but then, it's in experimental stage for more than 60 years?

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 07:46:24 2016 No.8431862

>>8431810
>But yes, it's entirely possible we'll run into a galactic civilization where the individual members of the species are basically retarded, compared to us, just with an incredibly large head start, as was the basic plot behind the original X-Com games. (Makes all their pretty tech real easy to reverse engineer and kill them with.)
KEK

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 07:57:17 2016 No.8431872 >>8431814 KEK but objectively they're always presented as big headed cucks with intelligence far superior to any human and with knowledge of the inner workings of the universe and or interstellar travel. fuck aliens!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 08:11:30 2016 No.8431889 >>8430477 >see dimmed galaxies/stars from dyson swarms but we don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 08:17:59 2016 No.8431891
File: 23 KB, 202x269, pakled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431872
Watch some Star Trek... Plenty of retard asshole aliens.

Also plenty of shows with non-sentient aliens that just come down and fuck your shit up as part of the biological drive. Not every sci-fi is Close Encounters.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 08:23:33 2016 No.8431898

>>8431302
Possible but not likely. With current living standards and long living genes of my parents and grandparents I can reasonably expect to make it to 90-ish, which would mean I have all of 21st century to gather resources for myself so that, in the event of someone inventing a cure for ageing, I can afford it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 08:33:37 2016 No.8431907

>>8431810
>It also makes sense that any species bent on infinite growth wouldn't make it to the stars, and thus no civilization with motive to colonize the entire galaxy, would have the means to do so.
>Doesn't mean they aren't dicks though - just means they're practical.

This is why scientists weren't, aren't and won't be leaders of men - too practical.

For thousands of years men do things only because they can or because they think they can. There doesn't have to be a particular reason or even incentive to do so. The fact that it exists and no one has done it and there might be maybe vaguely some glory/money/prestige in doing so is enough.

Why did people scale Everest? Because it's there.

Why did people go to Antarctica? Because it's there.

Hell, why do we want to go to Mars now even though it will be decades at the very least before Mars is self sufficient and net contributor to human civilization? Because it is there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 08:36:10 2016 No.8431911 Civilisations are so stupid that they destroy themselves in race who of them goes to space first, also they may be just watching us for that reason.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 09:26:27 2016 No.8431962

my favorite solutions:

upon reaching a certain level of technological advances civilizations determine that it is less resource and time draining to master phenomena on the microcosmic scale than the macro

or

a pioneering extraterrestrial civilization from the past had such a fucked up experience attempting to colonize other galaxies or explore interstellar space that a strict and unbreakable taboo against further endeavors of the kind was enforced

so kill me

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 10:15:21 2016 No.8432005

>>8430254
>What is the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox?

Omnidirectional radio waves are very seldom used for communications.

Pretty much the only reason they are used on earth is the great commercialization of broadcast radio and television entertainment media.

Fiber optic networks are best for ground based communication (global internet), and focused lasers are best for space communication, assuming they don't have hyperspace ansibles, quantum entanglement networks or something simmilar.

Broadcasting your galactic position through multi megawatt radio waves beamed out into the cosmos is probably not something that is often done in the galaxy, to be honest.

Also, Prime Directive.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 10:21:23 2016 No.8432013

>>8431320
I don't think aiming for biological immortality has sense. I see it more as becoming a robotic race, just upload our shit and then all we need is some source of energy. All weaknesses of a biological system disappear, we can make new "people" as we need and with technological progress we can upgrade ourselves. We'd be able to make suspended animation a triviality if needed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 10:55:30 2016 No.8432083 >>8431889 I want to believe, but as the article points out, there could be a swarm of dusty objects around it... and there are no unusual signals coming from that direction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 11:00:09 2016 No.8432094 File: 251 KB, 734x950, Emperor_of_Mankind_by_genzoman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430681 >implying we won't build an EMPIRE OF MAN with genetically modified soldiers as our vanguard

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 11:13:30 2016 No.8432110
File: 161 KB, 625x625, 391fdbe082dae1ffc716b2c6423fb6807116f1ec3b6da08b12acfda1a58af6ab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431907
Well, if your species as a whole doesn't take survival over grandeur, it may often wind up like all those corpses as the top of mount Everest.

Besides, while we explore Everest's peak and Antarctica, we don't try to set up large scale civilization there, cuz it's too impractical with no return. Thus, even we have limits to how much we're willing to violate practicality for pure adventure. Colonization, you have a survival motive for whether you're adventurous or not, but colonizing everything you can regardless of the cost or lack of return, that's just not done, as we see in those examples. Now, if we overpopulate we may *have* to fix and colonize Antarctica someday, but we're talking of an immortal species that, consequently, has a population cap. Once it colonizes a few systems spread sufficiently apart, it can't ensure its survival any further by colonizing more.

There's the exploration motive, yes. Presumably, a species does have to be curious to reach those heights, even then there's something else to consider...

At some point, predictive technologies and a thorough understand of physics, coupled with that immorality, makes exploration pointless. You already know, or can simulate, everything this universe can produce from every possible interaction of its four forces and twelve particles. So you've no motivation to explore - if anything, you might escape to a more complex virtual reality that, unlike the universe that created you, might be capable of generating things you can't predict or imagine. At some point, the regular universe is going to be as boring and predictable to your average enhanced intellect as Minecraft is to us - nothing but repetitious combinations of the same old blocks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 11:15:14 2016 No.8432113 >>8432013 Even then, you don't want all your servers on one planet, and you probably don't want to up your power requirements by forever making more and more "people".

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 12:36:56 2016 No.8432248 >>8431131 >tfw too intelligent for contact with humans

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 13:40:33 2016 No.8432399
File: 51 KB, 414x248, 14512753255427.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431693
You would have to accelerate and decelerate. Both of which are EXTREMELY dangerous and having to do so multiple times exponentially increases the already high likelihood of failure.

.>With something called "repairing stuff"
With what? You plan on pulling spare parts out of your ass or carrying the whole factory and required infrastructure with you?

>When your fuel is out you stop at the next solar System and refuel.
You have enough redundancy for ONE acceleration and ONE deceleration. Unless your plan is to build an entire civilization and build a few dozen more ships (to ensure at least one of them makes it) with no concern about whether or not the original inhabitant makes it then maybe. But then good luck having the civilization you build follow your plans to wast all of there resources to build you more ships which will in no way benefit them.

