>The universe is in it's infancy with less than .1% of

The Native Americans had no evidence for quite a long time that there was any other intelligent life on Earth, some things just take time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>>8992584
They didn't have science or ever tried looking for other civilizations

>>8992620
>They didn't have science or ever tried looking for other civilizations
and Earthlings don't have whatever it takes to find life outside of our planet, what's your point?

>>8992570
Our technology is not advanced nearly enough to say one way or the other whether we're the first or not the first intelligent life in the universe. You folks need to stop jumping to conclusions. Wait another millennium or two.

>>8992636
>Look for life
>Don't find it
>"ITS REALLY THERE ITS JUST COMPLETELY INVISIBLE I WANT STAR TREK TO BE REAL"
>*autistic screeching continues*
This is the science board anon. Evidence tells us there's no life outside earth, let alone intelligent life.

>>8992645
>Evidence tells us there's no life outside earth, let alone intelligent life.
[citation needed]

>>8992584
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Except it really is.

>>8992648
So far in this thread there's an absence of evidence of intelligence in your mind, but that's not evidence of absence

>>8992646
This isn't a smart post anon, even though I know you think it is. Tell me what evidence you have for life outside of earth.

>>8992650
What's not smart about it? You don't get to make the claim that there's evidence of no life outside Earth and then not back it up after being pressed for said evidence

>>8992649
>There is an absence of evidence of cancer in my body.
>but that's not evidence for the absence of cancer
This isn't going to go anywhere unless you accept that "negative evidence" (ie. Evidence that shows something doesn't exist) doesn't exist.

File: retarded.jpg (76KB, 528x565px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 528x565px

>>8992570
>the Femi paradox seems to show that we are the only ones in our galactic cluster and possibly even observable universe
Oh Jesus.
Did you really miss the last Fermi thread?
We have no real data on the "why no aliens" question, it's all speculation.
The "paradox" isn't grounds for any conclusions, especially if you're trying to rule out the existence of other races in the entire universe.
Hell, assuming GR holds, most of the observable universe is so far away any alien ship trying to reach us wouldn't be able to because the expansion of space "outruns" the speed of light.

>>8992659
>He thinks the only way to find aliens is by meeting them face to face
We should be able to tell by their energy usage alone.

>>8992645
>Evidence tells us there's no life outside earth
lol, no.

>>8992655
But that's impossible to do. Do you niggers even philosophy of science? How can I ever provide evidence that some which never existed, that is something which by definition could never leave any evidence, never existed?

>>8992658
>This isn't going to go anywhere unless you accept that "negative evidence" (ie. Evidence that shows something doesn't exist) doesn't exist.
Even if I accept that evidence of absence doesn't exist, what good is your absence of evidence?

I said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, not that it is.

>>8992662
Oh, so you've got evidence of life outside of earth? Wow, I don't know how I missed that on the news.

>>8992664
>But that's impossible to do.
Then why would you make the claim that you have evidence?

What is the evidence?

File: 1498160481993.jpg (24KB, 424x353px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 424x353px

>>8992661
>We should be able to tell by their energy usage alone.
???
Please help me on this one, I'm completely lost here.
Are you assuming, perhaps that any "truly" intelligent species should have used up all the energy in the universe by now?
Using the Kardashev Scale perhaps?
You know the one, the scale that measures a civilization's level of advancement by how overpopulated and/or energy inefficient they are?
Because both those ideas seem backwards.

>>8992666
>Oh, so you've got evidence of life outside of earth?
Nope, but you don't have evidence it doesn't exist.
How high are you?
Even the 420-chan astronomy and space board has more intelligent discourse.

>>8992658
>There is an absence of evidence of cancer in my body.
>but that's not evidence for the absence of cancer
You're right, that's not evidence for the absence of cancer you brainlet, how retarded is /sci/ these days that they've never heard of a test giving a false negative?

>>8992665
Okay this isn't going to go anywhere. So let me just dumb it down some more:
>You make claim
>You prove claim
>No proof implies claim is false
That's the way it is.

>>8992674
>You make claim
>You prove claim
>No proof implies claim is false
Are you saying the Riemann hypothesis is false because there's no proof?

>>8992676
yes

>>8992584
>>8992636
>>8992638
>>8992649
>>8992669
You don't know what the Fermi paradox is. Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.

>>8992679
Good to know, I'll tell all the number theorists to stop working on it

>>8992680
>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
We haven't done it, so what forces intelligent life on another planet to have done it?

>>8992674
>So let me just dumb it down some more:
Oh, it's plenty dumb enough already.

>>You make claim
>>You prove claim
>>No proof implies claim is false
No, it doesn't.
We couldn't prove exoplanets existed thirty years ago.

OP this website is 18+, please finish high school before shitposting

File: 1497621443105.png (340KB, 720x804px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 720x804px

>>8992680
>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
Nope.
Most of the stars in the galaxy are red dwarfs.
Most of the rocky exoplanets we've discovered are superterran, and probably have gravity much higher than Earth's.
Any number of star-empires might exist, but if none of the m are comfy living here, they wouldn't have colonized Earth.
Or maybe we're a "nature preserve".
Or maybe several star empires are too busy fighting each other to colonize every last planet.
Or maybe our star-fairing neighbors are more responsible than locusts.
Or a thousand other possible reasons.

>>8992676
Mathematics isn't science dumbass. They work on different philosophies. In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence. If you can't do that then your claim is assumed to be false. This is literally the most basic philosophy of science, how the fuck do you retards not no this? How about this:
>Theorist makes theoretical prediction
>experimenters can't find evidence for prediction
>"Hurr durr absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
This is how science works, if you can't back up your claim with evidence, your claim is assumed to be false. Don't like it? Fuck off.

File: tJjo02g.jpg (40KB, 680x714px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 680x714px

>>8992693
>if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence.
OK, let's say everybody stops claiming aliens _might_ exist?
Now what?
Do they suddenly exist because there's no burden of proof anymore?

File: 1492473841984.png (37KB, 206x188px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 206x188px

>>8992692
>he still thinks you need to colonize planets like a fucking video game

>>8992693
>In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence
Yes! I'm glad you get it now! We're getting somewhere finally

Now where's the evidence of no life outside of Earth?

Oh wait, you don't have evidence, so the claim that there's no life outside of Earth must be false

Let's ignore intelligent life for a moment. Considering the scale of the universe and just how much planets there is, simpler life shouldn't extremely rare. Unfortunately alien rats don't really build dyson spheres so we have no way to notice them.
Obviously this is all speculation, we don't have enough data to come into any conclusion at all.

t. brainlet trying to sound smart

>>8992682
Because we have only had rockets for a few decades. Even with modern technology we could technically colonize our solar system.
>>8992692
You don't need earth like planets to colonize a star. Stop reading bad Sci fi.

File: 1496715472909.jpg (126KB, 407x720px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 407x720px

>>8992698
>>he still thinks you need to colonize planets like a fucking video game
Which video game?
What are you even talking about?
Please help us understand!

>How does it feel to know that humans are going to become "The old ones"
lol like a planet of brainlets will ever go beyond their own solar system

>>8992704
>Because we have only had rockets for a few decades. Even with modern technology we could technically colonize our solar system.
Exactly, and we still haven't colonized,which is why your claim that
>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
is patently false.

>>8992696
I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
>>8992700
>Now where's the evidence of no life outside of Earth?
Am I being trolled? Or are you retarded. I've explained three times now why you can't deal with proving something doesn't exist. Again this is basic stuff.

>>8992708
You are an idiot. Do you honestly believe that a species that has had rocket technology for millions of years wouldn't want to colonize another part of space? We have had rockets for less than 100 years and yet we are already looking to colonize the moon and mars. It literally just takes one species to do it and the galaxy would be filled with them.

File: 1490768398808.jpg (42KB, 639x703px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 639x703px

>>8992704
>You don't need earth like planets to colonize a star. Stop reading bad Sci fi.
OK, what's your point?
We DO have an Earth-like planet.
Are you suggesting that the ONLY kind of intelligent life the could possible exist MUST have built a space station orbiting the Sun?
What if there's a hundred such races in this Galaxy alone, but none of them have gotten here yet?
After all, WE haven't colonized every star in the galaxy yet,

>>8992710
>I've explained three times now why you can't deal with proving something doesn't exist.
So then you're concluding that there's no life outside of Earth because...?

