>The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations. The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:
>The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
Almost surely, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.
According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence (see Empirical resolution attempts) elsewhere have yet been spotted in our galaxy or (to the extent it would be detectable) elsewhere in the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"
I think we vastly overestimate the probability of the evolution if human level *intelligent* life. We only have Earth's life for data, but we also have about 4 billion years of that data. I think intelligent life is extremely rare for the following reasons:
- Unintelligent life is usually more successful than intelligent life. In terms of biomass, plants, single celled organisms, and arthropods are a huge portion of Earth's life. They are extremely stupid creatures, but they dominate the biosphere.
- Intelligent life has a short, mostly unsuccessful history on Earth. Cetaceans, primates, and cephalopods are not that successful in terms of the number of species that have survived for very long. Cephalopods are the most successful intelligent life form in Earth's history in terms of the longevity of the genus, but they have not produce any language or technology beyond extremely simple tools. Cetaceans do not have hand like limbs, so they could never make sophisticated tools and they evolved from unsophisticated quadrapedal mammals that would never develop technology on land. Of these three groups, two of them are extremely recent in Earth's history. Homo sapiens is the only species of these three groups to have developed true language and sophisticated technology, so even if life is intelligent it seems unlikely that it develops language and tools.
- Many of the planets that support life will be completely covered in water, making it almost impossible for intelligent life to develop sophisticated technology.
To summarize, being small, unintelligent, and simple is the most successful evolutionary strategy in the history of life on Earth, and it is completely incompatible with being intelligent. Intelligence is only favoured by natural selection under very strange circumstances, and even then intelligence often does not progress to the point at which language and sophisticated tools develop.
>Many of the planets that support life will be completely covered in water, making it almost impossible for intelligent life to develop sophisticated technology.
Explain? I don't understand how being underwater would necessarily be bad for extraterrestrial life.
How do you even begin to study electronic circuits in salt water? How do you observe the stars if you're thousands of metres below the surface of an ocean on a planet that is constantly cloudy because of all of the water vapour from the mega ocean?
How do you build any of this stuff if you have flippers instead of hands?
The most intelligent creature that could evolve on a water world would be something like a giant octopus, which has a life-span of about 8 years. That's not enough time to pass on sophisticated culture to the next generation.
I'm not buying it. Water vapor/clouds might block what we call visible light but they are transparent at many other wavelengths.
And you can't talk about electronic circuits and hands as if they're the only ways to build an advanced technological civilization, because there are simply millions of alternatives. I think your approach is too close-minded and assumes extraterrestrial civilizations are very similar to human ones.
Aquatic creatures would have similar eyes to the aquatic life here on Earth. Their eyes would be more sensitive to whichever light was not filtered out by their ocean. On Earth, the red end of the Sun's spectrum gets filtered out, so fish are more sensitive to blue and green.
Also, radio waves do not travel well through ocean water, so how would this civilization develop a means of communicating with us?
I do know that an advanced technological civilization cannot be built with flippers.
You don't seem to understand the question in the OP either. Answering the Fermi paradox requires you to state why you think we have not seen intelligent life. You have to account for its rarity. So far you have just argued that it is more common than I think, which does not explain why we see no evidence of intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.
My guess would be that there may be at most one extraterrestrial civilization per galaxy, or even per galaxy cluster. It may very well be that we are alone in the universe. The evidence so far seems to suggest this.
Also, keep in mind that it is miraculous we survived as long as we did. It required several extinction events, and outright serendipity (in terms of being in the right place at the right time) for us to have survived, not to mention developing cities, agriculture, and modern technology. It is also miraculous that we haven't wiped ourselves out, since we very well have the tools to do so, and apocalyptic wordviews have always been quite in fashion.
My biggest bet is that we still haven't received radio signal from afar. Even if we had actively listened to radio and searched for AYY LMAOs for 100=200 years it's still a piss in the cosmic ocean
No. If intelligence exists anywhere else in our galaxy it vastly increases the chances of us finding it because of its radio waves, Von Neuman probes, or structures in space. It would only take a few million years for Von Neuman probes to travel across our galaxy and only thousands of years for radio waves to reach us. As far as light waves are concerned, our galaxy is really not that big.
This is not an answer to the Fermi paradox.
It's not an answer but it implies that we don't have enough data to give an answer
If we had listened for 1 mil years and found nothing than it would have been a mystery, now we are just sitting in a closet in our home, wondering whether other people exist outside, considering no one knocked on our door
I really think the Wow signal was a false positive. It is bound to happen at least once in decades of data collection. We have received nothing like it since.
I disagree. There is no reason to think that 50 to 100 years of data is not long enough. Why would there be radio silence in our galaxy for 50 years, but not for 1 million years? Again, this requires uniformity of alien culture and motives that is extremely unlikely.
The general rough answer to the drake equation of 10,000 civilizations in our galaxy is, if you ask me, optimistic. However I do still believe there are multiple civilizations per galaxy. The likelihood is that very few of these overlap in time, meaning as one civ goes extinct another one is just beginning to begin, so it's unlikely that they would communicate. However I like to believe that the galaxy is huge enough for there to still be a couple of civs knocking around at the same time. Finding evidence of them should be one of humanity's great long term goals.
>There is no reason to think that 50 to 100 years of data is not long enough
it would be enough if there are wide range of species chatting all over the galaxy
Considering that's most likely not the case (at our present time, during billions of years maybe there indeed were shitload of species out there), we can suspect there are only a handful of species
Now, i'm no way near an expert but can someone explain how radio waves travel in space, do you need to point a wave or all waves travel at same strength in 3d like waves in pool when rock is thrown?
Radio waves emit in all directions from their source. A biological species could easily build many radio satellites that could orbit a start and transmit for billions of years, continuously, without any biological input.
War, disease, over population, any number of astrophysical catastrophes. Humanity are getting to a stage where disease and food are less of a problem but we're a long way off protecting ourselves from a gamma ray burst or even our own nuclear weapons.
Not him, but a few ideas
Natural Disaster (See the extinction of the Dinosaurs)
Internal Struggles (Perhaps they had a massive civil war that wiped out their civilization)
External Struggles (War with another civilization)
You'd also need to define exactly what an "advanced" civilization is
No because the direction it reaches you from is the direction it originated from. Imagine an expanding bubble. If the bubble approaches you and touches you, you know that the bubble came from a direction.
>War, disease, over population,
Our civilization is not very advanced (~4 generations of space travel), but we are already set to defeat all three of these things this century if trends continue.
Nuclear war and war in general is very unlikely. Gamma ray bursts are dangerous, but once a civilization gets beyond one star system they are unlikely to cause extinction.
>Natural Disaster (See the extinction of the Dinosaurs)
>Internal Struggles (Perhaps they had a massive civil war that wiped out their civilization)
>External Struggles (War with another civilization)
Unlikely. for reasons explained above. As for the 3rd one, any civilization that makes it into space has to be non-violent enough to not destroy itself, so I doubt it would go to war with others, especially in a vast galaxy where there is enough to go around for everyone.
This has never really happened in Earth's history. There have been regional setbacks, but the general trend has always been towards more sophistication, interconnectivity, and progress.
Read the Wow signal article.
They are already here but you can't have a reasonable discussion about the evidence for this claim without "ayy lmao" instant dismissal.
Also, Prime Directive-type prohibition on interfering with lesser civilizations.