>You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant who is a smug asshole about his not-Knowledge.

You are sort of limited by the laws of physics.

Even the most advanced space fairing civilizations probably don't make it further than 50 light years from home.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 14:53:42 2016 No.8432554 >>8432013 Some people like having biological bodies more than data bodies.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 15:11:22 2016 No.8432592

>>8432399
>Acceleration is dangerous

Yeah, with the primitive Technologies of a civilization that has discovered rockets half a century ago.

>With what? You plan on pulling spare parts out of your ass or carrying the whole factory and required infrastructure with you?

Yes, the manufacturing facilites are onboard. A spaceship that travels for a Million years can repair itself. Shocker.

>You are sort of limited by the laws of physics.

You are sort of limited by your intellectual capacities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 15:44:01 2016 No.8432637 >>8430254 Either the great filter or the vastness of the universe itself making contact between intelligent lifeforms all but impossible.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 15:50:23 2016 No.8432653

>>8432592
>>8432399
>You would have to accelerate and decelerate. Both of which are EXTREMELY dangerous
Actually, even with the modern primitive beasts, acceleration is very predictable and easy, once you're outside of a gravity well and atmosphere. Frictionless vacuum is engineer's dream land, after all. Even with giant structures, we're pretty good at calculating stress capacities and knowing how much force we can use. (9/11 and the WTC not withstanding.)

You would still need to set aside a certain amount of space on your ship for dealing with micrometeor collision damage and general maintenance, further adding to its mass and fuel requirements, of course. (This exponential fuel requirement increase is part of what makes this next to impossible with conventional rockets, and models using them tends involves multi-generational ships.)

Plus, depending on how fast you're going, detecting and avoiding collisions with larger objects may be problematic, which you'll need to set aside even more synergistic fuel and mass for. If it's a colony ship, said unexpected turns lead to situations like this:
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1477251604345.webm

>good luck having the civilization you build follow your plans to [waste] all of [their] resources to build you more ships which will in no way benefit them.
If your species managed to colonize another planet in the first place, you've a culture that thinks both collectively and for long term (or just do so naturally). This wouldn't be a problem for such a civilization. ...Unless, of course, as this situation pretty much demands, you're already biologically immortal and require very little in resources, have your local populations capped, and, further, have already colonized two or three other planets distant from your homeworld. In that case there is no further benefit for the survival of the species as a whole... At least until you can figure out how to colonize another galaxy - if that's possible at all.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 16:07:15 2016 No.8432693
File: 28 KB, 468x491, very_cold_babbies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8432653
>Even with giant structures, we're pretty good at calculating stress capacities and knowing how much force we can use. (9/11 and the WTC not withstanding.)
Yes, but more importantly, you're not going to be pulling more than 1G anyways - not with a human crew on board. That's pretty easy to pace, even if your ship is a fucking skyscraper, 99% of which is fuel.

I think Humanity's End had a more realistic solution with conventional mechanics though. Namely, you send a colony ship with embryos, not people, and a system that can birth and raise them, more or less to your cultural norms when they arrive. If you aren't pro-life (or even if you are, but don't fertilize the embryos before you land), losing the thing is no big deal, in terms of life lost. (Still a huge investment, so it'd suck, but no murder-guilt.)

Ship would still probably be pretty big, and fuel hungry, but not nearly as much so, and you could probably be free to pull several more G's - thus getting to your destination faster.

Would still require much more automation and biological tech than we currently have, not to mention cultural will (who would fund that shit!?) But it's certainly something conceivable for a slightly more advanced and more together civilization to pull.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 16:56:35 2016 No.8432838 >>8432693 Wait, that wasn't "Humanity's End" - that was "All Tomorrows". Cute short story, and a fun read: http://marsh.speedrunwiki.com/Text/alltomorrows.pdf

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 18:29:04 2016 No.8433057
File: 63 KB, 421x248, 1726450i03g9jmahjj0mjj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8432653
>Actually, even with the modern primitive beasts, acceleration is very predictable and easy,

Not if you are accelerating at a rate of 1g for 50 or so years. Anny malfunction could cause a catastrophic failure. Redundancy would be low due to weight restrictions. 95% of the ship's mass will be fuel.

>Plus, depending on how fast you're going, detecting and avoiding collisions with larger objects may be problematic, which you'll need to set aside even more synergistic fuel and mass for. If it's a colony ship, said unexpected turns lead to situations like this:
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1477251604345.webm

I am going to need a source on that webm.
Your micrometeorite and small collision shielding would consist of a giant copper plate mounted on shock absorbers at the front of the craft. Anything larger would simply kill your craft and you would be moving far too fast to maneuver. Hence your best bet is to send multiple craft.

>If your species managed to colonize another planet in the first place, you've a culture that thinks both collectively and for long term

You are making a lot of assumptions. I am saying you would be greatly limited in your rate of expansion as it would take a planet spanning civilization to have the economic and manufacturing capacity necessary to even consider building such craft.Establishing such a civilization would take too damn long to use as a pit stop.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 18:30:11 2016 No.8433061
File: 80 KB, 419x248, 173310vz57v726w7z633o7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8432592
>Yeah, with the primitive Technologies of a civilization that has discovered rockets half a century ago.

External pulsed plasma propulsion and fusion rockets. The only technologies that have the fuel efficiency and trust necessary for interstellar travel.

>Yes, the manufacturing facilites are onboard. A spaceship that travels for a Million years can repair itself. Shocker.

Extra mass requires exponentially more fuel and exponentially more opportunities for system failure. LRN 2 spaceflight. Weight is king.

>You are sort of limited by your intellectual capacities.

Once again no rebuttal. Shocker.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 18:33:26 2016 No.8433066
File: 83 KB, 413x248, 172924faatv22tta3fo7we.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8432693
> not with a human crew on board.
I was thinking along the lines of frozen embryos. FAR more weight/energy efficient, WAY more survivable, and far less things to break on the 100 year+ trip.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 18:44:14 2016 No.8433087

>>8433057
>Not if you are accelerating at a rate of 1g for 50 or so years.
No, you're accelerating to a rate of *maximum* of 1G relative.