>>8992711
>Do you honestly believe that a species that has had rocket technology for millions of years wouldn't want to colonize another part of space?
You are an idiot. Please point to any post where I implied that.

>We have had rockets for less than 100 years and yet we are already looking to colonize the moon and mars. It literally just takes one species to do it and the galaxy would be filled with them.
Do you not understand the possibility that perhaps this hasn't happened yet? Why are brainlets like this even on this board?

>>8992710
>I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
That's because you've been huffing to much paint.
You seem to think someone's inability to defend an assertion makes the assertion false.
You're mixing up cause and effect.
The moon exists.
If I did a really poor job of trying to prove it exists, that doesn't change the fact that it does exist.
See also:
>>8992685
>We couldn't prove exoplanets existed thirty years ago.
Does that imply exoplanets didn't exist back then?

>>8992716
>None of them have gotten here yet
You don't have to have physical contact with intelligence to notice they exist. At sub light speed travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years. If any intelligent life exists in our galaxy it would have colonized most of it relatively quickly.
>>8992719
So then you agree that there aren't any other intelligent species in the galaxy?

>>8992725
>So then you agree that there aren't any other intelligent species in the galaxy?
No. Again, please point to a post where I implied that.

Reading comprehension is seriously lacking on this board these days

>>8992719
>So then you're concluding that there's no life outside of Earth because...?
Because the there is no evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
>>8992722
If we're being really strict about this, and ignoring a priori knowledge, then:
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: None
>Conclusion: Exoplanets probably don't exist
Then technology advances a bit
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: Something from Kepler
>Conclusion: Exoplanets exist
Both conclusions are correct in given the available evidence.

>>8992726
If intelligent life exists in another part of the galaxy it almost certainly older than us. The chances of the 2 or more first intelligent life to evolve at the exact same time is near Zero. So either they are millions of years ahead in which case we should have seen them or behind in which case we could hardly call them intelligent.

>>8992732
>Hypothesis: moon exists
>Evidence: pointed my telescope the right way
>Conclusion: moon exists

>Hypothesis: moon doesn't exist
>Evidence: pointed my telescope the wrong way
>Conclusion: moon doesn't exist

>both conclusions are correct

>>8992736
The difference between aliens and exoplanets is that there is evidence that other intelligent life DOESN'T exist in our galaxy.

>>8992706
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8
not only do you not need to settle planets, but settling planets would be actively detrimental, as living on one is just using it's surface, and not it's total volume for habitation
harvest worlds, build living space is the ideal

>>8992725
>At sub light speed travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years.
Nope.
Voyager is only moving at 38,610 mph, about 0.0000576c
Juno will use Jupiter's gravity to reach 90,000 mph, or 0.0001342c.

>>8992735
>If intelligent life exists in another part of the galaxy it almost certainly older than us. The chances of the 2 or more first intelligent life to evolve at the exact same time is near Zero.
Glad you finally understand by throwing in the 'almost certainly' and 'near'! Good work!

>>8992722
>Does this imply exoplanets didn't exist back then?
No, that's his point. A lack of evidence of the existence of exoplanets was not evidence of a lack of existent exoplanets.

>>8992736
>Improperly conducted experiment has the same weight as a properly conducted experiment.
Well it's clear now that I'm either being trolled or you're retarded. I seriously hope you're not actually going to work in science since you've got no idea how the system works.

>>8992732
>Both conclusions are correct
no

>>8992737
>The difference between aliens and exoplanets is that there is evidence that other intelligent life DOESN'T exist in our galaxy.
I mean this claim has been made a dozen times in this thread already, but no one has posted this alleged evidence.

Where is the evidence?

>>8992744
>Well it's clear now that I'm either being trolled or you're retarded
Or the third option, that you're retarded.

How was the
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: None
>Conclusion: Exoplanets probably don't exist
conducted properly when it came to a false conclusion?

>>8992747
>Both conclusions are correct...given the available evidence.
Yes. That's how it is, you up date your views based on the best available evidence.

>>8992711
maybe rocket technology has limits

>>8992750
We looked at many different solar systems and found none and natural selection would indicate that if intelligent life existed and was able to build rocket ships it should have expanded to being extremely noticeable

>>8992757
>We looked at many different solar systems and found none and natural selection would indicate that if intelligent life existed and was able to build rocket ships it should have expanded to being extremely noticeable
Again, here we are on planet earth, with intelligent life, able to build rocket ships, and we haven't expanded to the point of being extremely noticeable

understand now?

>>8992759
That is because we have only had it for a few years. Unless every other species of intelligent life also just so happen to invent rockets at the same time we did then we are the only and first Rocket using species in the known universe.

>>8992740
This is under the assumption that is the max speed limit and even then it would take a few million years to colonize a galaxy but far less to spread out to inhabit a huge portion of it.

>>8992752
It wasn't incorrect, it was correct as far as you would have been able to tell. Just like 70 years ago it would have been correct to think that protons and neutrons were fundamental. Science is a long history of being wrong, it doesn't change the fact that we need to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

>>8992761
>Unless every other species of intelligent life also just so happen to invent rockets at the same time we did then we are the only and first Rocket using species in the known universe.
Africans don't have rockets, does that mean they're not intelligent life?

>>8992766
So either every intelligent species developed at the same time or we are the first. Unless you think every other intelligent species in the galaxy lived for millions of years and never created rocket technology. I don't think I would call that intelligent.

>>8992769
>So either every intelligent species developed at the same time or we are the first.
How do you still not get this?

Africans developed before every other humanoid, yet don't have rockets. There would be things other intelligent life develop that we don't develop, and things we develop that they don't develop.

>>8992769
pls
>>8992756

>>8992773
>Africans developed before every other humanoid
No they didn't. Modern day Africans aren't the same as the older ones.
Also as long as they develop logic, math or science they would develop rockets.

File: holey-bucket.jpg (61KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 560x560px

>>8992766
>Africans don't have rockets, does that mean they're not intelligent life?
The question answers itself

>>8992570
>How does it feel to know that humans are going to become "The old ones"
How do you know they haven't been old ones that have come and gone?

What makes you think we won't be snuffed out by a super nova, or that any intelligent life could every travel far enough from it home world to survive such an event?

>>8992829
>What makes you think we won't be snuffed out by a super nova
Unless a large enough star is teleported by old god extradimensional fuckery to within 50-60 LY of us we know because there aren't any super nova capable stars within the kill zone from earth.

>>8992763
>This is under the assumption that is the max speed limit
No, I'm addressing this:
>>8992725
>even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years

And at Voyager speeds, it would take well over 1.3 billion years to reach the farthest part of the galaxy.
But even that's misleading, since Voyager isn't carrying any means of decelerating.
Plus time to stop and build colonies along the way, etc.

>>8992570
Imagine being an alien archaeologist and finding all the really fucked up (kinky) porn aliens would stimulate their sexual reproductive organs to.

>>8992870
>he thinks voyager is the fastest thing we can make

>>8992753
Well yes, and if you have to speak from a purely empirical point of view then it's undeniably correct. Problem is it's also total bollocks. Even when the correct answer was no, everyone but the most strident autist expected that the ACTUAL answer was yes. That's one of the reasons they kept pushing for funding for new planetfinder tech. They were pretty damn sure they'd find something once it was technically possible to do so.

File: XCTdHoY.jpg (19KB, 280x373px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x373px

>>8992975
>>he thinks voyager is the fastest thing we can make
Dumbass:
>>8992725
>even at the speeds we currently possess
The Voyager probes ARE the ONLY extrasolar craft we've ever constructed.
As I point out here: >>8992740
>Juno will use Jupiter's gravity to reach 90,000 mph, or 0.0001342c.
Juno is faster, but only because it's falling towards Jupiter.
And I used the top speed for the Voyager probes, NOT their current speed.
New Horizons tops out at 36,000 mph.
The Helios probes do about 156,000 mph, but that's because they're orbiting the sun closer than Mercury.
And that's it. That's the fastest man-made object in history, 0.0002335c, but again, only because we dropped in to a very close solar orbit.

I'm sure _someday_ we'll make something faster, but you're talking out your ass when you say:
>>8992725
>even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years
The fastest we've ever sent anything outward is Voyager, and at that speed, it would take 73,000 years to reach the nearest star.

>>8993111
>Even when the correct answer was no,
Just splitting hairs here, but the correct answer was "we don't know", which is not the same as "no".