Everyone arguing about radio signals is assuming that intelligent civilizations would even use radio for more than a century or two. Something involving quantum entaglement would be far superior for interstellar communications.
My bet is that most civilizations destroy themselves shortly after they gain the ability to destroy themselves, likely through nukes, resource wars, or general technological upheaval. A society that has the resources, energy, and capability necessary to become a spacefaring civilization or even just get to the astrophysical astronomy stage of development tends to have the energy and organization needed to sabotage the long-term development of their race.
It's basically a miracle that we've survived the past century reasonably intact and I don't think it's rare that other societies in the universe can't make it past this point.
Yeah I did mention we were overcoming a lot of things, but you have to be realistic when it comes to natural disaster. I'd say we're 100-200 years off being very safe to predictable disasters. We're mapping asteroids and will soon be able to redirect them. We have a good understanding of geological disasters and can prepare for them. However, large scale or unpredictable disasters are always going to be a threat. Don't get me wrong, I'm an optimistic person, but we're probably not going to be capable of interstellar travel for hundreds of years so living off-world is a long way off yet.
No. It's correct. We have only touched space, not really gone into it. The furthest we have sent people is the Moon.
If we were at perpetual nuclear war we would not be able to get anything done in space.
>They are already here but you can't have a reasonable discussion about the evidence for this claim without "ayy lmao" instant dismissal.
There is no evidence for this.
>Also, Prime Directive-type prohibition on interfering with lesser civilizations.
Uniform motives, discussed previously in the thread. Even in the Startrek universe the prime directive was not universal. The Founders of the Dominion actively sought out and enslaved primitive species instead of leaving them alone.
>Everyone arguing about radio signals is assuming that intelligent civilizations would even use radio for more than a century or two. Something involving quantum entaglement would be far superior for interstellar communications.
Radio signals would still be useful even if they were not the main form of communication. Also, all forms of superluminal communication are not regarded as plausible by the scientific community.
>The scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible and to date superluminal communication has not been achieved in any experiment.
>This has never really happened in Earth's history
Explains all the trinkets that have recently been found that are causing people to seriously reevaluate the capabilities of our ancestors. This cannot be stated with strong confidence.
That's a very ethnocentric way of looking at it. Perhaps mechanical technology wouldn't be the path they take. What about bio-technology? Culturing or growing their tools instead of building them? Some ocean going animals have claws or manipulators, not all have flippers. And what's not to say that some other functional morphology could develop?
It is doubtful our way is the only way.
Personally I lean towards the 'solution' of the 'phase transition' model of the universe. Mainly because of Gamma Ray bursts throughout the universe which would destroy any developed or undeveloped life it came across. There are some theories postulating that these bursts become less and less common as the Universe ages, so it might be possible we're at the start (give or take a billion years) of a period when the Universe allows for the extended development of life.
If you're interested... In particular check out the section on "Rate of occurrence and potential effects on life on Earth".
Another that's interesting to think about... Is if there's a predatory species out there, and it is actually very unwise of us to broadcast information on our location and civilization. If habitable worlds are so rare, Earth would be quite a prize.
>As for the 3rd one, any civilization that makes it into space has to be non-violent enough to not destroy itself, so I doubt it would go to war with others, especially in a vast galaxy where there is enough to go around for everyone.
This is slightly naive.
You've seen how mindless people are, I mean look at what happened last week. We managed to land on a Comet, and yet we still have people blowing each other up for belief differences in the Middle East.
How can you say for sure that a space-faring nation wouldn't want to go to war? Perhaps their planet is running out of resources and they need to find some more? Perhaps their planet is getting over populated and they need find another home? Perhaps there's a civilization that's maybe 'evil' enough to destroy and conquer all life it comes across. And you can easily find parallels from the previous situations which ones that have happened on Earth
>This has never really happened in Earth's history.
So because it didn't happen in Earth's history, it can never happen? Mars has lost it's atmosphere, yet Earth can never lose it, since it's never happened in Earth's histroy before?
A planet can't get "absorbed" by a Red Gian Sun because Earth never got absorbed by a Red Giant?
Man could never sent someone to the Moon because it never happened
Man will never send someone to Mars because they've never done it before.
That's how silly you argument sounds
Dozens of declassified documents, hundreds of credible high-ranking military witnesses, multiple intelligence agency witnesses, many defence contractor witnesses, many videos that remain to be debunked, physical evidence from alleged landing sites. I could go on. The evidence is staggering if you actually take the time to look into it.
The arrogance of the scientific establishment is staggering to me. "We can't do it right now therefore it is impossible"
Thank you for being a fellow believer anon. You seem to have looked into it about the same amount that I have. Ever seen Sirius Disclosure? Could you recommend any video or literary materials to me? Thanks
That's a Eurocentric example. Asia and the Americas continued to progress all through that time period. Look at Earth as a whole, not as Europe + everything else.
>That's a very ethnocentric way of looking at it.
Is this a typo? "ethnocentric" makes no sense in this context.
The once with claws are arthropods, and they are small and dumb. "Biological technology" would take millions of years, and it would not give you nuclear reactors or rockets.
>It is doubtful our way is the only way.
Actually, our way is probably very close to being the only way. Billions of other ways have been tried on Earth and none of them produced civilization.
Gamma rays are not dangerous once you're in a few star systems. It would make no sense to predate on planets since habitable planets are probably extremely common. Kepler found 2 last year. Advanced civilizations could also make dead planets habitable.
>How can you say for sure that a space-faring nation wouldn't want to go to war?
The more advanced a civilization is, the fewer casualties it has from war. If you have the technology to make nukes, you have the diplomacy to not use them. If you have spears, your diplomacy is as primitive as those spears and there will be tons of blood shed.
>yet Earth can never lose it, since it's never happened in Earth's histroy before?
No. Earth will not lose its atmosphere because Earth has enough gravity to hold onto it for as long as the Sun stays about as warm as it is now, which is a few billion more years.
>A planet can't get "absorbed" by a Red Gian Sun because Earth never got absorbed by a Red Giant?
This comment is just dumb. Earth will be absorbed by a red giant eventually. If a planet is in a dwarf star system then it will never be absorbed by a red giant.
You are a troll. Please get out of my thread.
Even if some life evolved to be at least as intelligent as humans then that's not enough for civilization.
For example pretend that dolphins are more intelligent than humans, they can still never create a civilization because they have no hands or similar with sensitive digits.
Also, even if they had that there's a lack of materials like wood in the ocean and they could surely never melt metals.
They would probably have a heightened spirituality that views different forms of intelligent life to be a "god send", so to speak. After all, if you don't believe in creationism, we are all made of the same star stuff
Why do you think they're arrogant? Just because the consensus is that superluminal communications are impossible doesn't mean the consensus wouldn't change if sufficient evidence was provided. That's why there are scientists all over the world repeatedly doing these quantum entanglement experiments.
I'm sure the majority of them would have an appreciation for what is rare, as that is biologically selected for. Humans and other animals enjoy experiencing rarity. We can assume that it's likely aliens would see like as something worth preserving, as if they didn't then they would likely have fucked up their own planet and not got into space.