...You know, like every structure on the planet currently is, and several of those have latested for more than 50 years, despite shoddy construction and having to deal with corrosive environmental factors to boot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 18:56:41 2016 No.8433110 >>8433057 >I am going to need a source on that webm. Knights of Sidiona... (rtfn)... First season is pretty good - skip the second, unless you're into 50ft tall giant pink loli robots that have mad crushes on humans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 19:00:54 2016 No.8433115 >>8430254 Intelligent beings are extremely rare and so far apart in the universe that that almost never come into contact with each other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 19:58:08 2016 No.8433248 >>8430939 We don't know it only appeared on earth, we only didn't find it anywhere else yet, not we don't know it's rare, we know it's just not anywhere near

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:06:58 2016 No.8433273
File: 319 KB, 1393x838, ayyylmao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430254
Most, if not all civilizations destroy themselves before ever becoming powerful enough to locate other planetary civilizations and beam extremely high-powered radio beams to them, or achieve interstellar travel.

Given that our own civilization is in the process of self-destructing itself due to its own stupidity with no feasible way out, this solution has the most evidence for it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:10:54 2016 No.8433279 >>8433273 >Our civilization is in the process of self-destructing >Own stupidity >No feasible way out Okay, Anon. We have a special hospital for people who suffer from delusions for people like you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:13:18 2016 No.8433286 >>8433279 You're the one with the comforting delusion, broyo. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:17:33 2016 No.8433293 File: 63 KB, 414x248, 172707ttp8010qvmm6nyi7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8433087 Structural failure is easy enough to prevent. Mechanical and electronic failure is what concerns me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:30:37 2016 No.8433315 >>8433286 Not that Anon, but the person who makes the first claims should be the one to defend it. You prove them wrong with sources of a self-destructing civilization across the world with visible citations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:43:56 2016 No.8433334 File: 16 KB, 500x500, 1468801411530.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fermi paradox is silly because even if you knew exactly where to look for life, you would find zero evidence of it from our vantage point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 20:55:59 2016 No.8433350 >>8430476 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:15:26 2016 No.8433389

>>8433315
The purpose of an argument is to convince. If someone lacks awareness to such a profound degree that they don't see the numerous existential threats to humanity that almost nothing is being done about, and thinks that Saint Musk or Brother Kurzweil with his God computer or some motherfucking politician is going to save things, they are beyond being convinced anyways.

My argument is _given that_ we are on the way to destruction, and we are the only example of an advanced planetary civilization, the answer with the most evidence behind it is that planetary civilizations tend to self-destruct, which is the "great filter." Still a very small sample size, but it is what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:16:30 2016 No.8433392 >>8433389 I left out the market will save everything as the Capitalist God.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:22:30 2016 No.8433404

>>8433389
>>8433392

What are the threats to humanity that aren't being addressed though. Where is your proof of humanity going to self-destruct.

You are going on and on, Humanity is going to self-destruct, but shown no proof. Yes, humanity is our only example of a planetary civilization, but you still given no proof or reason of why its going to self-destruct or not advanced at all.

My friend either post your proof's that humanity is self-destructing with the threats and citations. Or you have no argument and are sprouting nonsense dude.

Tl:dr Right now its show proof, or your entire post is null and void.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:31:53 2016 No.8433424

>>8433404
Climate change, environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, and the dependency of the supply chains of food and other necessities on capitalism and the chaos that would be the result of economic collapse are the major risk factors.

http://thebulletin.org/press-release/doomsday-clock-hands-remain-unchanged-despite-iran-deal-and-paris-talks9122

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:37:41 2016 No.8433432

>>8433404
An astronomy professor measures the angular speed of the moon in the sky via a telescope with a reticulated eyepiece and extrapolates its orbital period from this. Some guy says "Yeah but prove the moon is real or else your reasoning is invalid."

You are that guy.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 21:42:25 2016 No.8433442
File: 165 KB, 777x656, 1472004883472.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8433424
>Climate change, environmental destruction,
Are reasonable things that could lead to civilization being destroyed.

Everything else you have past that is hogwash as nuclear weapons creates MAD, and you can see the nuclear weapon thread we have up as other pointed out about its use. Capitalism is a wavy economic system, but it functions fine though in any economic system crashes are to be expected.

>Posting Iran deal
Anon.

>>8433432
This is nothing like that, Anon. Have a pyramid. For my reaction look at the very top.

Anonymous Sun Oct 23 23:45:50 2016 No.8433639

>>8430254
There is no solution because there is no paradox. Fermi's assertion relies on the theory that other civilizations develop interstellar travel. This is what is known as a non sequitur argument. If x then y, without any evidence that x is true. If anything Fermi's conjecture provides evidence that interstellar travel will never be possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 00:41:28 2016 No.8433745 >>8430266 dude can't talk, thinks it's a good idea to make an hour long video of him talking

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 00:51:43 2016 No.8433759

A simple explanation is that once a species enters the atomic age, if they fail to develop space travel their chance of extinction increases as time goes on.

If nuclear war can happen, and it can, as illustrated by numerous close calls in the 20th century, then we have to project that over a long enough timespan it is 100% likely to occur.

A nuclear war on a heavily exploited, technologically advanced planet could spell the end of technological civilization. Resources that were necessary to jumpstart industrialization and a technology base are no longer easily acquirable on the surface and require advanced technology to retrieve from deeper inside the planet.

If humanity engaged in nuclear war that destroyed current civilizations it would be highly unlikely for us to ever recover a technological base like we have now. Easily extractable fossil fuels necessary for industrialization are exhausted and access to many metals becomes much more difficult the second time around.

The resource scarcity argument doesn't take into account that technological civilization isn't inevitable. Human societies functioned for around 200,000 years without developing a steam engine and putting it into use.