We really need to hurry up and search for life on Enceladus and Europa so the "hurr life only exists on Earth and nowhere else in the universe" brainlets can be objectively BTFO. If multiple worlds in our own system have life that would >imply the universe is teeming with life.

File: 1477670894532.gif (144KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 126x126px

>>8993121
Have you ever heard of laser propelled solar sails, friendo?
or ion drives
or fusion torches

we do have a bunch of different drives that can surpass our probes, The solar sails in particular can pull off 20% to 40% of c before getting extreme fuel costs

we have indeed invented better, they're just sitting in the lab until we have the industrial ability to construct ships in space for use in space, these drives are ineffective in a gravity well and thus are no good for putting on a rocket

>>8992620
they didn't have guns or iron

>>8993264
>Have you ever heard of laser propelled solar sails, friendo?
Of course, dumbass. But AGAIN, I'm addressing this point:
>>8992725
>even at the speeds we currently possess

And while _I'm_ sure we can reach higher speeds , OP (you?) insists that a lack of evidence indicates a hypotheses is false, so clearly higher speeds are impossible, somehow.

>>8993264
>we do have a bunch of different drives that can surpass our probes,
We have some nifty ideas, but none qualify as speeds we "currently possess".

> they're just sitting in the lab
Well, ion drives are already in use on existing spacecraft (at speeds of up to 22,000 mph), but they aren't the fastest spacecraft out there..
And there is a thing called a "fusion torch", but it's not a spacecraft engine, it's internal to a reactor. Maybe you're thinking of NERVA? But that's only got a specific impulse about twice that of chemical engines.
We don't have any practical solar sails, and your numbers are completely hand-wavy there.

Even theoretical, "maybe someday" level stuff like Project Orion take decades to reach the nearest star (133 years for Orion) at speeds that
would still take millions of years to cross the galaxy (even without saving fuel for slowing down or steering). And of course, Orion uses atom bombs for fuel, so refueling on some distant planet could take years or decades at a pop.

None of this rules out some other race getting here faster, but you clearly can't claim we can cross the galaxy in thousands of years with current technology.

>>8992658
Though in some cases the absence of evidence can let you make an assumption about a likely the absence of something is. In a lot of cases it's hard to 100% prove the absence of anything

feels like ill still have to shit after i eat.

cool story.

>>8993111
Not really, there's good reason to expect, a priori, that other planets exist around other stars. Physics is like that. Biology in the other hand is much, much more stochastic. So there's no particular reason to think that life (let alone intelligent life) is common, and that's the issue, since we only have a sample size of 1 (the earth) you can't create any good prior estimation on the abundance of life, so we have to use only the available evidence. Doing anything else is religion.

>>8993537
Sure, but "we don't know" isn't the same thing as "no".
OP's not just claiming we don't know of any intelligent life anywhere else, he's claiming it doesn't exist.

>>8993543
>he's claiming it doesn't exist.
And the available evidence agrees with him.

>>8993546
>And the available evidence agrees with him.
No, the available evidence neither supports nor denies his assertion.
Again, "I don't know" doesn't mean the same thing as "no".

>>8993549
That's wrong, for the reasons already explained.

>>8992693

>In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence. If you can't do that then your claim is assumed to be false.

If you cant do that then your claim is assumed to be of unknown truth value.

If you have positive evidence that it is false, then it is assumed to be false.


Now dont get me wrong, I think there are very good reasons to think there is no intelligent life anywhere near us, but it is not proven to be false either.

>>8993152

universe teeming with life would look very different than this one, for one we would have certainly detected their signals by now or met them

our universe is not teeming with life, Star Trek is not real

>>8992655
You're dumb. The best chances of us finding life are slim, and most definitely won't be smart. Secondly, intelligence is an extremely rare characteristic. Imagine every life on earth and 99.9% are super dumb compared to humans and the next best still fall leagues short of our brain power. The point is of all life we know there's only one king

>>8992570
I was fascinated by the idea of extraterrestrial sentient life once. Nowdays I just stopped caring. Even if it does exist someplace out there, we're not going to meet them. Maybe a thousand generations later at best.

File: jackson6.png (329KB, 808x805px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 808x805px

>mfw brainlets on /sci/ think the scientific method somehow(?) lets them conclude that there's no life outside Earth
i-im being trolled right?

>>8993719
>mfw brainlets on /sci/ think that you can't conclude something doesn't exist by the lack of evidence for it's existence.
>mfw these same brainlets would tell me that unicorns don't exist
>mfw I have no face for this retardation.

File: 1498241030602.png (792KB, 662x708px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 662x708px

>>8993730
>mfw brainlets on /sci/ thinks we even have the ability to access a significant portion of the universe to do the kind of the experiment that would let us conclude there's no life outside Earth
t-this is bait right?

>>8993741
Bro, unicorns exist. You just haven't looked hard enough.

File: ABLERGGGHUGIIOOOOOOOOOOOOuuuuuu.png (570KB, 801x595px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 801x595px

>>8993743
>mfw brainlets on /sci/ assume something exists because we haven't looked hard enough
y-you can't be serious

>>8993745
Can you show me evidence that they don't exist? No, I didn't think so. Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence bro.

File: ATTICA.png (332KB, 808x805px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 808x805px

>>8993748
>Can you show me evidence that they don't exist?
No that's why I'm not making the claim in either direction that they exist or not

>>8993749
So you unironically think that unicorns might exist?

>>8992666
First off, respectable trips.
Second, this guy made valuable points that cannot be refuted and Mr. blaze it is retarded

t. Harmless Bystander

File: 1498240581510.jpg (670KB, 1024x1305px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1024x1305px

>>8993751
>So you unironically think that unicorns might exist?
If they do they're very far away

>>8993751
We just dont have the technology to view unicorns. If we do discover other planets with fair amounts of habitation, we may actually discover unicorns on that planet as well. I guess he's right about not denying that unicorns may exist.

>>8993753
>>>/mlp/
You'll fit in better there I think. We, at some point, have to accept that the lack of evidence in support of an idea implies that the idea is wrong. Otherwise we have to hold onto some utterly retarded beliefs. Such as Unicorns exist, such as werewolves exist, and so on. Like it or not to prove, conclusively, the negation ("x doesn't exist") is literally impossible in science. As such we have to assume the positive hypothesis is false then seek to falsify that claim instead, a much more respectable task. If you doubt that, then please tell me how you can prove something which never existed, never existed; after all how can something which by definition can never leave any evidence behind, leave any evidence behind. Further if you want a more concrete example, please prove evidence that 100ft tall humans never existed. Perhaps you'll say "well, we've never seen a human that tall" but by that token we've never seen life outside of earth. If such evidence is good enough for one claim, why not the other as well?

File: Charles_Sillem_Lidderdale_A_pensive_moment.jpg (420KB, 1922x2481px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1922x2481px

>>8993751
>So you unironically think that dogs might exist?
t. some brainlet posting on an imageboard on a planet far, far away with no dogs

>>8993764
>We, at some point, have to accept that the lack of evidence in support of an idea implies that the idea is wrong.
Sure, but the idea you think is wrong is not implied by the evidence at hand, only a weaker idea. There's almost certainly no unicorns in this solar system. The rest of the universe? There's no experiment that could confirm or deny that using current technology

>Otherwise we have to hold onto some utterly retarded beliefs. Such as Unicorns exist, such as werewolves exist, and so on.
Is English your second language? Please point to a post where I said unicorns exist because there's a lack of evidence that they don't.

>If such evidence is good enough for one claim, why not the other as well?
It is good enough for both claims, I can't prove or disprove the notion that 100ft tall humans ever existed, so I wouldn't make the claim either way, just as I haven't made a claim either way about unicorns

You realize science doesn't give you an answer to everything right?

>>8993773
>The lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy implies that homeopathy doesn't work.
>The lack of evidence for unicornes implies that unicorns aren't real
>The lack of evidence for giants implies that giants don't exist
>The lack of evidence for aliums implies that they don't exist

This is not a hard concept to grasp. Or do you think that the lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopath is actually just a reflection of our ignorance, and that it should be considered equivalent to modern medicine?

>>8992680
We don't even know if interstellar travel is possible or if super advanced ayy lmaos care about colonizing at all when they can just do science or fuck virtual reality animes

>>8993788
Why do you have the inability to make the distinction between absence of evidence obtained through scientific method and absence of evidence that wasn't obtained through the scientific method? There's been repeated experiments that have found no efficacy of homeopathy, unfortunately there's no experiments that let us conclude aliens don't exist anywhere in the universe.