Sirius is good but it didn't focus enough on the available evidence. If you like Dr. Greer's approach, you should look at the Citizen's Disclosure videos, where they had their most credible witnesses testify to a panel of current and former Senators. It was a mock Congressional Committee with the aim of garnering support for a real one and there's a week's worth of presentation of documents and witnesses testimony to be had. The ufotv channel on youtube has a few good gems but is mostly the kind of unscientific and childish crap that inspires the "ayy lmao" crowd.
If you are interested in government documents, most BRICS countries have released their files, though English translations are hard to find. The UK has also released some of theirs. The French defense agency released their COMETA report recently as well, which talks about how they dealt the the phenomena from a national security perspective.
No. You asked for opinions on the fermi paradox. I gave mine.
it's not a paradox. to assume that the first thing a civilization with interstellar capabilities does is colonizing the galaxy is arrogantly stupid. we don't know anything about the philosophy of such a civilization.
I think if evidence for superluminal communication came forward it still wouldn't change. The academic community, in my opinion, has become pretty dogmatic and hostile toward new ideas. Anything that doesn't fit the determinist or materialist philosophy or seems to contradict established theories or laws is dismissed out of hand rather than investigated
>Is this a typo? "ethnocentric" makes no sense
>The once with claws are arthropods...
I used 'ethnocentric' simply because "anthrocentric" is not a real term, but it works in this context. We haven't advanced very far in biotech as compared to industrial tech... Often times naturally developed biological mechanisms are far superior in efficiency to the mechanical systems we develop. Seems pretty arrogant to say there's no other ways other than what we have when we still know so little. There are unknown unknowns out there, not just known unknowns. Saying we've tried a billion ways is a gross overestimate, and it just means that the way we've tried them haven't worked, not that they are 100% failures in all cases.
Life could develop very differently on a different world with different environmental conditions and selective pressures. Perhaps an arthropod like morphology could develop intelligence. That's where the ethno/anthro-centric term comes in. We have it, and that's what we've used, so we believe that there can't possibly be another way. We only know it this one way, so it's hard for us to imagine another way. How often in the past has the scientific community believed something to be concrete fact that turns out to be utterly wrong a century later?
>Gamma rays not dangerous in multiple stars
Some gamma ray bursts are large enough to encompass entire sections of a galaxy, but they are rare. Also, seeing as we still haven't made it to several star systems, we're still vulnerable to a mass extinction event, such as Gamma Ray, or asteroids. Might be a part of the "Great Filter" hypothesis...maybe very few species make it to multiple star systems before a extinction event.
You still need places to mine resources, get supplies, and at least in our culture, we certainly like to make vacation spots. If we achieve interstellar travel, how likely do you think the human race will be to just pass by a habitable planet like Earth as we go?
>I used 'ethnocentric' simply because "anthrocentric" is not a real term, but it works in this context.
No it does not. Crabs and humans are different species, not different ethnicities.
Arthropods are size limited and stupid. I doubt anything like them would ever develop intelligence.
Asteroids are not dangerous. we can already land space craft on them.
In all of Earth's history, there has only been one extinction even that a tiny minority of scientists think was caused by a gamma ray burst. They do not seem like a likely filter.
Fermi's paradox is just proposed to ask questions, not to answer them. Similar to Olbers' paradox of the 19th century. We've since answered Olbers' paradox and have yet to answer Fermi's...
The most likely answer? Space is cold, empty, and dead. Other alternatives? They're coming. More alternatives? They like abducting cows and rednecks.
>No it does not. Crabs and humans...
Earth-centric, anthro-centric, whatever you want to call it, it's a perspective where it is assumed that the way we do things is the only correct, or possible way because that is the only way we currently know.
>Arthropods are size limited and stupid
Yes, the arthropods TODAY are. In the Carboniferous there were much larger arthropods, due to an excess of oxygen in the atmosphere. And >I doubt anything like them would ever develop intelligence. this is what I am talking about in terms of arrogance. What facts do you base that doubt on? This doubt is based off the assumption that you know everything about arthropods and their possible morphologies in every environment they can occur in. That is arrogance, because humanity doesn't know everything about arthropods, or every possible environment they can develop in, or every effect these environments can have on them. Besides, you're being intentionally dense. Arthropods are only one group. There are others that could produce intelligence. Diapsid reptiles are a possibility, and there's even evidence of intelligence developing in them (See Troodon) before an Asteroid cut them down. There could be morphologies, or groups of life that could not develop under Earth conditions. Again, it's arrogant to think the only way intelligence can develop is very similar or the same as us, when we have only one experiment to base that on.
>Asteroids are not dangerous.
Tell that to the K/T extinction. Asteroids could be dangers to life on other planets, as we see it has been in our past.
>In all of Earth's history, there has only been...
Ok, but with the Fermi Paradox we're looking at a galactic or universal scale, not just Earth, but all habitable planets that life could develop, on a time span that exceeds Earth's. When we have data on gamma ray effects on many planets and the development of life, that we can make interpretations on whether or not Gamma Rays are a factor.
>how likely do you think the human race will be to just pass by a habitable planet like Earth as we go?
Why would they destroy Humanity? They could just buy us off with technology.
If they're capable of interstellar of technology,they would reason with humans.
>cows and rednecks
They are just trying to familiarize themselves with what they observe as leaders of Eastern and Western cultures, respectively.
>Why would they destroy Humanity?
Because Humanity often adopts that approach, right? Why buy off what you can take for free? You're assuming that other intelligent life has the same ethical dilemmas that we do. Maybe this other species encounters intelligent life all the time, we may not seem that special, just a space booney with some good resources. We see how oil companies/countries treat everyone fair when they find resources they want on other people's land, right?
>If they're capable of interstellar of tech...
Ok Carl Sagan... What exactly do you base this statement on? Why do you assume that if another species has achieved interstellar travel, it will reason with us or treat us fairly? At least in our experience, more advanced cultures often look down on more primitive ones and exploit them. See Native Americans and most of the African continent. Maybe that's just humans, but we have no reason to believe that all other life be altruistic just because they are more advanced.
We can certainly hope they are... Because that would be awesome, to have two intelligent species working together in a fair and reasonable manner. It just seems unlikely based off our own experience.
That's not even mentioning the fact that we may not even be able to communicate or understand each other.
Hey man, you have a VERY narrow and anthropocentric idea of what constitutes "intelligence" and "technology".
Considering how difficult is for us just to understand the language and intelligence of *other humans*, let alone other terrestial life forms, I think the most likely "solution" to the Fermi paradox is simply that we're so different from other developed intelligences that communicable understanding simply isn't possible. Yet. Or maybe ever. Evolutionarily distinct intelligences might just be fundamentally incompatible.
Arthropods were comparatively small to other animals even in the prehistoric era.
Intelligent life deflects asteroids.
Earth is the only data we have, and as far as we can tell, in Earth's 4 billion year history there have been no gamma ray induced extinction. As of now, that means that we have more evidence against the gamma ray burst extinction hypothesis than for it.
No. They're made of matter and communicate with EM waves if they exist. There is no other plausible possibility.
>No it does not. Crabs and humans are different species, not different ethnicities.
Holy shit, this is some legitimate autism. I hope for your sake that you either knew what he meant and are simply being a cunt, or that English is your third or fourth language.
I'm sure it's been said, but I think that our lack of contact is good evidence that there's no way around light speed.
lol generally I hate crop circle makers but that's a pretty good troll.