This also presupposes any significant survival of a widescale nuclear exchange which would poison the biosphere and result in decades of famine after the firestorms die down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 00:55:01 2016 No.8433763 File: 88 KB, 960x960, giant BH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8433759 But 4chan will be OK r-right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 00:58:03 2016 No.8433768 >>8433763 No, 4chan might not even survive until the inevitable nuclear conflagration if hiroshima nagisaka keeps running it into the dirt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:03:23 2016 No.8433776 Humanity is the most advanced species in the universe currently. Not actually that plausible, I just like the idea that humans are that ancient, super advanced race that predates all other civilizations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:11:06 2016 No.8433791 >>8433776 IT would be nice to know humanity is the first. All we need then is inter-galatic travel, biological immortality, and mastery over space-time, and etc then we could do whatever in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:16:49 2016 No.8433801 >>8430476 >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:20:23 2016 No.8433809

>>8430408
What if we were to move space instead of just ourselves.
There's a theory that allows for ftl speed by taking the space in front of us and depositing it behind us. The only problem is this would require enough fuel to fill a tank the size of Jupiter

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:21:35 2016 No.8433812 >>8433809 >the only problem is that it is entirely theoretical based on models we can't test because they all involve negative mass

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:21:45 2016 No.8433814 >>8430296 What do we know that disproves we are the product of a more advanced civilization?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 01:24:13 2016 No.8433819 >>8433809 It also only works if negative energy/mass is a thing.

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 02:04:05 2016 No.8433866

>>8430680
>tfw we live in the boondocks of space like some shitty island tribe that has never encountered modern civilization
>tfw far far beyond what we can observe there's a booming mega civilization composed of thousands of species
>we're just some dull trash living in a dusty old forgotten sector of the universe

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 02:13:19 2016 No.8433880

>>8433293
Particularly if we're talking an embryo colonizer, the damn thing's going to be dormant for most of its journey.

If you stuck your computer in a freezing vacuum sealed box for a millenia, it'd probably startup fine, once you plugged it into something - and it wasn't even designed with a lifespan of more than five or so years in mind. (Granted, the hard drives would probably wipe, but there's solutions for long term data storage:)
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11018018/5d-data-storage-glass

The trick is, in this case "plugging it back in"... There's lots of solutions to that, including sticking in a thousand year chemical fuse to go off and deploy a hydrogen scoop (said fuses being possible even under today's technology, and the scoop has the added bonus that it can be used to slow the ship), or setting up a smaller, faster ship on ahead of it, that sets up a satellite around the destination star that deploys solar panels at the appropriate time, beaming energy to the, in this case, literal mother ship.

...And while all that'd be a challenge for modern technology, it'd be trivial to any civilization capable of creating sufficiently sophisticated robotics to both give birth to and raise children.

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 02:28:01 2016 No.8433903

>>8430408
>[Andromeda] is 2 537 000 light years from earth. That means even with relativistic speed it would take almost 3 million years
Meh, just wait 4 billion years and it'll come to us.

Aside from the blue shifted galaxies (like Andromeda), which would require insanely well self sustained colony ships, and not giving a fuck if there's even a sign of your original civilization left by the time said ships arrived, barring some barely theoretical sci-fi advancement, colonizing other galaxies is probably impossible. All the red shifted ones will be traveling away from you at well beyond the speed of light, well before you get anywhere near them.

Granted, we've only known there was a speed of light for a few hundred years, known it was a maxim for less than that, and still don't know how 95% of the shit that makes up the universe actually works, so... Ya never know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 02:52:15 2016 No.8433939 Reapers.

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 12:15:52 2016 No.8434432

>>8430254
What you faggots don't seem to realise is that our technology literally isn't developed enough to find aliens yet.

Do you know how many exoplanets we've actually discovered so far? Just over 3500. How many of those have we directly imaged? Around about 50. Not only that, but the easiest planets to image are big, hot, and close to their stars, which makes it unlikely they'd harbour any kind of life.

How people assume they can just point their telescope at a star and see radio signals from a civilisation baffles me, do you guys seriously think that Earth leaks so much artificial radiation that the little green fuckers can see us? I mean, to any planet more than 100 lightyears away we wouldn't look any different to any other exoplanet unless they've got telescopes so advanced they can see you masturbating to your sister's underwear from the Helix Nebula.

Until our imaging technology becomes good enough to see distant planets at a reasonable resolution don't expect that we have a chance of finding extrasolar life, and even then we'd likely only see a civilisation so advanced that they've colonised their entire solar system, any kind of life that's at our level of technology or lower simply won't be detectable, at least not for a very long time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 13:53:49 2016 No.8434582 >>8434432 >sisters underwear Excuse me, but that happens to be my underwear..... >current imaging technology sucks balls Just you wait till we can see in infrared anon with the James Webb telescope. >Pandora is now closer than ever!

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 14:00:07 2016 No.8434591

>>8434432
It's not that simple, hoss.

Unless intelligent life is just rare as fuck (strong possibility), or those filters are really mean (also a strong possibility), or some bad-ass god-like aliens in hiding are just killing anything that gets uppidy (somewhat less than a strong possibility) aliens should be friggen everywhere. They should, in fact, be here.

Because the galaxy has been capable of supporting life for billions of years, and there are billions of planets, perhaps millions with almost identical conditions to ours (or that were at one point or another), and it only takes a handful of a million years to colonize the whole galaxy, even at sublight speeds.

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

Granted, that assumes they colonize as much as they can and as fast as they can, and as >>8431733 pointed out, this seems rather unlikely for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that any civilization operating under a model of infinite growth, probably would never reach the stars to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 14:46:04 2016 No.8434665 >>8430688 So you're saying God touched a monkey and made him a genius monkey? Kinda like that Futurama episode, innit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 15:02:43 2016 No.8434693 >>8434432 >what are light years? Life's dead

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 15:16:52 2016 No.8434720 >>8430325 M'lady

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 15:31:20 2016 No.8434742 >>8430254 All life is here on planet earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 15:36:45 2016 No.8434754 >>8430272 And the wormholes?

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 17:12:35 2016 No.8434940
File: 2.23 MB, 2548x1992, baesystems.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8433880
Anny interstellar spaceship will be limited to fairly primitive electronics (250nm photolithography on a sapphire substrate). This reduces the likelihood of failure by radiation damage greatly. So basicly you need to figure out how to automate this on mid 90s electronics.