It's like you're being purposely dense

>>8993793
Im on your side of the fermi paradox arguement but that statement is flat out retarded. We could build a ship capable of making it to alpha centuri with a manned crew (several generations older mind you) with tech we have RIGHT NOW. It would take a long ass time, would be the most expensive project mankind has ever undertaken, and almost certainly be a waste of time. However, we are fully aware that its possible.

>>8993797
So absence of evidence is fine to imply that a hypothesis is wrong...but not in this case?
>unfortunately there's no experiments that let us conclude aliens don't exist anywhere in the universe.
Then speculation on the existence of aliens is nothing but pseudoscience and all funding for things like SETI should be discontinued.

>>8993809
>So absence of evidence is fine to imply that a hypothesis is wrong...but not in this case?
Yes, because the efficacy of homeopathy is falsifiable under experimentation. No one has run an experiment to comb every inch of the universe for aliens.

>Then speculation on the existence of aliens is nothing but pseudoscience and all funding for things like SETI should be discontinued.
Where did you get this implication? See above, we just don't have the technology to look everywhere in the universe. Also note that real scientists (not brainlets on /sci/) are still looking for extraterrestrial life, despite you apparently irrationally concluding that they don't exist based.

>>8992570


good post anon. i don't believe we're the first or only intelligent life in the universe, but the fermi paradox is just bullshit.

>>8993816
>No one has run an experiment to comb every inch of the universe for aliens.
But that's an impossible task, how could anyone ever reasonably expect that? Congratulations you've now argued that the whole endeavor of looking for alien life is not scientific.

>Where did you get this implication?
The standards you've set are impossible to meet, this is exactly the problem I have. You claim that the only way to prove that aliens don't exist is to look at every planet in the whole universe, something that is, quite literally, impossible to do. As such I claim that a much more reasonable experiment is to in fact hold that "life does not exists outside of the universe" and then attempt to falsify that. The difference isn't all that subtle:
>Hypothesis: "Alien life exists"
>Falsification criterion: "Search every planet in the universe"

>Hypothesis: "Alien life doesn't exist"
>Falsification criterion: *Find just one signal from elsewhere*

You see in the former, you can always claim that life is on the next planet when your current search turns up null. However with the latter once you've detected a signal, you can't claim that's its not alien. So the latter hypothesis is scientific while the former is not.

>>8993819
This is actually a seriously considered possibility (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08448.pdf). They conclude that the likelihood of life peaks about 10 trillion years from now. Don't let the brainlets on /sci/ know however, they seem to get annoyed when you claim that real life isn't Star Trek.

>>8993836
>But that's an impossible task, how could anyone ever reasonably expect that? Congratulations you've now argued that the whole endeavor of looking for alien life is not scientific.
Wrong again, it's still scientific. It's also impossible to test ALL possible combinations of drugs to cure cancer, yet scientists still look for a cure. You understand?

>The standards you've set are impossible to meet, this is exactly the problem I have. You claim that the only way to prove that aliens don't exist is to look at every planet in the whole universe, something that is, quite literally, impossible to do.
Of course with current technology it's impossible to meet, that's the whole point, thus you can't conclude there's no life outside Earth.

>As such I claim that a much more reasonable experiment is to in fact hold that "life does not exists outside of the universe" and then attempt to falsify that. The difference isn't all that subtle:
But there's no evidence to back up "life does not exists outside of the universe", so despite the subtle difference it still doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

>You see in the former, you can always claim that life is on the next planet when your current search turns up null. However with the latter once you've detected a signal, you can't claim that's its not alien. So the latter hypothesis is scientific while the former is not.
Why do you keep strawmanning with this "we haven't found it yet so it's still out there, just somewhere else"? I've never said that yet you bring it back repeatedly

>>8993848
>This post
I don't have the patients to explain it again anon. You don't understand, and it worries me that you might be doing an undergrad in some science and be this poorly educated on how the subject functions.
>Of course with current technology it's impossible to meet,
So how can someone meet your requirements? Also please design an experiment that allows us to observe every planet in the universe, given the finite speed of light.

>But there's no evidence to back up "life does not exists outside of the universe"
Holy shit, this is pissing me off. I explained that was the hypothesis to test, you know what that is right? Also it's such a dumb sentence, there's no evidence FOR life existing outside the earth either.

> I've never said that yet you bring it back repeatedly
Because it has to be implied in what you're arguing. Either, life is on the next planet or all current searches for life (by SETI say) have ruled out that intelligent life exists.

Fuck me, you should be embarrassed btw. I don't care if this is an anonymous Tuvan throat singing appreciation forum, to be so ignorant and so unawares and be seemingly proud about that is truly incredible.

>>8993867
>So how can someone meet your requirements?
With evidence of course, like anything scientific.

>I explained that was the hypothesis to test, you know what that is right? Also it's such a dumb sentence, there's no evidence FOR life existing outside the earth either.
Yes, and until you can adequately construct a falsifiable experiment (you haven't) to look for signals in the entire universe, you can't reach the conclusion you want, it's no different than this:
>>8992736

>Because it has to be implied in what you're arguing.
But it doesn't, as I've said repeatedly, I haven't made _any_ claim of the existence of non-existence of life outside Earth (I'll say it once more for you here, maybe it'll get through), yet here you are still saying that I've somehow implied this existence.

>Either, life is on the next planet or all current searches for life (by SETI say) have ruled out that intelligent life exists.
All current searches for life have ruled out that intelligent life exists _where we've looked_. Understand?

>>8993880
Clearly what I'm telling you clearly isn't going in, so I don't know why I'm bothering.
>Yes, and until you can adequately construct a falsifiable experiment (you haven't) to look for signals in the entire universe
I like how you've called SETI non-scientific. Really adds weight to your argument.
>to look for signals in the entire universe
Literally. LITERALLY. Impossible. Say we survey the whole universe, you could then claim that, because of the finite speed of light, that in x million years if you look again it'll have reach a point where we can detect it. It is impossible to falsify for that very reason, it always allows some regress.

>All current searches for life have ruled out that intelligent life exists _where we've looked_. Understand?
You see here it is, that implication that I talk about. Life isn't where we've looked so it might be somewhere else. And you don't even realise it! I'm either being trolled or you're the most ignorant faggot on this board.

Fuck me, Philosophy of Science should be mandatory in all undergrad curriculum to avoid this.
>Implying that would help anon.

>>8993903
>I like how you've called SETI non-scientific. Really adds weight to your argument.
Where did I call SETI non-scientific? I like how you think SETI has access to the entire universe. Really adds weight to your argument. One glance at Wikipedia (you really should do this at a bare minimum before trying to make claims about the conclusions you draw from an experiment you didn't even conduct yourself):
> For SERENDIP and most other SETI projects to detect a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization, the civilization would have to be beaming a powerful signal directly at us. It also means that Earth civilization will only be detectable within a distance of 100 light-years.[95]
>100 light-years

Hence SETI tells us nothing about life outside of that range, understand?

>Literally. LITERALLY. Impossible.
I'm glad you agree. This is why your conclusion is faulty.

>Say we survey the whole universe, you could then claim that, because of the finite speed of light, that in x million years if you look again it'll have reach a point where we can detect it. It is impossible to falsify for that very reason, it always allows some regress.
Again you've brought up a limitation of the experiment which doesn't allow you to reach the conclusion you keep repeating. I'm glad you've finally realized this.

>You see here it is, that implication that I talk about. Life isn't where we've looked so it might be somewhere else. And you don't even realise it! I'm either being trolled or you're the most ignorant faggot on this board.
There we go, you finally changed the 'must' to a 'might' so we're in agreement.

>>8993912
I'm not doing this anymore anon, you've demonstrated an incredible ignorance of basic principles in science (fuck sake earlier you didn't seem to understand what a hypothesis is). Moreover you apparently are completely ignorant of the philosophy of science. You come across as the prototypical Dunning-Kruger archetype. Someone who's lack of knowledge precludes them from realising how little they know.

I'm going to leave you now, but I want to point out why your world view is retarded. If we adopt your dumb view then we can never rule things out. I don't believe in unicorns since there has never been any proof of them. You on the other would instead claim "the lack of evidence only reflects our ignorance, unicorns could exists some where, in some remote place on Earth, we just haven't found them yet". And if you can't see the problem there, then I can't help you.