The Earth is getting dimmer as a radio source with age as we get better at directing signals where we want without wasting energy beaming them out everywhere. As for comments on the sun being a "young" star, it is among the set that would reliably possess enough "heavy" elements to produce complex chemistry. Take into account the time it took to develop complex life and that the extinction events on Earth would not be unexpected elsewhere and you end up with it not being unreasonable the humans are not millions of years behind everyone else.
>How do you even begin to study electronic circuits in salt water?
Who the fuck says you have to use electronic circuitry to be intelligent? You've been on /sci/ too long, it's addling your brain.
>How do you build any of this stuff if you have flippers instead of hands?
Hands are only necessary to build things manipulable by hands.
Flippers could easily be used to build things manipulable by flippers, and tentacles could be even better.
Stop thinking that the modern human way of doing things is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY in THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, that's completely retarded and myopic.
I am quite disappointed by this thread. Most of the ideas raised have been dealt with in papers published by people who have studied the Fermi paradox. Mostly implausible, debunked stuff has been put forward, and in typical /sci/ fashion, ignorant people refuse to change their minds even after you link to an academic source showing that they are wrong.
Have fun discussing IQ for the rest of the night /sci/. I am going to Reddit to talk to more interesting people about this. I will mention your bogus arguments in the OP so people don't repeat them on Reddit. Thank you for reminding me that wrong answers should be listed in the OP so people do not repeat them.
You are so stupid it hurts. You need electricity to get into space you silly nitwit. Dolphins are supposedly the second smartest animal on earth. The only thing they've ever made is a fleshlight made out of a fish carcass. I don't see them getting ever becoming a spacefaring species.
Try to use what little brainpower you have to understand goldilocks principles of intelligence.
This isn't some social justice issue, you uneducated faggot
Not the anon you've been talking to, but
>Arthropods were comparatively small to other animals even in the prehistoric era.
"Comparatively" is quite important to this argument, and you've completely glossed over that anon's points regarding differing environmental morphological nuances. You've also failed to recognize that perhaps an entirely different phylum could develop intelligence separate from the varieties observed on Earth.
>Intelligent life deflects asteroids.
There's a good ~250,000 year span of human existence where asteroid deflection was and remains unfeasible.
>Earth is the only data we have, and as far as we can tell, in Earth's 4 billion year history there have been no gamma ray induced extinction. As of now, that means that we have more evidence against the gamma ray burst extinction hypothesis than for it.
Just because our sample size is limited doesn't make it valid. If I only have access to air from Shanghai to run airborne pollutant tests on then I can't claim to have accurate results for Earth's pollution.
Actually what you are saying is that in general the people posting in the thread disagree with you. Very few are agreeing with you, and are actually countering your narrow points of view. You keep using the same canned responses to valid points, and I agree, that is boring. You also provided no scientific references, and often based your interpretations on singular examples or incomplete information. It's a bit hypocritical to state ignorance when you use the same actions you condemn.
Please, by all means go to Reddit, where you can be coddled and agreed with in a circle jerk thread. Personally I prefer debate to being surrounded by "yes-men" any day.
You talk about "implausible, debunked stuff" when nearly all facets that involve the Fermi Paradox and Extraterrestrial life are theoretical with no experimental results to confidently back any of them up. And speaking of refusing to change minds, it's pretty obvious that you wouldn't change your mind if someone shoved a silicon based life form under your nose.
1. Isn't there a planet, actually I believe it was a moon, that is frozen solid on the outside and one giant ocean underneath.. where basically giant moving dark spots can be observed beneath the ice. I want to believe they are giant sea creatures.
2. 50% of the people that posted in this thread are retarded. I don't like to shit post but goddamn what about sci attracts such peanut brained mother fuckers
>Trolls invade the perimeters around the Chilbolton observatory in near pitch-black night to conduct dangerous pointless pranks, blindly crushing plants in precise patterns according to complex designs that reflect esoteric understandings of the binary number system, chemistry, nucleotide sequences of DNA, variable-dot image representation, and astrophysics all within the span of a few hours
You are correct my good btard I had no idea that moon existed yet somehow I imagined a fucking moon with the same properties. Anyways.. were the large moving shadows under the ice some sort of tabloid fake bullshit I came across years ago? I can't easily find info on that and don't remember where or who I got that info from.
We actually know what's under the ice. It's a giant bioluminescent squid. Europa Report is direct footage sent from the confidential manned trip that was sent there soon after the end of the Cold War. I recommend giving it a watch
Uh, yeah that's about the size of it. Except for a few minor points.
> invade the perimeters around the Chilbolton observatory
They did it on nearby farmland.
In danger of getting arrested maybe. It's not like they were in fucking Area 51
>blindly crushing plants in precise patterns
The basic orienteering skills I learned as a child in summer camp would be more than enough to do it.
The arecibo message was well publicized. Any hoaxers would have known what to do whether they understood the science or not.
We're too early for life to be prevalent in the universe. The observable universe is 13.6 billion years old and has an estimated life span of a few trillion years. So we're around very early in our universe's timeline and probably one of the first technological life forms to evolve. If there are others, they are in the same boat. They're just too far away and not advanced enough to send messages or explore space.
It's a bit like waking up before your roommates and assuming you live alone because nobody else is making noise. Just have to give it time.
>This has never really happened in Earth's history. There have been regional setbacks, but the general trend has always been towards more sophistication, interconnectivity, and progress.
You need to study more history.
The vast majority of societies have decayed and collapse, far more so than have managed to survive for any great length of time.
OP, to be honest, everything you've said makes me think you're a massive goddamn idiot.
"Anthropocentric" is a real word, and one very very applicable to this discussion.
>No. They're made of matter and communicate with EM waves if they exist. There is no other plausible possibility.
No fucking shit, but that leaves an almost infinitely unimaginable range of possibilities.
>Communicate with EM waves
Actually, not necessarily. That assumes that their communication relies upon an understanding of the laws of physical reality comparable to our own, when that most likely isn't the case.
>You are so stupid it hurts. You need electricity to get into space you silly nitwit
That's ridiculous. WE need electricity to get into space, but it's absolutely bizarre to claim that EVERYTHING needs it.
There are potential computational methods that don't utilize electricity. There could be space-faring species that never even needed computation; maybe they're a gaseous intelligence that evolved on a planet or moon with such weak gravitational pull that they were able to enter space with nothing more but a bio-shell that protects them from temperature extremes and radiation, and a really big catapult. Maybe they perform their calculations with crystalline-based computational logic and there isn't a shred of electrical potential in their civilization.
This thread is so blindly, obsessively anthropocentric that it's almost sad. The naivety and arrogance of assuming that our highly specific methods are the only ones permissible is staggering.
The thing is Anon, it could have happened. There could have been a civilization just like ours millions of years ago that sent out signals. Fuck, they could have reached us, but we could have just not received them (lack of technology, humans not existing at the time, etc).
The universe is just so fucking big. Even if we found something, or someone found us, by the time we could communicate with them, or travel to them, at least one of us would be gone.
Not only must life be intelligent, it must also be land dwelling (for metalworking and any sort of combustion), live on a low enough gravity world for chemical rockets to work well enough to warrant further investment, and it must avoid killing itself off. I would assume that being warm blooded and having environmental conditions that promoted long-term thinking and scientific advancement would be necessary as well.