You seem to be forgetting that these ships will be extremely high radiation environments. The reactors that power them and the engines themselves will have little to no radiation shielding as the additional weight would prohibit that. This radiation is highly damaging to electronics. Not to mention any soft seals would probably be on their last legs after the 200 year journey (and also prone to radiation damage)

Anonymous Mon Oct 24 21:59:59 2016 No.8435384

>>8430681
Seems most analyses of the Drake Equation grossly overestimate the odds on intelligent life occurring. It took 3 billion years to get from single cell life to multicellular life on Earth. Who is to say it couldn't take twice that? The Universe is only 13 billion years old. Due to changes in output of the Sun, Earth will not support life in 3 billion years. So if the average time it takes for multicellular life to develop is 3 billion years, on many planets, complex life will never develop because the planet does not remain hospitable for a long enough period of time. Given that the universe is only 13 billion years old, I do not think there is much complex life out there. I am sure there is some, but I think it is exceedingly rare.
Mostrar menos

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 22:21:20 2016 No.8435431 >>8435384 >average time is 3 billion years For, Earth it took 3 billion years. We don't know how long it takes for multicellular life to appear on other planets. For all we know Earth could be behind 2 billion years compared to another planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 22:26:27 2016 No.8435442 >>8430254 transhumanism is the natural evolution of every species and once attained their Communication and way of life is so foreign to us as to be completely unrecognizable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 22:27:19 2016 No.8435444 >>8430423 >mutually assured destruction

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 22:35:45 2016 No.8435467 >>8431305 Uh...no

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 24 23:24:07 2016 No.8435598 >>8430713 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEKoFrx1rI

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 03:57:20 2016 No.8435948
File: 61 KB, 414x248, 172725gy9dsg8fd7dzvvfw.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8431379
>Dyson memes

If we had the amount of energy needed to make a Dyson meme we wouldnt need to make a Dyson meme.The energy cost of dismantling Mercury and using the materials to make a Dyson swarm would not pay off in the time that it would take for the Earth to no longer be inhabitable.

Dyson MEMES are stupid popsci BS.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 07:52:16 2016 No.8436129

>>8434940
Shielding just means ya gotta make it bigger with more fuel, and thus bigger still. But for a sufficiently advanced civ, better materials, more advanced electronics, and better fuel efficiency negates all that. Particularly so, if they're capable of building embryonic colonizers.

>>8431379
>With our current understanding of physics it will be possible to develop methods of travel that will allow us to go anywhere in our galaxy in a matter of months or years.
Unless you're talking Alcubierre drive, not really. Even if you're using black hole powered ships, you don't want to be going that fast due to the G's you'd pick up (and you'd still be restricted to sublight speeds regardless).

The fact that, even at sublight speeds, you could colonize the entire galaxy in a few million years negates that though (assuming every colony you took made more colonies in turn). If you're biologically immortal, or robots, the time frame is reasonable. At least on a per-system basis, you'd see your missions complete.

>>8435948
>As far as we know, all of that requires Dyson swarms. We could spot civilizations that use Dyson swarms in galaxies that we could never hope to reach. But we haven't seen them in our galaxy, and we haven't seen them in other galaxies either.
Black hole generation doesn't require a dyson sphere. It might require an array with the breadth of a small planet, but unless your method of propulsion is beaming the entire output of your sun to your ship, there's no conceivable technology that would actually require a dyson sphere.

...and we wouldn't be able to see them in other galaxies - we wouldn't even see them in this galaxy, unless they were at least as close as KIC 8462852. (And fully opaque ones, we wouldn't be able to see at all.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 08:05:53 2016 No.8436140 >>8431379 I love it when people who have exactly zero grasp of the subject matter try to pretend they know what they're talking about. It's great comedy.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 08:15:49 2016 No.8436155

>>8430254
It's simple, OP. The only people who give a shit about Fermi's Paradox are the tiny percentage of i-want-to-believers who have even heard of it.
Since they're not approaching it in an impartial, intelligent manner, but simply trying to find something to support the conclusion they've already reached, they always massively overestimate the probabilities in the Drake equation.
tl;dr there is no paradox.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:13:05 2016 No.8436227 File: 214 KB, 420x382, FermiOceans-thumb-420x382-1076.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:26:39 2016 No.8436250 >>8430876 This imo. Why is this never considered? It's like everyone assumes if aliens exist knocking on our door is exactly what they would do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:35:09 2016 No.8436267 c is the great filter

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:43:23 2016 No.8436277

Want to break your head? This has puzzled me since I was a child.

Why is there... even anything? Why does...the universe, existence, all of it even... exist? Why isn't is there.. less than nothing? Why? It makes no sense, its a complete axiom. There could very easily be, not even... nothing. Its so fucking trippy and horrific.

Sure you could say that all the crap in the universe eventually hits a critical mass then becomes a black hole then expands again. Almost like an oscillator. But what the fuck made that in the first place? Why is there... anything?

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:45:09 2016 No.8436279
File: 187 KB, 598x336, art_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430254
the development of super intelligent AI that whether consciousness or not ,destroys it's creators only to lose purpose and as such does nothing more until the end of the universe

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 09:49:29 2016 No.8436286 >>8430264 >le humans are evil and should be wiped out meme applies to ET aswell Its more likely a civilization gets destroyed by an asteroid impact, environmental or some celestial event before they reach an advanced age.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 10:08:46 2016 No.8436313 >>8436277 Simple, nothing is unstable and always collapse into something ( which is really "imbalanced nothing" since the total energy of the universe is still 0 ).

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 10:11:59 2016 No.8436317
File: 141 KB, 1280x720, 1336008982495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8430254
Simple, what is currently happenning to Humanity : subhumanisation through migratory replacement of high-intelligence groups by low-intelligence groups resulting in the probably permanent collapse of technological civilisation, following shortly ( in the grand scheme of things ) by >>8436286

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 13:07:11 2016 No.8436560
File: 67 KB, 414x248, 1452705807730.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8436129
>Shielding just means ya gotta make it bigger with more fuel, and thus bigger still.

The fuel expenditure is EXPONENTIAL. Hence the issue.

>But for a sufficiently advanced civ, better materials, more advanced electronics, and better fuel efficiency negates all that. Particularly so, if they're capable of building embryonic colonizers.

I keep hearing this word "advanced" thrown around with technology like technology is magic and advancement can continue forever. Sorry but newsflash for yah buddy but we are already a few hundred years from total technological stagnation due to reaching the limits of material and computer science. Also more advanced technologies are not fit for long term space travel. Chips built on smaller manufacturing processes are more prone to damage by radiation and more complicated systems have more failure points. Trust me when i say the LAST thing you want to do when making something that needs to function for 200+ years is make it more complicated.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 13:44:44 2016 No.8436634
File: 99 KB, 634x466, john_snow2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8436560
Even with the materials we have today, it'd be possible, it's only that we can't mass produce a lot of those materials, and thus you'd end up having to dedicate the entire species to the task.