File: depositphotos_41184159-stock-photo-pensive-business-man-looking-up.jpg (85KB, 1023x904px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1023x904px

>>8993927
>I'm not doing this anymore anon, you've demonstrated an incredible ignorance of basic principles in science (fuck sake earlier you didn't seem to understand what a hypothesis is). Moreover you apparently are completely ignorant of the philosophy of science. You come across as the prototypical Dunning-Kruger archetype. Someone who's lack of knowledge precludes them from realising how little they know.
>I'm going to leave you now, but I want to point out why your world view is retarded.
irrelevant (also the hilarious irony here is that I at least recognize the knowledge I lack, while you draw conclusions from that same lack of knowledge)

>I don't believe in unicorns since there has never been any proof of them. You on the other would instead claim "the lack of evidence only reflects our ignorance, unicorns could exists some where, in some remote place on Earth, we just haven't found them yet". And if you can't see the problem there, then I can't help you.
see:
>>8993765
>So you unironically think that dogs might exist?
t. some brainlet posting on an imageboard on a planet far, far away with no dogs

If you want to keep drawing conclusions based on no scientific data feel free, but I prefer not pretending to know things I don't.

>>8993931
>If you want to keep drawing conclusions
IT'S THE HYPOTHESIS YOU FUCKING RETARD.

File: young-man-african-american-american-pensive-face-sceptical-de2x9x.jpg (58KB, 640x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x500px

>>8993945
>IT'S THE HYPOTHESIS YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Which isn't supported by evidence.

What part of constructing an adequate, falsifiable experiment do you not understand?

>>8993949
You see this is what I mean, when I say you don't know shit. If that hypothesis isn't supported by the evidence the, quite literally by definition, the must be evidence of life outside of earth.

>What part of constructing an adequate, falsifiable experiment do you not understand?
We've been over this before.

File: skeptical-baby.jpg (69KB, 576x325px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 576x325px

>>8993956
>If that hypothesis isn't supported by the evidence the, quite literally by definition, the must be evidence of life outside of earth.
Only if an experiment has been conducted (one hasn't).

>We've been over this before.
Feel free to link me to the published study that's searched the entire universe for extraterrestrial life.

I'll wait.

Whatever happened to schools teaching critical thinking ability? Is this what common core does to Americans? It just seems to leave the mind rotten

>>8993966
>Only if an experiment has been conducted (one hasn't).
Yes it has, it's been conducted right now by SETI, it's been conducted over the past 30 years. What you want is an experiment that violates the laws of physics. That's not possible. As such your views are pseudo-scientific.

File: boss-skeptical-stern-ss-1920.jpg (170KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1920x1080px

>>8993970
>Yes it has, it's been conducted right now by SETI, it's been conducted over the past 30 years.
see:
>>8993912
> For SERENDIP and most other SETI projects to detect a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization, the civilization would have to be beaming a powerful signal directly at us. It also means that Earth civilization will only be detectable within a distance of 100 light-years.[95]
>100 light-years

You realize the distinction between 'life outside Earth' and 'life within 100 light-years of Earth' I hope? Or do you believe the universe is only 100-light years long?

>>8993974
Good god, how hard is this to understand? We reach conclusions based on evidence, right? There is no evidence of life outside of earth, there is no experiment that can look outside our light cone. There no experiment that can, instantly, look at every planet in solar system.

You may as well be asking me to conduct an experiment to prove god exists at this stage. I'm not going to continue this utterly retarded argument any more. So your hypothesis is:
>Life exists out side of the earth
That has to be your hypothesis. Now please present me with evidence that supports your hypothesis.

File: 14195241-Portrait-of-a-young-man-skeptical-Stock-Photo.jpg (113KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 866x1300px

>>8993982
>We reach conclusions based on evidence, right?
I do, it seems like you make conclusions based on wishful thinking.

>There is no evidence of life outside of earth
(within 100 light years)

>there is no experiment that can look outside our light cone. There no experiment that can, instantly, look at every planet in solar system.
agreed, though I'm surprised you even know what a light cone is based on your previous posts

>That has to be your hypothesis.
Why does that have to be my hypothesis? When I do experiments I make my hypotheses both clear and testable, not vague and untestable like that one. I assume you don't do much professional science.

>>8993990
>it seems like you make conclusions based on wishful thinking.
A hypothesis is not a conclusion. How the fuck don't you know this?

>Why does that have to be my hypothesis?
What is your hypothesis then?

File: Why People Are So Skeptical About Your Home Business Opportunity.jpg (955KB, 1550x1239px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 1550x1239px

>>8994027
>A hypothesis is not a conclusion. How the fuck don't you know this?
So why are you concluding to have evidence that there exists no life outside Earth?

>What is your hypothesis then?
Well it's not mine as has been made clear repeatedly since I'm not doing the experiment, but SETI's hypothesis for their experiments is whether there's life within 100 light years of Earth. Have you really not understood that by this point?

>>8994037
>So why are you concluding to have evidence that there exists no life outside Earth?
My conclusion is "There is no evidence of life out side of earth, so we reject the null". Tell me what's wrong with that.

That's not their hypothesis, thats their experiment. The experiment test's the hypothesis, I learnt this when I was 13, how haven't you? Now what's your hypothesis?

File: skeptical-man-with-glasses-C7E5RM.jpg (158KB, 869x1390px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 869x1390px

>>8994042
>My conclusion is "There is no evidence of life out side of earth, so we reject the null". Tell me what's wrong with that.
Because the experiment was inadequate to support the conclusion, have I not taught you about the importance of proper experimentation already?
see:
>>8992736
>>Hypothesis: moon exists
>>Evidence: pointed my telescope the right way
>>Conclusion: moon exists
>>Hypothesis: moon doesn't exist
>>Evidence: pointed my telescope the wrong way
>>Conclusion: moon doesn't exist

>That's not their hypothesis, thats their experiment.
"there's life within 100 light years of Earth" is not an experiment (unless you're playing some philosophical thought experiment).

>Now what's your hypothesis?
I'm not doing any relevant experiments, why would I have a hypothesis? You seem awfully confused about how science functions

>>8994053
>Because the experiment was inadequate to support the conclusion
The experiment is the limit of what is physically possible, if that's inadequate then ALL experiments are inadequate. And your shitty little "thought experiment" only serves to see show you don't have a clue.

>there's life within 100 light years of Earth
My bad I miss read. Okay then, their null hypothesis is the negation of that. What can we conclude from 30 years of experiments without finding any evidence what so ever?

>, why would I have a hypothesis?
Well that made me so angry I burst a blood vessel. What the fuck have you been arguing about then? I set out my stall right at the start of this, I said that I was working from the hypothesis that life doesn't exist (because it's the better position, lest we go back to being unable to rule stuff out).

>You seem awfully confused about how science functions
Anon I have a masters degree in physics, I've been involved in about 3 experiments (then got a real job). Believe me when I tell you that I know how science works, you (quite clearly) don't I encourage you to read "science and reality", particularly the part on Bayesianism and modern theories of evidence. It's what I base my thesis on and can only help you at this stage. Now please, fuck off and stop shitting up /sci/ with your ill educated non-sense.

File: 23697798-man-is-looking-skeptical-Stock-Photo.jpg (76KB, 1300x867px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1300x867px

>>8994070
>The experiment is the limit of what is physically possible
SETI is not an experiment to test the hypothesis of whether there is life outside Earth, only the hypothesis that there is life within 100 light years of Earth. You do understand this right?

> if that's inadequate then ALL experiments are inadequate.
With current technology, sure.

>What can we conclude from 30 years of experiments without finding any evidence what so ever?
That there's no life within 100 light years of Earth... do you not know how to negate such a simple statement?

>What the fuck have you been arguing about then?
Your both misinformed and baseless conclusion that there's no life outside Earth.

>Anon I have a masters degree in physics
Seems like it hasn't done you much good in the cognitive department

Life elsewhere is likely different than here. We may not even recognize it as life at first.

I predict that it'll be at the edge of a galaxy, rather than within. Within, you're more likely to encounter gamma ray bursts, are more likely to collide with other stars, etc. due to the stellar sensory. There may be some instances, but they would be few and far inbetween.

If it does exist elsewhere, the population distribution of life per galaxy be like Australia's population distribution.

>>8992645
Absence. Of evidence.

Is not.

Evidence. Of absence.