I would wager that of worlds with life, 99.99% of them are just a mix of simple mono and multi-cellular life. Of the remaining .001%, 99.99% of those are still dominated by massive cold-blooded lizards. Of the remaining .001%, 99.99% of that only developed simple mammalian life. Of the remaining .001 of that, 90% of them only developed intelligent life on par with some stranded African tribe, never being able to develop a society capable of honing actual science. Of the 10% remaining, 50% suffered some kind of extinction event after their equivalent of the cold-war ended in nuclear annihilation. Of the remaining ones of that, only 20% are even capable of becoming space-faring.
With the original pool of planets with life, only an exceedingly small fraction is remaining. The chances of that life being within 100,000 light-years of us is minuscule. Even if it were, we'd have to find them, since they'd have almost no interest in finding us.
This thread is so blindly, obsessively mattercentric that it's almost sad. Matter is only less than 5% of our universe and you people think that everything must be composed of matter and need electrons/ions to go to space or communicate. They could be composed of dark matter and use dark energy to communicate so even if they're right beside us, we still have no way to detect them.
Why would anyone want to colonize the galaxy? Simulating new worlds is cheaper, easier, and far more interesting. Generally speaking, space is a bunch of emptyness and hellish chemistry. Space sucks.
Imagine what the internet and video games will be like 200 years from now. I mean really. People are going to line up to be put into tiny boxes with feeding tubes and get their brains wired to the internet 24/7. And why shouldn't they? We're talking about a world of literally infinite potential and flexibility. You think anybody with technology like that is going to care about a gigantic fucking vacuum?
I don't think humanity will ever make it to a point where we colonize other planets. We'll probably do a great deal of exploring the universe and sending out communications but in the end die cold and alone to a great extinction event.
How close is the closest earth-like liveable planet to us? Too far away. And terraforming is always going to remain a pipedream.
>Any hoaxers would have known what to do whether they understood the science or not.
Except it wasn't a duplicate of the original. See pic related
Radio communication is clumsy on an interstellar scale, it is likely that any galactic civilizations use some means of FTL communication that we can't detect, aliens may be aware of our presence but leave us be for unknown reasons
And what do you think the probability is of some hoaxer possessing the knowledge to switch stuff around in a way that makes sense? Specifically representing a chemically viable alternative DNA makeup which substitutes silicon for phosphate, as well as knowing that this would require three strands rather than two?
>Assuming the Earth is typical
>assuming these planets don't get wiped out in infancy
>the contact assumption relies on these things inventing a way of faster than light shit
>as distance increases, the search area increases in a non-linear fashion (not quite a sphere because muh spirals, but this depends on scale)
>no bangin hot alien babe has ever abducted me and performed human sex pleasure experiments
I'm assuming you haven't looked into the phenomena of crop circles enough to understand why a couple guys with a 2x4 is not a plausible explanation.
> Stalks are bent in a way that is not normally possible, modified at a cellular and genetic level
>These mutations are associated with being exposed to a sort of "organized ionic plasma" radiation
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 9, No. 2, pp. 191-199, 1995
>10-40 micron diameter spheres of unusually pure, highly magnetic iron determined to be meteoric or otherwise extraterrestrial in origin and having been formed in a powerful magnetic field
>Man hours required does not allow for overnight creation
>I gave you links /sci/entfic peer-reviewed research
the fermi paradox only makes sense if you take into account drake's equation and assume the values attributed to it's variables to be accurate, perhaps life is an extremely rare event and intelligent life is even more rare, and intelligent life capable of interstellar travel ridiculously rare
I can't access any of those, though at leas two come from the same author and seem to be in a bit of an obscure journal. Weirder things have been in scientific papers. And do you really think think that corn-communicating aliens is more likely than a man made crop flattening method? Dude that's patently insane.
>muh appeal to incredulity
>I don't understand how they do it which means it's aliums
Unless you are aware of a way of bending stalks in such a way as to modify their genetic and cellular structure - which is passed on to their offspring, btw - through the use of exotic radiation which causes malfunction in modern electronics and leaves microscopic spheres of magnetic atomically pure iron in its wake, yes I would find aliums more likely than a couple rednecks with a 2x4 made out of plasma.
If you have an alternative explanation I'd love to hear it.
Also, there is no paywall.
>Google the last one, it's not hard to find
>Unless you are aware of a way of bending stalks in such a way
Pardon me but how in the fucking pudding pops does the burden of proof NOT fall on the guy claiming that extra terrestrials are coming to earth and communicating exclusively through flattened vegetation when nobody's looking? I'm sorry but fucking no, I don't have to recreate whatever technique they are using, based on the scantest forensic evidence evidence, just to show that the alien hypothesis is not well-grounded.
You people are like creationists.
>well if you can't explain to me how this tooth got in this rock where it shouldn't be, then the only explanation is that baby jesus put it there! I win hurrr
Yes there is. It says i can't see it for free unless my school has shelled out for their service which it hasn't
Pardon me, but I HAVE provided evidence for my argument. YOU are the one resorting to creationist reasoning sir.
>the evidence doesn't fit my worldview, the only explanation that is its a hoax!
Here is the research freely available from the research group's home page: http://www.bltresearch.com/published.php
>inb4 questioning source
>its published in peer-reviewed journals
>Pardon me, but I HAVE provided evidence for my argument.
No, you haven't. Because you have a creationist's understanding of what evidence is. Evidence against your opponent's view is not automatically evidence for your view.
Preexisting evidence: common knowledge that guys with 2x4's make crop circles
Me: It's guys with 2x4's
>You: [(scant)Evidence it's not 2x4's]
Me: Well maybe 2x4's are out
>You: THAT MEANS ALIENS!
Notice nowhere in there does it say "provides evidence it was aliens". You just injected your view into the first gap you could find.
Creationists do the same thing:
Preexisting evidence: mountains of research pointing to evolution
Science: It's evolution
>Creationist: Isolated example of something the models don't account for
Science: Well that shouldn't be. Guess there's an issue with the models
>Creationist: THAT MEANS IT'S JESUS!
The OP of this thread is "what is your answer to Fermi paradox." Originally, I posted a photo of what looked like it could be one.
Preexisting non-evidence: common-knowledge fallacy
>You: It's guys with 2x4's
Me: [(pretty good) evidence it isn't 2x4's]
>You: Well maybe 2x4's are out
Me: Well what else could it be? Process of elimination leaves me to assume if it looks & quacks like a duck...
>You: ad-homs, creationism
Also, this is why your creationist example fails:
Preexisting evidence: 2 guys claim responsibility for less than a dozen out hundreds of documented and thousands of reported crop formations world
>"Science" (rationalwiki): 2 guys travel around the world and make mathematically perfect and insanely huge formations in crops in a matter of hours, demonstrating Ph.D level knowledge of various scientific disciplines and superhuman stamina
Science (peer-reviewed journals): Genetic modification, passed on to offspring, weird radiation, weird spheres of magnetic meteoric iron. Probably not 2 guys with a piece of wood.
>"Science": *closes eyes, puts fingers in ears, screams "lalalalalala i cant hear you"*
I'm not trying to argue that it's DEFINITELY ALIENS. I'm saying that it's definitely not a couple dudes with 2x4's, and that considering one of the more striking formations appear to be a response to the Arecibo message, it is not a far stretch to hold the opinion that the Fermi paradox is a non issue. I am open to persuasion, I just require that persuasion to involve criticism of the methods rather than "ayy lmao"
Because it doesn't take into account just how fucking TINY lifeforms are compared to how fucking ENDLESSLY VAST AND EMPTY SPACE IS.