Another, more forward thinking and better united species, might actually do that. And we're not all that far off from being capable of changing, at the genetic level, what kind of species we are.

Plus, unless your a patent clerk from 1899, we're nowhere near our technological peek, having just really started it less than two centuries years ago, and we're talking of hypothetical civilizations that may have been going through that same process for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years.

As opposed to us, who invented the steam engine just centuries ago, just realized the possibility of life on other planets even more recently, and even today, can't figure out how, even in theory, how exactly 95% of the universe actually operates.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 13:50:03 2016 No.8436639 >>8430254 The most plausible solution is that we're alone in the universe.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 14:32:39 2016 No.8436746
File: 62 KB, 414x248, 172601248414x21w2zh5al.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8436634
Materials can only be made so strong and computers so fast. We are rapidly approaching the limits of what can be done and we are already seeing diminishing returns.

I am not saying interstellar space travel is impossible. On the contrary it could have been done with 1980s tech if the species as a whole had the will to do so. I am just saying that interstellar space travel is a lot more dangerous, slow, expensive, and simpler than people seem to think it is.

The tech and industrial capacity is there and has been for a while. We need only the will to do it.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 15:24:06 2016 No.8436842

>>8436746
We're still on binary silicon chips, so we're nowhere near reaching actual diminishing returns on computing technology, despite the hubbub of a few, and there's materials vastly more light and durable than what we use, that are all within our bag of tricks, just not at a cost effective rate.

Although you're more optimistic than I am, if you think we could pull interstellar travel in our lifetimes just with sheer force of will under our current technology, much less than with that from forty years ago. I mean, yes, we have some of the materials that'd make it possible, but the effort would take thousands of years at the rate we can currently produce them. So yes, space travel is hard, no one's denying that.

But, under the Fermi paradox model, it only takes one species to pull it off, and the whole galaxy should be full of them in short order (at least short in relative terms to set next to the time the galaxy has been capable of sustaining life), and there's been enough time and enough planets in this galaxy for millions of civilizations such as ours to rise and fall. Thus the conundrum.

Though I'm still in the camp that says that any species that felt the need to colonize the entire galaxy, would never last long enough to get the chance to do so. Thus, there may be immortal interstellar civilizations out there, but each would only be occupying a handful of worlds, each using so little energy that they'd be impossible to detect.

...or, yeah, intelligent life as we know it is just rare as fuck.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 15:38:09 2016 No.8436857
File: 65 KB, 421x248, 173109bmrkxk5eb5ebd2dx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8436842
Civilizations at our tech level are undetectable from 4 light years away with our current tech. We have already reached the limits for a interstellar capable computer (IE something that could survive operating in 200 years of hard radiation). Smaller more complicated chips simply couldn't survive the crucible of a unshielded interstellar space travel. Also what reason would a species have to waste the enormous resources is would take to colonize more than a few nearby stars? That would be illogical.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 15:57:28 2016 No.8436892

>>8436857
Better fuel, better materials, allows more shielding, allowing even smaller computers... And we're still not near the limits even if we had to use the larger ones, as they are still simple binary transistor stacks. You could, theoretically, get even more computing power using even larger components, in the same space, it's simply no one's ever had the need to invest in that effort beyond a few hobbyist demonstrations.

I agree it's illogical to colonize more than a few stars (although you wouldn't necessarily want them near each other, depending on where you were situated), thus the primary motivation behind the paradox is flawed. Our current civilization, however, is built on the presumption of infinite growth, and most of the sci-fi stories that arose during the same time as Fermi's paradox, imagined us going from planet to planet and just forever expanding the population, filling each as we went. I suspect, the truth is, if you can't abandon that model on your homeworld, your population is doomed to never reach the stars.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 17:20:10 2016 No.8437047

>>8432013
>>8432554
It's not a choice. You won't get to partake of robotic immortality; a clone of you will. Do you think that when you get uploaded your body will stop being able to produce your consciousness?

Do y'all, low-key, believe in souls? I hope they exist as well.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 19:50:55 2016 No.8437288

Curiously browsing /sci/ here.
I've been wondering for awhile now "When is the earliest life could have started?".
I know that for a long time after the big bang the was only hydrogen. Gravity caused clouds of hydrogen to form stars which went supernova which produced clouds with more chemical elements such as helium which gravity collapsed into second generation stars. Those second generation stars exploded and produced further more chemical elements and so on in further generation stars until there was finally enough elements for life to form. So when is the earliest that life could have formed?

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:06:31 2016 No.8437310
File: 18 KB, 421x248, 172607m6cfjbhxvbbf6792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8436892
>Better fuel, better materials
There is a limit to the efficiency of external pulsed plasma propulsion and fusion rockets. Die stacking mite be able to net you core 2 duo performance at best. The only way to get more than that is parallel computing which again = more weight = more complexity. Personally i would rather use that weight on system redundancy. IMO systems should be as operationally isolated from each other as possible to limit domino failures. Mission critical electronic components should be encased in lead sarcophagi and filled with dielectric grease.

If your goal for interstellar space colonization is population control then you have another thing coming. It would be impossible to send more than a few frozen adult individuals. The vast majority of these colonizers will have to be frozen embryos.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:15:04 2016 No.8437333 >>8431115 feels

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:18:21 2016 No.8437335

>>8437310
>There is a limit to the efficiency of external pulsed plasma propulsion and fusion rockets.
The efficiency, even for such primitive methods - and indeed, even more primitive ones, is well within bounds, provided you're willing to take the time and effort to use the materials being discussed - at which point, you clearly aren't in a hurry anyways.

>If your goal for interstellar space colonization is population control
What? No... That would be retarded... Weren't we discussing embryonic colonizers? How does that help in any way?

I'm saying you have to get a cap on your resource usage before you can begin to start colonizing other worlds, and if you don't, you won't get off your planet before you use it up or destroy it. Particularly if you end up inventing biological immortality, as if you don't manage to put in a population cap at that point, you're obviously fucked in very short order. ...And, at the pace we're going, we're very much likely to have biological immortality (or at least extraordinary longevity) well before we colonize anything in this solar system, let alone another.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:30:23 2016 No.8437352

>>8437335
Not that Anon, but with biological immortality or extraordinary longevity (Which within this century a form of these will happen).