Its entirely possible were the first intelligent life or among the first. I don't understand why this view seems to upset people though, why does everyone want to believe there's some hyper advanced civilization out there?

Tbh I think its pretty cool if we're the first. Maybe some day we'll be the ancient aliens to some other civilization.

>>8993804
>We could build a ship capable of making it to alpha centuri with a manned crew (several generations older mind you) with tech we have RIGHT NOW
Please educate yourself. This is ridiculously false. We have no way of making a ship that would last tens of thousands of years, let alone 10 years. We can't make a closed environment that would essentially have to recycle everything forever. If you think our current chemical rockets take us anywhere near Alpha Centauri just please read a book

>>8993574

There is a difference between primitive life and intelligent life and even among intelligent life there is a difference between how advanced various civilizations can be. There might be intelligent lifeforms on Proxima Centauri B (only 4 light years away) but if they are in the equivalent of our bronze age there is no way they are picking up our radio signals or emitting any of their own. It's also possible that animal/plant life is common but intelligent life is very rare and spread out thousands of light years apart..

>>8992570
>tfw we are going to become Time Lords

>>8993553
>That's wrong, for the reasons already explained.
Please link the post.
I'm really quite certain "no" and "I don't know" are two different answers.
See Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
If I were to claim aliens exist, the burden of proof would fall to me.
Claiming aliens _don't_ exist is a more extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof falls to you.
And so far there's no evidence for either claim.
You don't win by default just because you're somehow better than me.
And don't forget, I'm not even claiming aliens do exist.
I'm just waiting to hear ANY evidence of your claim, and you don't have any.
(Your baseless claims about how aliens must surely act doesn't count as evidence.)

>>8993574
>we would have certainly detected their signals by now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Humans_are_not_listening_properly
>SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio
>broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.

>The universe is in it's infancy
Why do you feel the need to anthopomorphise the universe, you idiot?
>with less than .1% of it's total life span having occurred
Why, is that a """small""" amount, retard?
>life span
pathetic

>>8994277
>difference between primitive life and intelligent life
It's not even intelligent life that's the game-changer, it's tool-making intelligent life.
Cephalopods (squids, octopi, etc) are quite intelligent and have hands, of a sort. They've been around for 400 million years, but haven't built shit (apparently).
Cetaceans (dolphins, whales etc) are possibly more intelligent than humans, but they don't build shit either.

>>8994127
>I predict that it'll be at the edge of a galaxy, rather than within. Within, you're more likely to encounter gamma ray bursts, are more likely to collide with other stars, etc. due to the stellar sensory. There may be some instances, but they would be few and far inbetween.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_habitable_zone
It's up for debate, and the Wikipedia page keeps changing. I suspect rival schools of thought are engaging in an "edit war".
The fringes are supposedly poor for life because low density of stars makes for lower density of heavier elements, since they're the product of stellar fusion.
Your views on the core being subject to excessive supernova and similar events are shared, but since almost all stars are in the core, it's possible the sheer number outweighs the unlikelihood of any one making it the billions of years required to reach the Cambrian Explosion stage.
Ultimately, I like this part:
>The data collected from the experiments support Prantzos's notion that there is no solidly defined galactic habitable zone, indicating the
>possibility of hundreds of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way, though further data will be required in order for a definitive
>determination to be made.[24]

tl;dr: it's to early to say for sure, we just don't know enough yet.

File: 1495691961764.jpg (138KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1280x720px

>>8994987
>Cetaceans (dolphins, whales etc) are possibly more intelligent than humans
come on now

>>8994186
>Its entirely possible were the first intelligent life or among the first.
In a small enough scope, sure.
The galaxy is so huge, we might be the first in the Orion arm to explore interstellar space.
It's likely to take us tens of thousands of years just to explore our small part of the galaxy.
There could be hundreds of other civilizations exploring other parts of the galaxy already, but if we don't encounter them for tens, or hundreds of thousands of years, we might be the mystic elders for the foreseeable future.

>>8995032
>come on now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea#Brain
>The neocortex of many cetaceans is home to elongated spindle neurons that, prior to 2007, were known only in hominids.[10]
>In humans, these cells are thought to be involved in social conduct, emotions, judgment and theory of mind.[11] Cetacean spindle
>neurons are found in areas of the brain homologous to where they are found in humans, suggesting they perform a similar function.[12]
>The brain to body mass ratio in some odontocetes, such as belugas and narwhals, is second only to humans.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence
(in general)
and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence#Comparative_cognition
>Dr. John C. Lilly proposed that developing a means of communicating with dolphins is necessary to have any future hope of
>communicating with an extraterrestrial organism of equal-or-greater intelligence to man, which also would have evolved in a different
>environment and evolutionary lineage.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/human-intelligence-versus-whales-and-dolphins/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/are-whales-smarter-than-we-are/

Honestly, there's really nothing conclusive here, but it seems debatable, at least.

>>8992620
This got me thinking.
I was about to offer a counter argument based on the Mayan's, because you had said, "They didn't have science," and the Mayans had pretty much mastered an understanding of the orbit of stars and planets and various astrodynamic phenomena and had also nailed the fundamentals of physics.
However, we wouldn't consider them "The Natives," because they died off long before anyone arrived to the Americas.

Why did the remnants of the extremely intelligent Mayans eventually form into the extremely religious, superstitious, and in the end stupid Aztecs? The Mayan to Aztec transition could be equated to that of the Greek to Roman transition, so how come only the cutting out hearts and building really tall temples thing stick around? Could we expect something similar in the modern era, the dumbening of a society in cultural transition?

>>8992570
>How does it feel to know that humans are going to become "The old ones" that you always see in sci fi?
Not at this rate. At this stage in our development we should really be expending a ton of resources to escape Earth and create colonies on the Moon, Mars and spacestations at the lagrange points. Having the entire species in a single gravity well is not a good long term strategy. We're fucking up our planet big time and at this rate it's actually more likely that humanity regresses to local fiefdoms when civilization collapses from GW than us progressing to a space faring civilization.

File: 1494710293347.jpg (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

>>8992584
>>8992570
>>8992584
>>8992655
You might be retarded anon, I would check up on that pronto

>Inb4 not an argument
I'd be the far bigger retard to try

>>8995254
Not sure how >>8992584 got in there

The problem of developing an interstellar civilization is a logistics one, really.
For the sake of argument, let's say we somehow manage to solve light-speed travel.
Establish a colony @ proxima.
"Hello neighbor!"
8 years later
"Hi"
"How is it going? need anything? Send pics."
3 years later
"Halp"
"It's on its way guys, disregard previous message"

It's just fucking impractical, and serves no purpose except in case of existential threat, like our sun dying.
Civilizations are better off exploiting the energy output of their host star for as long as possible and then move to the next one.

>>8995273

When the sun starts to die that won't be a sudden thing that comes out of nowhere. In fact, in a few hundred million years rising temperatures caused by the sun's increasing luminosity will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth and turn this planet into Venus 2.0 unless humans intervene and that will be billions of years before it goes red giant on us.

As for logistics, interstellar governance can only be possible with FTL travel. Doesn't mean interstellar colonization would be impractical or not worth doing, though. It decreases the chances of humanity going extinct and there's always more to explore and learn and discover.

>>8995286
That's true, but I expect by then we'll have at least colonized Mars, and have a multitude of space colonies around the asteroid belt.
It seems very doable, although hard, with even current technology.

Interstallar colonies would basically have to be independent. Which means there is zero return on investment for us.
Establishing one will surely involve sending everything there with a backup ship for everything, and then some more. You'd have to build an armada just for it, while you could have used the resources to build more space colonies around the sun and provided for more people, that would then participate in the Solar System Economy, unlike Proxima fags.

>>8994070
So your argument is that since SETI has been searching for 30 years and hasn't found anything, intelligent life definitely doesn't exist?
How much absence of evidence is evidence of absence? 30 years searching? Why not 40, or 100?

inb4 I get accused of trying to say there definitely is intelligent life

Our own space comunications are making the move towards lasers.
It means concentrated, power efficient beams of data.
It also means undetectable.

SETI is based on the outdated premise that aliens would use overpowered radio communications.

>>8992570
>This thread
Wew lads. Science works in a kind of Bayesian way, as more evidence for our beliefs become available our beliefs the more likely they're correct. Now as it stands there's no evidence (well perhaps some very very circumstantial evidence), so we need to conclude, for now, that there is no life outside of earth.