Do one of those gif/flashes with the increasing size of stars... then realize the space between them is incomprehensibly larger than those.
Even if the universe is teeming with lifeforms around every corner, we might STILL be outright missing them.
>aliens develop on the fringes of the galactic arm
>too far in the "backwoods" and hick to travel because, lol, too far
>aliens develop near the center
>ass raped by gamma radiation and pulsars
There you go. Fuck off.
I know it's just junk science, but I always thought the Fermi paradox was a decent piece of evidence that could support the concept of a "singularity" that Kurzweil talks about. If all intelligent life inevitably masters quantum computing, what's to stop them abandoning their biological population through resource depletion alone? A solar powered quantum supercomputer or something like that would be capable of computing an entire population without a Dyson sphere. Why bother leaving? "King of infinite space, bounded in a nutshell" might be the inevitable evolution of all intelligent life.
Regards the formation of simple circles as possible caused by atmospheric phenomena.
Regards the formation of simple circles as possible caused by atmospheric phenomena.
>Journal of Scientific Exploration
Shit journal that everyone but those that like it has an agenda of pushing bad science that conforms with their world view. In other words, it is ICR tier bullshit slingers. Citing this journal is an automatic gb2/x/
The on;y thing you cited that even suggests aliums with interstellar spaceships is regarded as bullshit on the same level as the creationists by all informed experts. They just cover shit less mainstream than creationism so have less of a wide reputation for their bullshit.
this convoluted with special relativity.
you cant send signals across these distances (lasers are limited by physics and the universe if fucking NOISY), so it necessitates travelling there, which in turn necessitates possibly impossible FTL.
So even if you have FTL, bad things happen when you move so far away from your home world. Its almost guaranteed to have a vastly different frame of reference from the world you visit, depending on how far away you go. That means time dilation.
Unless your species is immortal, would you take that kind of trip? Just to visit some shitball like earth?
No wonder we are all alone.
>modifies organic matter at a cellular and genetic level
its plasma, not fucking magic, you fucking idiot. the only way its going to modify organic material is by ionizing the shit out of it.
Brilliant comeback. I love how you responded with a clever counter-argument based on logic and facts, instead of just flinging poo and hoping you could win on the emotional gambit.
I was on board with this until I learned of >>6899599 . Atmospheric phenomena would not explain an intelligent response to a radio signal.
>Journal of Scientific Exploration
"it doesn't agree with my worldview therefore it is bad science and an automatic gb2/x/"
Literally left out the word "ionic" right before plasma. Also did not read or criticize methods used in research before dismissing. "ayy lmao" cancer
>literally left out the word "ionic" right before plasma
lol. ok faggot, first, you don't know how to use the word literally, because nobody here is thinking you meant figuratively, so why even fucking say it? its not an adjective used to accent or emphasize a point.
second, ALL plasma is ionic. fucking dipshit. and ionized gas does basically one thing to organic matter: it fucks it up and 'burns' it away.
arguing with you is, literally, just like explaining complicated things to a retarded child.
Perhaps the type of civilisation that would develop and space travel technology is also the type to : Develop advanced weapon technology
Deplete their planets natural resources
Either way, there's potentially a scenario where they would destroy themselves.
Perhaps as another Anon stated, they're on their way?
Perhaps (though unlikely) other intelligent life would have the same traits as humans. Possession, conquering new lands etc.
To the people suggesting they're here already. What is the motive for a government cover up. Europeans didn't hide the discovery of America. Why would they?
>You: It's guys with 2x4's
Me: [(pretty good) evidence it isn't 2x4's]
>You: Well maybe 2x4's are out
Me: Well what else could it be? Process of elimination leaves me to assume if it looks & quacks like a duck...
>if it looks & quacks like a duck...
>if it looks & quacks like a duck...
>if it looks & quacks like a duck...
THAT. THAT SHIT RIGHT THERE. That is your fallacy. And it's a fallacy because a "duck" could be fucking anything you want it to be. A guy claiming there's some wizard on a mountain making the crop circles has exactly as much evidence as you do. Which is to say, NONE.
For the creationists, the "duck" is God. That's the point I was making to outline your fallacy.
>I'm not trying to argue that it's DEFINITELY ALIENS
Yes you fucking are that's why you're posting about crop circles in a thread about Fermi's Paradox. Don't be disingenuous and weasel around your argument.
>PhD, superhuman stamina
More like undergrad, and likely more than a couple people (I know that's preposterous compared to cornloving extraterrestials and their "ionic plasma vortices" but hey just consider it).
>its not an adjective used to accent or emphasize a point.
Colloquially, yes it is.
> it fucks it up and 'burns' it away
Well then, obviously the researchers have come to an inaccurate conclusion of what could possibly be causing the genetic mutations in plants bent by whatever causes crop circles. Do you have a better interpretation of the facts? Can't be aliens, can't be plasma.... So the hoaxer guys have Monsanto(tm) manufactured 2x4's?
>obviously the researches have come to an inaccurate conclusion
a grossly inaccurate conclusion, which is why the entire "paper" goes into the trash and you never bring it up in a scientific discourse on the subject.
1 - Genetic modification of the affected plants
2 - Microscopic meteoric magnetically charged spheres of iron in affected soil
3 - Exotic radiation that researchers thought was plasma but /sci/ disputes because the plants would be vaporized
4 -This is the one that separates me from the creationists and wizards on the mountain top. Knowing that a piece of wood would not account for points 1 - 3, who or what could have the motive, means and knowledge for creating this in a span of hours:
Your answer (hoax) would imply that Monsanto and CERN got together and trolled the world for just for kicks or that rednecks have access to radioactive isotopes and retrovirii.
Because "ayy lmao"-type instant dismissal without even giving the attempt to look at the data really fucking grinds my gears.
And yet the data (radioactivity at sites) remains. The original researcher's theory that the cause of crop circles is related to ball lightning has been dismissed by you, leaving only the possibilities mentioned in >>6899890
>This is the one that separates me from the creationists and wizards on the mountain top. Knowing that a piece of wood would not account for points 1 - 3, who or what could have the motive, means and knowledge for creating this in a span of hours:
"How about a wizard?" says wizard guy. And he has provided just as much evidence for his wizard as you have for your aliens.
> Exotic radiation that researchers thought was plasma but /sci/ disputes because the plants would be vaporized
First of all, that's not as rare as you think it is. The sun genetically modifies your skin. It's called a tan, or melanoma if you overdo it.
>Microscopic meteoric magnetically charged spheres of iron in affected soil
This I can't account for, though a /sci/entist is free to explain better that Ican why jumping to "meteoric" is almost definitely horseshit. Again, does not automatically mean aliens. It means we're not sure exactly how it was done. Not "we don't have an explanation other than aliens" or "we don't have an explanation other than wizards". We don't know. Full stop.
Your evidence regards the simple circle formations, at best, and the only acceptable sources provided attributes them to natural, though rare and difficult to observe, atmospheric phenomena. The complex designs, such as the one you keep posting, are widely accepted to be hoaxes even in the crop circle community because they are complex. Only those spouting off about alien bullshit say the complex ones come from aliens, even though they don't exhibit the properties you are citing which indicates they are a real phenomenon.