Would've been cap their population, and the amount of people born will drop. (Mostly in 1st world countries and countries that have these people)

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:37:29 2016 No.8437360

>>8437288
There's been some more recent theories that say life could have started as early as 15 million years after the big bang, and may have even been more common, at that time, as there would have been a lot of large rocks in habitable zones, being warmed less by the stars they were orbiting, and more by the cosmic microwave background.

But, when it comes to our galaxy in particular, it's estimated that the Earth maybe in the first 8% of Earth like planets to form within it... Though that'd still likely mean millions, some estimates guessing a hundreds of millions of them, and some saying as many as 60 billion habitable worlds, over the past few billion years.

It's hard to tell though, as we don't know all that much about how life forms, only about what our particular carbon based life forms need to survive, and even that knowledge keeps getting tossed in the trash, every time we find yet another species using no sunlight, no oxygen, or no water, and/or thriving in ludicrously low (or more often) ludicrously hot temperatures, and ridiculously high pressure levels (there being, apparently, entire ecosystems beyond even the challenger depth).

Plus, we keep finding that there's a hell of a lot more planets than we ever expected there would be, even within the pathetically short range at which we can detect them.

So in the end, we don't really fucking know.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 20:52:28 2016 No.8437385

>>8437352
>Mostly in 1st world countries and countries that have these people
Well, that's simply because we wound up setting up a situation where women have to have careers to survive, and thus having children is no longer beneficial, economically, to any party involved. It's a dicey cultural solution - particularly so, as it's detrimental to the nations suffering the population loss. (As, under this same setup, when your aging and infirm population outnumbers your younger work force, you're collectively economically fucked.)

And a population that's only capped due to reaching its maxim - and is thus starving to death - isn't exactly in a position to go roaming across the stars. You have to have an excess of resources to do that, rather than having them already stretched beyond their limits. ...Not that, despite what some alarmists say, we're anywhere near that, yet, but it's what we're aiming for, almost as a matter of principle.

I assume a population that does invent biological immortality, or close to, will put a population cap on itself. Just pointing out how utterly fucked it would be if it didn't. It'd require a radical 180 in cultural norms for us, and if we didn't manage to execute that U turn in short order, we'd be really lucky to get off this rock before the next cosmic or terrestrial sneeze killed us all for good, given the dark age that would follow.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 21:14:03 2016 No.8437418

>>8437385
What are you talking about?

All the birth rates in 1st world countries are in the negative from the nations of Europe to US, Canada, Jpn, Kor, Aus, and etc.

A population cap would be easy, and not that much of a problem especially since the world's population is suppose to smooth and then drop. Not too mention living an any form of life extension wouldn't make people want to bang or keeping have children.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 21:40:45 2016 No.8437468

>>8437418
...But they are only dropping for the aforementioned cultural reasons, and only in the first world.

And thus, most of the first world, in a desperate effort to stave off the inevitable disastrous economic consequences of that, in addition to risking becoming less relevant on the world stage as a result, are pulling in immigrants in droves.

Under this world economic system, a population cap would be disastrous for any given nation. And, in fact, some of the more powerful emerging nations, are only such, because of the shear economic clout their shear population size grants them. China and India, for instance, would be completely irrelevant, if their populations were measured in the 10's of millions. ...And even China is looking back upon their former population control efforts, and feeling really stupid, as they are going to be the source of most of their economic pain.

So, given this economic reality, the only population control that's going to really happen, is going to be of the sort that's extremely unplanned, and extremely painful, and the last nation that suffers from it, wins.

Thus you'd need some real modifications to fundamental human values before you could reliably put in any sort of population control - likely of the sort of nightmarish change the NWO tinfoils go on about. Which is a large part as to why those conspiracies hold so much fascination and generate so much fear - the fact that they may actually be logically necessary. The reality is, however, no nation wants to surrender its sovereignty nor its advantages, in order to aid the species as a whole, each looking unto itself as a separate animal, vying for its position in a dog eat dog world.

Setting a population cap under those conditions is far from easy - indeed, it's pretty much impossible. The entire world wide economic system would need to change beyond all recognition, before you could even consider trying it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 22:28:41 2016 No.8437555 >>8437468 Not really all you need to do is colonize the shitty parts of the world, and raise their standard of living. Or create large proxy wars. Either one will work.

Anonymous Tue Oct 25 23:39:17 2016 No.8437695

>>8437360
>life could have started as early as 15 million years after the big bang
Interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
>the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

>300ka - 150Ma The time between recombination and the formation of the first stars. During this time, the only radiation emitted was the hydrogen line. The chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a "habitable epoch" when the Universe was only 10-17 million years old.[

>The period of large-scale structure formation, including stellar evolution, galaxy formation and evolution and the formation of galaxy clusters and superclusters, from about 150 million years

>The first stars, most likely Population III stars, form and start the process of turning the light elements that were formed in the Big Bang into heavier elements.
>observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation can be used to date when star formation began in earnest. Analysis of such observations made by the European Space Agency's Planck telescope concludes that the first generation of stars lit up 560 million years after the Big Bang.

>The thin disk of our galaxy began to form at about 5 billion years. The solar system formed at about 4.6 billion years ago, with the earliest traces of life on Earth emerging by about 3.5 billion years ago.

>The "Dark Ages" span a period during which the temperature of cosmic background radiation cooled from some 4000 K down to about 60 K. The background temperature was between 373 K and 273 K, allowing the possibility of liquid water, during a period of about 7 million years, from about 10 to 17 million after the Big Bang. Loeb (2014) speculated that primitive life might in principle have appeared during this window, which he called "the Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe".

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 25 23:41:29 2016 No.8437696 >>8437360 >>8437695 So, how could the chemical elements for life exist before even the first generation stars began to form?? I thought the chemicals for life didnt form until the second generation stars.

Anonymous Wed Oct 26 00:23:23 2016 No.8437772

>>8437695
>>8437696
The theory goes that, despite the general lack of stars, lots of islands of fused matter none-the-less existed...

http://www.space.com/24496-universe-alien-life-habitability-big-bang.html

But yes, it's one of those "weird" theories.

Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:19:41 2016 No.8437867

>>8437696
I'd assume that any alien life would emerge at roughly the same time after the big bang, +/- a billion years maybe.

I guess it'd be a matter of evolution then, some species out there just evolved in a million years to intelligent life rather than the blistering slow rate we evolved at.

Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:26:29 2016 No.8437880

>>8437867
Thats another thing I was wondering. We are probably completely average in the sense that there are alien civilizations and we and them, on average, started about the same time and are about the same level of current development and had about the same historical challenges and setbacks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:36:01 2016 No.8437897 >>8430254 The correct answer >>8433639 A paradox is not something to be solved per se. Rather, when a series of arguments results in a paradox, it is an indication that one or more of the arguments are fallacious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:40:39 2016 No.8437906 >>8437880 Not to mention earth had to have a second go at producing intelligent life. It took a bloody asteroid to do it right, fuckin dinosaurs took a couple hundred million years out of our potential range

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:47:06 2016 No.8437912 But maybe thats average in the sense that on average about the same thing happened on other planets with life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 01:51:16 2016 No.8437920 >>8437906 But the dinosaurs were pretty cool, Anon. You have to give Earth that first go a great applause.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 02:01:12 2016 No.8437938 Like Schrödinger's cat, the Fermi paradox took on a life of its own as a popsci meme because many ignorants didn't notice that it was meant as a joke.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 02:11:10 2016 No.8437959 File: 31 KB, 400x309, d95649f34104050650e7fefb31261ff7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8437920 Kill all zeh dinosaurs

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 13:19:10 2016 No.8438610 >>8430261 >Fermi's Paradox There might be alien life that is invulnerable to nuclear radiation thus nukes wont do shit to them. Nukes are only problem because the radiation makes our cells go haywire.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 26 13:34:28 2016 No.8438620 File: 1.54 MB, 1278x716, The_Ricks_Must_be_Crazy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8430278 You have been watching too much Rick and Morty.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 08:30:14 2016 No.8440288 >>8430316 >you can create a universe within a universe fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 08:31:20 2016 No.8440289 >>8430408 >we dont know What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 08:33:44 2016 No.8440290 >>8430254 this is simple: autodestruction, constant expandind universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 08:35:05 2016 No.8440293 >>8430460 >I don't know about plausibility ... nor anything else.

Anonymous Thu Oct 27 15:38:11 2016 No.8440875

>>8430254
>What is the most plausible solution to Fermi's Paradox?

I ALREADY TOLD YOU MOTHERFUCKERS THIS ONCE.

NO-ONE IS DUMB ENOUGH TO BROADCAST THEIR GALACTIC LOCATION BY CASTING NON-DIRECTIONAL RADIO WAVES INTO THE COSMOS JUST TO SEND JEWISH PROPAGANDA TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET.

(except humans)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 22:00:19 2016 No.8441564 >>8430254 http://phys.org/news/2010-09-variations-fine-structure-constant-laws-physics.html Take a wild guess...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 22:04:47 2016 No.8441569 >>8435442 >transhumanism >natural evolution of every species >trans"human"ism Okay then mister expert on all xenobiology, where are the aliens at?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 22:16:23 2016 No.8441582 >>8436746 What sort of computer, electrical and life support systems are on the horizon for interstellar travel?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 27 22:20:49 2016 No.8441592 >>8430299 But how did they protect their physical location from scum civilization like ours who may do them harm accidentally or intentionally? Or even from random acts of the universe like asteroids and meteors

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 28 03:24:16 2016 No.8442108 >>8430278 A civ would collapse and die before it could colonize an entire galaxy or solar system for that matter. I dont think you fully understand time. The universe is a massive place far bigger than you can imagine.

Anonymous Fri Oct 28 03:55:49 2016 No.8442128
File: 181 KB, 640x390, AIDS-dreamstime-A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just think of the fucking chances that the exact molecules collide in the right way in the right environment enough times and in the perfect way to create a fucking complex prokaryote?

The statistical probability of that is being severely under looked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 28 03:55:58 2016 No.8442129 File: 108 KB, 461x403, dunnuhnuhnuh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 28 04:19:50 2016 No.8442147

>>8430278
If nature is not fundamentally mathematical and just has some mathematical aspects in it - then there's a wall all civilizations will hit where no discoveries or break troughs can be reached.

That would be the case if we're inside a simulation or if consciousness play an important role in this universe and what's around is either an actualization by consciousness or evolution process was guided by it to create the perfect vessel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzVRKrJik3U

Anonymous Fri Oct 28 04:22:25 2016 No.8442149

>>8442128
According to quantum principles mere observation of our past - such as evolutionary processes change that, the fact that you are human today actualizes all possible casual events required for you to exist in past and both it and the future are ocean of probabilities.

Maybe it's just some complex algorithm inside a complex machine we cannot comprehend that simulates a form of 4d non-euclidean mathematical space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 28 04:24:24 2016 No.8442154 >>8442149 what

Anonymous Fri Oct 28 05:49:12 2016 No.8442204

>>8437938
It's not a joke. Even if we remained at this technological level colonizing our galaxy is theoretically possible in the time frame of a couple of million years. Building a generation ship is not impossible. If humanity would invest its military expenditures into space travel (around 2 trillion/year), im fairly sure we could send a generation ship on its way every couple of decades. So why is Galaxy not already colonized?

1. Intelligent life is extremely rare. We are the only one or almost the only one in the whole galaxy and the others are also not around long enough to have colonized the galaxy

2. Intelligent life is not rare, but at some point civilizations dont feel the desire to spread

3. Intelligent life is not rare, but there is a great filter that stops civilizations in spreading. Meaning, we could build a couple of generation ships right now, but this will mean nothing if we dont keep doing it for millenias. And it is a very real possibility that humanity might die out in the coming millenia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 28 06:50:38 2016 No.8442254 >>8442204 I would eliminate 2 entirely.

Anonymous Sat Oct 29 01:28:01 2016 No.8443732

>>8442204
2 is by far the most likely of these answers. It is illogical to send more than a few out to ensure the survival of the species as there is absolutely no return investment and the cost are enormous. Way more enormous than you seem to think they are.

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