Now you might say that "well just because there's no evidence for it, doesn't mean it's not true" and that's true. The ontological value of alien life is independent of our evidence for that life. But that isn't science. The scientific approach would force us to conclude that, as it stands, the universe looks empty.

Now if you don't like that conclusion, fine, but you're making a religion of this. And I mean that quite literally.

>>8992570
> How come science fiction doesn't seem to want to deal with this?

"Space the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.It's continuing mission,To explore bland new worlds,to seek out new rocks and new empty spaces. To boldly go where no man has gone before."

>>8995445
>as more evidence for our beliefs become available our beliefs the more likely they're correct
And once that happens, we can start to draw conclusions.
But so far there's a grand total of ZERO evidence.
Therefore, by your own reasoning, the likelihood of any conclusion being correct is zero (aside from coincidental success).
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

If you want to draw any conclusions, the burden of proof falls to you.
Any answer (to any question) other than "we just don't know" MUST be supported by some kind of evidence.
...and THAT'S science.

>>8992666
Not him but I do have everdense, namely statistics
yuo see ivan, the fact we are here on this random rock is a good sign to assume life is randomly dispersed across the expanses of space that are all ruled by the same laws of nature as we basically find the same type of shit everywhere as in our solar system/galaxy the more we look
evidence for aliens is literally in the mirror lmao

>>8995529
I agree

>>8992636
>we just don't have the means to prove god but god surely exists
It's not yet or no. It's, until further notice.

>>8995552
>yet
yes*

>>8995529
>And once that happens, we can start to draw conclusions.
>But so far there's a grand total of ZERO evidence.
>Therefore, by your own reasoning, the likelihood of any conclusion being correct is zero (aside from coincidental success).

But this is utterly wrong. Your hypothesis is either:
>Life exists outside of earth
In which case the evidence doesn't favor the hypothesis, so we are forced to reject the hypothesis. Or you take
>Life does not exist outside of earth
In which case all evidence that currently exists from the various searches by NASA and by SETI, affirm the hypothesis.

I'm not going to argue with you, because based on your post it's pretty clear you're some nu-atheist retard (Christopher Hitchens lmao!), but you're building a new religion out of science. No matter what, there is no evidence for life ourside of earth, we have to conclude there is none. That might change in the future, it might not. But the future is unknowable to us. We can only talk about the present. Please start reading more, I can recommend some books on the philosophy of science if you actually want to learn, but based on your posts, you don't want to learn.

>If you want to draw any conclusions, the burden of proof falls to you.
But searches for life do exist, and they've not found any evidence. So in either a Bayesian of Falsificationist paradigm you're going to have to conclude that the hypothesis "life exists outside of earth" is false. I'll stress again, this conclusion could change, once sufficient evidence has been accumulated. But right now it's taken to be false. Like if I was in the 18th century and started talking about Quarks and Pions, the scientists of the time would conclude I was wrong, given the lack of evidence for such things. They would be 100% right in that conclusion. The ontological value of Quarks and Pions didn't change between then and now, but our ability to detect them did.

>>8995549
Then you would be wrong.

>>8995558
not enough evidence fgt
the universe is yuge and we don't know how likely it is for life to form
so refer back to >>8995529

you're too giddy suck some ayy lmao penis

File: 1497271339435.jpg (37KB, 446x602px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 446x602px

>>8995558
>all evidence that currently exists
No evidence exists.

>lmao!
lamo! indeed

>you're building a new religion out of science
>we have to conclude there is none
Since the hallmark of religion is belief unsupported by evidence, you're the one leaning that way, not me.

>based on your posts, you don't want to learn.
Wanting evidence should be a sign that I do want to learn.

>they've not found any evidence
Which is all I've claimed all along, glad you're on board.

>>8995568
>>8995569
Sci-fi shitposters are the worst. I said I wasn't argue I'm not going to. Needless to say you're both wrong. If we adopted your way of doing "science" then we'd conclude that Mermaids are potentially real, and the lack of evidence for mermaids? Well that's just because we can't scour 100% of the ocean.

>>8995529
>>8995547
>>8995558
You don't produce 'true' or 'false' you produce approximation or ideas based on available data. Even when you find a thousand separate instances of life, you still don't know if they are simply specific occurrences to particular areas, maybe life is particular to our galaxy. So you generally assume there must be life in other galaxiess, as what is unique about ours that would produce it here but not elsewhere? However, you can never resoundingly claim that life exists all throughout the universe, there is no true or false, ever, just thorough refinement as best we can do.

There is very minor and indirect evidence for the existence of life beyond Earth and for the lack of existence of life beyond Earth.
>existence
We are here, we are life. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly unique about Earth or anything to suggest life requires the specific set-up that Earth had, in addition there are many Earth-like planets anyway. However, we don't know how life came to be, there are ideas one can just take as obvious assumptions but they are not provable. It may be that our very specific set-up and conditions, in a certain age of the universe, are required for life. Or maybe life originates beyond Earth, "panspermia".

>lack of
We have yet (if ever), to find life or indications of life beyond Earth.

These are very different kinds of evidence, the "lack of" being more clear-cut but the "existence" cannot be dismissed either. Mostly because it's so unknown beyond the premise that we know life can exist.

>>8995577
no yur dumb, we've barely seen an iota of the universe and you're tryna conclude shit

>>8995205
You're looking at it, senpai.

>>8995580
I'd say all the chances to evolve life are present in the universe in every different possible way. They're just a bit rare to come across, like winning lottery tickets, but they're there, and this universe has ALL the planets, it's like owning all the lottery tickets that means you will win 100% despite every ticket having such an infinitely small chance of winning. And we know that as it happened on earth is not the only possible way of live happening. The universe has ALL the different possible ways of it happening.

File: trash.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>there's still people ITT concluding intelligent life doesn't exist anywhere else but on our planet
>despite all the actual professional scientists who still get funding to run search projects
really makes me think

why don't you just let the funding agencies know that there's no aliens so they can spend their money somewhere else?

ą̡̢̥̜̜͍̦͕̯̃̽͂͑͛̉͝l̨͎̩̥͓̟͎̦̙̭͛͗̿̒́̔̂͌̈͌i̡̹̦͕̩͙̻̬͓̻̇̔̉̏͊̎̍̓͝ȇ̮̖̝͓̦̻̙͙̈̈́͗̿̈́͊̈́̕̕͜ͅn̛̪̳̞͈̤̯̭̺̟͆͛͋̃́͑̒̕ͅ ̧̟͓͚̗̘͖̖̍̈́̀̊̍͛̑͊͝͠ͅh̨͙̬̞̯̤̟̮̤̻̽̑̓͂̋̀̓́͒̚ḙ͇̙̥̗̖̹̙͎̒͊̌͋͛̈́̈̆̈͑ͅṙ͙͍̻̖̖͚̜͔͋̊̋̉̃̊̈́͜ͅe̳͇̻̟͓͎͇͒͋̄̈́̌̈́͛́́̕͜ͅ,̟͙̮͎̦̬̞͍̖͉̈́̿́̌͒̏͋̈́̄̕ ̢̡̛̥̣̦̰̳͉̋͑̆̊̋̆̇͗̎͜͜k̨̺͈͍͓͎̠̦̺̂̊̒̀̉̾̐̒̈͠ę͙͚̗̗͇̖̜̟͉̈́̑̔̽̓̃́͆͋̀e̡͇̤̭̹̮̥̣̥̱̽͆̽̑̀͑̏̈͗͠p̧͖̪̥̞̗̣͔̜͐̿́͊̌̏̾̔͘͝ ̢̛̺͚̹̥̘̥̳̞̔̑̆̄̊̓͑͒͝ͅl̨̢̦̹̟̱̙̹̬̼͐̈́̎̂͑̓͂̕͝ơ̧̺̟̬͖̤̪͙͔̬͗͋̎̄̃̍͑͘͠o̥̗̟̖͓̘̟͍̙̥͐̉̃̆́̔̒͘͝͝k̨̢͎͎̣̻͎̜̤̥̄̓̏̀͗͋̈̃͋̿į̜̼̱͔̬͇̺̖̇͂͛́̈͋̍̔̍͜͠ṉ̢͙͓͍̳̝̬̰̰̒͋̎̐̂̐́̓̀͠g̨̡͇͖͖̭̭̼͐̒̆͗̀͒̀͗͜͝͠ͅ

>>8995844
>funding agencies
>He doesn't know SETI is mostly privately funded
Kek.