As for the Arecibo mimic specifically, you immediately run into the problem that it hasn't gotten anywhere yet. Thus, anyone putting up imitations in fields is local.
>This I can't account for, though a /sci/entist is free to explain better that Ican why jumping to "meteoric" is almost definitely horseshit
The citation for this information is essentially the creationists of other fringe topics. They don't do real science, they publish things that look like science in order to push their pseudoscience as real science. That they do so for a range of topics and without mainstream appeals to religious authority has generally just kept their reputation as bullshitters to within certain bits of the scientific community.
You just admitted we don't know how its done. The evidence - the formations themselves - offer an explanation that should at very least be considered an option and which seems to be the best option given the available data.
If you don't consider the formations themselves - which we have agreed cannot be explained by joe redneck and a 2x4 - hinting at their source to be evidence, then here is a video of a crop circle apparently being made by flying balls of light, there are many like it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6vP8-SbU0
You are attacking the messenger, not the message. Please explain what was faulty in their analysis of the material
Non-paywall article: http://www.bltresearch.com/published/semi-molten.php
>even though they don't exhibit the properties you are citing
Why would you assume they don't?
>run into the problem that it hasn't gotten anywhere yet
>the formations themselves - offer an explanation
No, they don't, because then we would have an explanation wouldn't we? You know, instead of defaulting to what you want it to be.
>the formations themselves - which we have agreed cannot be explained by joe redneck and a 2x4
No we did not agree to that. Maybe not joe redneck, but an avid ufo/scifi fanatic with a nominal understanding of some basic sciences? Come on.
Completely impossible to make that video on a macbook right?
That video looks rather fake to me. This aside, the properties which are being used to eliminate "rednecks" has only been strongly associated with single circle formations, not complex designs.
(Why would they have to be redneck bumpkins? There is nothing preventing bored grad students from making something similar for shits and giggles; I know a few that would be up for doing so if there were any easily accessible corn fields nearby.)
>Please explain what was faulty in their analysis of the material
That they aren't trustworthy to begin with and thus all aspects for their analysis may be fabricated.
>Why would you assume they don't?
The articles you have presented that come from trustworthy sources only cite simple circles.
The target is some 25000 ly away. I don't know about you, but I am fairly certain 40 < 25000.
>Completely impossible to make that video on a macbook right?
If the comments are to be believed, the film maker had partial ownership of a video editing company (I am unwilling to look into the guy because I am lazy and any such argument will not dissuade our true believer friend).
As far as I know, Adobe Premiere didn't exist in 1989.
>did not agree to that
>It means we're not sure exactly how it was done
>we would have an explanation wouldn't we
I think we do. Just one that you wouldn't accept even if a classical grey walked up to you and said "hey we made those". Pic related, ball contains a binary message saying exactly that.
>defaulting to what you want it to be
It might be hard for you to believe, but I was just as skeptical as you when I first looked into the topic. There's much more to it than just crop circles. But that's a thread in of its own.
>avid ufo/scifi fanatic with a nominal understanding of some basic sciences
What possible motive could a ufo "fanatic" have for discrediting his own assertions? Also, that brings us back to the problem of having the necessary materials to pull of this kind of hoax as well as the knowledge.
>Pic related, ball contains a binary message saying exactly that.
If they know how our electronics work well enough to write a message in binary using a widely used conversion to English as presented in binary computing that they would be able to communicate with us through a more reliable and believable format than messing around with some crops.
As the journal is suspect, the methods are suspect. Hell, maybe their methods aren't bad, but "magnetic material found in circle means extraterrestrial source" is a really shitty conclusion. It is the same argument creationists use to debunk radiometric dating: "this unrelated thing means no radiometric dating works." If we go with the weird plasma vortex thing, then we end up with a mechanism of locally magnetizing iron present in the soil without invoking extraterrestrials: plasma vortex = moving charge = current (presumably in a solenoid configuration due to plasma vortex being circular structure) = local magnetic field which is picked up by iron in the soil.
>presuming to understand the motives of an alien intelligence
My opinion? Perhaps they are benevolent and don't want to cause a societal collapse and just leave clues for those who aren't in the "ayy lmao" and once enough people are acclimated to the idea they'll reveal themselves properly.
See the NASA-commissioned Brookings Institute report on the topic of societal collapse: http://www.nicap.org/papers/brookings.pdf
You mean the report that says nothing about interaction with extraterrestrials? Besides that, messages in a crop field is a shitty way of telling anyone anything when they clearly have experience with our brand of digital devices and can thus easily send the message to specific people as they desire.
Except the methods determined that the iron is meteoric.
>magnetic material found in circle means extraterrestrial source
I would never imply that this *alone* means ET source. I am suggesting that the three data points of genetic modification, weird radiation, and weird balls of meteoric magnetic iron - in conjunction with the content of the formations themselves, justify the assertion that *perhaps* crop circles are extraterrestrial in nature.
>report says nothing
>Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they have had to associate with previously with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior
>Questions one might wish to answer by such studies would include:
>How might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?
>Except the methods determined that the iron is meteoric.
No, the methods did not. No isotope measurement and no impact landmarks means they cannot say that the iron was of non-terrestrial origin with any real degree of certainty. Especially when the samples lacked nickle in any amount that would be indicative of a meteorite.
>content of the formations themselves
Again, the complex formations being paraded around have not been demonstrated to host these anomalous properties.
Ok, still ignores the fact that expertise in digital systems would allow for much more efficient communication with a limited audience than you would get from mussing up a corn field.
Except they did an energy dispersive spectroscopy, and did find nickel in amounts that would be indicative of meteorites.
>dismissing shit without looking at data, again
>have not been demonstrated to host these anomalous properties
There is no reason to assume they do not, given that a majority of the sites tested do.
I don't presume to understand the motives or logic of an alien intelligence. I like to stay grounded in what I can evaluate based on physical evidence.
Having said that, I would guess they have a better way to communicate with individuals if they wished to do so. Perhaps they don't wish to communicate with individuals and are aiming to acclimate society as a whole before directly revealing themselves to avoid the problems mentioned in >>6900017
The point is that evidence is decidedly not in favor of hoaxing, as far as I've seen. Which leaves freakish weather/energetic anomalies and ET. The formations say ET. I'm going to run with that until /sci/ or someone else can actually challenge the data or methods of my provided sources without basically saying "ayy lmao" in more complex words.
The point is that the universe is really really really big, and all of the mass is very far apart
You can't build shit
This nigga gets it
You are way too optimistic. Fact is, you need hands to build shit and fish don't have hands.
This, you only exist because your ancestors have been able to pass on their genetic material for 2 billion years. If you go back 500million years and cook a single fish before it reproduces, you may be erasing humanity
Almost anything, existence is a fragile thing
>he point is that evidence is decidedly not in favor of hoaxing, as far as I've seen. Which leaves freakish weather/energetic anomalies and ET. The formations say ET.
OCCAM YOU FUCKING NIGGER
Choose the solution that doesn't involve FTL, ALWAYS
every civilization that reaches the level of development necessery for space travel realizes that existence is futile and stops reproducing.
All countries that are exploring outer space have either negative growth or have positive, but declining growth and will start dying out sooner or later. By the time we have the technology to travel to other stars we will all become nihilist antinatalist and go extinct voluntarily. That's what happens to all inteligent life in the universe.
>Except they did an energy dispersive spectroscopy, and did find nickel in amounts that would be indicative of meteorites.
They specifically highlight the lack of nickel in the analysis:
>The elements Ni, Cr and Mn, normally significant components within any iron-bearing meteor (Krinov, 1960), were absent in the EDS analyses.
>given that a majority of the sites tested do
All sources given only regard simple circles. Nothing has been presented which suggests the complex designs exhibit any anomalous traits.
>I don't presume to understand the motives or logic of an alien intelligence.
Given their understanding of our language and our technology, as required by the cited formation, then they necessarily understand this is a shitty way to communicate with any efficacy.
>The formations say ET
Only the formations that everyone but the most tinfoil hat wearing conspiatards credit to anything other than hoaxers. None of the sources discuss such formations at all and thus any assertion that they do is entirely baseless and can be dismissed without evidence.
Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains must be the truth. Hoaxers have been eliminated. If all the crop formations were geometric in nature I'd settle for ball lightning. They don't. They literally say it's ET.
We have so many different hypothetical ways of getting around this. Alcubierre drive, wormholes, electrogravitics, and reciprocal theory, among others. Don't tachyons go FTL? I think it's just asinine to assume that there's no way to cheat the light barrier.
The assertion that all formation exhibit anomalous properties is unfounded. Only simple formations have been demonstrated to possess the anomalous properties and thus hoaxers have not been ruled out from any of the formations used as examples for why it must be aliens.
>Life is rare
>as far as we have observed we are the only planet with life in our solar system
>the conditions for are planet are just right
Now extend that out billions of light years
>life is probably rare
>life is limited to communication at C
>travel at .999... C IF you dont have the economic and engineering constraints
>signals take hundreds of years to reach other stars
>you might not be listening when the signal reaches you
>arc ship takes hundreds of years or thousands to reach another star
>single mechanical failure destroys the ship
Face it, its just as likely that we will NEVER see other life, much less sentient life.
>hoaxers have been eliminated
except you havent, you know, eliminated every possible method of hoaxing that exists. pull the wool over your own eyes all you want, but dont try to feed the rest of us your bullshit and tell us it tastes good.
Alright, and what do you make of their hypothesis as to the formation of these spherical bits of supermagnetic iron?
The same methods used to identify the anomalous traits have performed on complex formations. I did not post earlier because the results are not in a peer-reviewed journal: http://www.bltresearch.com/fieldreports/uk2009.php
>tinfoil ayy lmao yada yada
Again, there is no reason to assume that these formations do not have anomalous traits when the majority of such formations do other than bias and cognitive dissonance.
>We have so many different hypothetical ways of getting around this
protip: they are hypothetical,meaning there is no evidence that any of these is actually possible, only some mathematics showing that it might be.
I have eliminated all methods hoaxing known to me. Perhaps you can describe a method wherein a small team of people can bend corn stalks at 90 degree angles by heating the stalks from the inside out? This method must also alter the DNA of the plant and leave traces of exotic radiation as well as highly magnetized spheres of iron no more than 40 microns in diameter. Oh, and it has to be done in the span of no more than a few hours.
Do this, and I'll buy into the "its all a hoax" hypothesis.
>life is rare
>we're the only life in the solar system
Life literally flings itself off other planets and falls from the sky
>I think it's just asinine to assume that there's no way to cheat the light barrier.
dude.... just get more acquainted with the physics. The light barrier is more profound than a red light or a velvet rope.
>only some mathematics
Is this not where everything starts? Since there is no hard evidence either way, but the math says it's possible, I'd rather be optimistic and assume it's possible
hm, let me put this another way. The only thing that moves faster than light is the expansion of space in the universe. So "all you have to do" to get to FTL is explain dark energy! easy peasy!
and who said that there are definitely laws that allow FTL travel? Maybe the ones we will discover will show why alcubierre drives/wormholes/tachyons are bullshit and will prove that all of these attempts at trying to go FTL are futile.
I already stated a mechanism that works without the need of any extraterrestrial intervention, so long as the anomalous plasma even works out.
They do not perform the same set of tests and this line:
>(b) the presence of node-length changes which correlate with the well-known law of physics (the Beer-Lambert principle) which predicts the effect of exposure to EM energies on matter
makes them sound like retards. Since they are appealing to physics without knowing what physics they are appealing to, I call them on pseudoscientific bullshit in line with ghost hunters calling up quantum mysticism to explain why physics says ghosts are real.
>when the majority of such formations
A simple single circle or irregular formation is incredibly different from the formations you are claiming to be evidence of extaterrestrial intervention. As such, there is no reason to assume the anomalous properties persist in the more complex circles and you have not provided anything which indicates these properties exist in these circles. As stated above, the one source for this you provided demonstrates complete ignorance of the physics principles they are calling upon to explain the effects.
Yeah maybe so, but to claim impossibility with our current level of understanding is asinine... especially so when you look at some of the axioms that are clung to with basically no empirical evidence.
How does whatever force is behind gravity escape a black hole while trapping light?
How does the universe's expansion accelerate faster than light?
Isn't the problem with wormholes not their existence, but their stability.
Why are you so pessimistic?
>There is no grey space between impossible and possible. It's one or the other.
but there is grey space between 'knowing for sure it is possible' and 'knowing for sure it is possible', especially in mathematics. You can proove that a solution exists before you find one (for example: it was prooven that transcendental numbers exist 7 years before somone actually found one) or you can proove that no solutions exist, alternatively it is possible to not know whether solutions exist.
the problem with wormholes is that they don't exist
The "force" behind gravity is literally the curvature of spacetime.
As said earlier, if you want to hang your FTL-travel hat on dark energy, go for it. The discussion will end there because there is nothing to talk about other than some really old redshifted light
>the problem with wormholes is that they don't exist
>The "force" behind gravity is literally the curvature of spacetime.
So if one could figure out how to artificially reproduce that...
>How does whatever force is behind gravity escape a black hole while trapping light?
you can think of it as the gravity of all the things that fall into the black hole managing to interact with the universe before the things actually cross the event horizon
>but to claim impossibility with our current level of understanding is asinine
i never said it was impossible. Protip: there are more than 2 people in this thread.
>Because gravity propagates faster than light
no, it doesn't. Gravity also acts with the speed of light, if the sun disappeared right now it would take just as much time for earth to start drifting into space as it would take to suddenly to get dark.
Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth’s gravitational acceleration toward the Sun? Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon’s gravitational forces align? How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow? How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?
>So if one could figure out how to artificially reproduce that...
lots of mass
I would reiterate that if you are interested in this stuff you should probably get the basics down. Gravity, light, etc
>I've never observed anything move faster than light
>Clearly it's impossible
You can't just pick and choose which parts of general relativity you do and don't like. If there is a lightspeed barrier, there are wormholes. They are part of the same theory.
They call upon the Beer-Lambert principle to explain elongation f the stalks or some such as it "describes how EM energy interacts with matter" when this principle deals with the attenuation of light as it passes through a material. Right subject matter, I guess, but rather far from what it actually describes.
Because gravity is an effect of geometry. Changes to the geometry propagate through the manifold at the speed of light, but as the geometry is what gives rise to gravity in the first place, it is unimpeded by the existing distortions, unlike light which travels in a manner dictated by the geometry of the manifold.