>>8995857
>>8995844
Oh wait my bad their searches are entirely privately funded. Gee I wonder why lmao.

>>8995857
>he assumes the phrase "funding agencies" implies public

>>8995863
But it does.

>>8995868
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/funding_agency

>An organization or department that provides funds for a particular purpose.
where's the word public?

>>8995868
nope.

>>8993516
>130 year journeys mean nobody can travel to another star
What if aliens live longer than us? What if they invented cryostasis?

>>8995872
>Having to use a dictionary
Kek. Go into any science department in the world and ask them to list all the funding agencies they apply to, they'll all be public. You'd know this if you worked in science, but like 99% of the people itt, you're just another sci fi shitposter.

>>8995880
I am a mathematician and I a grant from the Simons foundation. It's private. Now shut the fuck up because you're retarded. You should have just listened to the dictionary.

File: 1498321142101.jpg (152KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 512x512px

>>8995880
>>Having to use a dictionary
you mean the thing that defines words? yeah why would we use that to know what a word means...

is this really the brainpower of /sci/?

h̠̠̼̙͚̤̮̖̼͌̎̐̈́́̒͊͘̚̕ͅe̛̥͎̮͓̭̝͕͇̊̿̿̓͌̍̔͜͝͝l̡̧͎͓͙͖͔̞̬̼͌́̀̾́̃͋͒͋́ḷ̢͎̼͕̝͔̯͇̭̏̋͑̍̔̔̾̑́͝o̥͔̰͓̻̝̗̖̣͐͋̀̽̀̎̉̒͘̚ ̢̮̰̭̳̼̘̦̜͋̍̑̈́̂̔̕͘͜͠e̡̥̹͙̘̮̞̮̩̎͆̽͑̾̚͜͠͠͠a̢̛̹̥̘̪̜̞̟͚̯̾̉̊͗̈̓͆͂̍ȓ̡̛̯̖̟̞͚̺͆̂̐̈̀̕͜͠ͅt̩̦͇̩̳̞͓̭͍̐̇́̆̈́̉͊͑̚͝ḩ͉̣͙̥̹̬̭̳̪͛̑͆̾̏̿͆̏̀̍ļ̫̗̠͕̹̱̝͇̋̑̽̂̽̈́̋̀̓̆ͅi͕̪̜̜̙̳͈̬̖̳̔̋͒̍͛̏̓̆̈́͝n̢̰̬̝̝̤̹͈͉̄̿͛͊̇̃̎̔̓͜g͕̬̱̹͔͎̱͖̬̭̊̾͒̋̓̀̑͝s̡̬̺͉̹̳̘̹̓̌̾̌͑̀̾̾̚͝ͅ

>>8992584
Our observations of the greater Universe are literally limited by the speed of light, the Native Americans didn't even have the telescope.

>>8995876
>>130 year journeys mean nobody can travel to another star
I never said any such thing.
If you read the entire post, you'll see:
>>8993516
>you clearly can't claim we can cross the galaxy in thousands of years with current technology.
Which was my only point.

OP's original premise was that if any intelligent life existed anywhere in our galactic cluster, we would be rubbing elbows with them by now.
>>8992570
>we are the only ones in our galactic cluster and possibly even observable universe

He supports this by suggesting the galaxy is small, even by our current technological standards:
>>8992725
>travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years.
...and that's just not true.
The galaxy is far larger than OP seems to understand, and I'm trying to drive that point home by addressing his specific claim about "a few thousand years."

Obviously, in the bigger picture, we have no real idea how practical interstellar travel is, since we have no experience with it.
OP cavalierly suggests it's so easy any intelligent life can stride across the galaxy, no: WILL stride across the galaxy, and would surely come here just to tell us we're not alone.

Obviously, our own progress doesn't involve massive strides across the galaxy. Looking at our own progress it seems unlikely we'll go from Earth orbit to pan-galactic empire in anything less than many thousands of years.
And there's no telling how long such an empire would last, or what percentage of the stars in the galaxy would fall under our dominion, or if we would be opposed by other races.
You can't really say "any intelligence would do X, no matter what", it's just absurd.

>>8992570
Mammals from barely existing to us being on the edge of conquering space took only 100 million years, which in itself is less than 1% since the universe exists. So how tall are the odds we are the first one, if it only takes 100 million years for a species going from not existing to conquering space? I'd say the reason we see no aliens is either it is simply not possible to create technologies necessary for interstellar travel, or they are possible, but beyond anything we can imagine or see so they might be all around us and we dont notice them and they dont care about us.

P.S.
>>8992725
>At sub light speed travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years.

The galaxy is about 100,000 LY across. Even at light speed, it would take at least 100,000 years to cross it.

OP clearly doesn't understand the size of the galaxy, let alone the local group ("our galactic cluster").

Assuming anyone wanted to traverse the local group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
>The Local Group is the galaxy group that includes the Milky Way. The Local Group
>comprises more than 54 galaxies, most of them dwarf galaxies.
>The Local Group has a diameter of 10 Mly (3.1 Mpc) (about 1023 meters) and has a binary (dumbbell)[1] distribution.

So that's 10 million years to cross at light speed or 130 billion years at Voyager speed.

>>8995888
hi

>>8993553
Saying we dont have evidence is not evidence. You arent doing research by criticisng results. You are just denying the need for further studies. Show evidence that there is no other life. That earth is impossible to replicate in another system. Can you show that?

File: ff_milky_way_galaxy_lg.png (2MB, 1350x1350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1350x1350px

>>8992570
>muh fermi fagdox
The 5 red pixels circled by the red square is how far human signals have pread over the last 80 years (SETI wankery can't even fit a pixel) and how far we've become "detectable" to others as an intelligent species. How is it possible to make sweeping generalizations about the emptiness or fullness of space when our signature is basically non-existent? And potential ayy signals will still be subjected to the square-cube law and come to us as gibberish. We just don't know.

>>8997028
I've always wondered how they those those kind of photos

File: 1484247015364.png (307KB, 292x551px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 292x551px

>>8997885
>photos

W-what if every intelligent civilization out there are at our own technological levels too?

>planets orbit giant fucking nuclear reactors sending out tons of radiation
>people think we could actually notice some ayys sitting thousands of lightyears away
do you really think you can see the lights in Paris from out there?
finding them would be completely up to chance, and the milky way is pretty fucking big

>>8998006
>W-what if every intelligent civilization out there are at our own technological levels too?
Even at 0.1c, it would take a million years to cross the galaxy.
Two million years ago, humans were more or less animals that were just starting to use stone tools.
Nothing lasts forever.
It's entirely possible many civilizations/species have come and gone without ever lasting long enough to colonize the entire galaxy.
To address your point in particular: "what if every intelligent civilization out there are no more than a million years ahead of us, or already dead and gone?" should be enough to explain the lack of contact.

If contact was made today with advanced alien I would be much more confident about it coming out alright, as we would never be a threat to them.
If we start expanding and come across a specie with a similar level of technology at the same stage of developpement, this could legit turn into some sordid space genocide as we compete for more territory.

>>8992584
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
the great creationist troll william craig

>>8992570
It is not hard to believe, but there is no point in assuming it. If we are the first intelligent life, well we don't have the means to interact with other dumber life when we find it so who the fuck cares. For the foreseeable future we are stuck in our little aquarium of a solar system unable to reach any meaningful distance beyond it.

However, if we aren't the first intelligent life, then it is reasonable assume some other life that has been around longer is more intelligent. Perhaps they have found the means to reach into other solar systems or galaxies, something that we could be hundreds or thousands of years away from. Maybe they might come here one day?

Out of those two scenarios, only one allows for us to actually meet of communicate with alien life in a meanful way. Only one allows us to jumpstart our understanding of life in the universe. That scenario is obviously the more interesting one to consider from a scientific point of view.

>>8992570
you seem to be confused
on our planet 4 billion years old
it took 2 to 3 billion years to evolve intelligent life
and out of about 7,000 years of written history
only in the last 100 years have we actually touched space

100 years out of 4 billion

Now see the observable universe 13.5 billion light years in diameter
meaning that for us to see the edge of the universe now
it had to have been there 13.5 billion years ago
27 billion years is the age of the universe
and our star is barely 4 billion years old
and the star that created the nebula our star and solar system formed from
had to have been large enough to create a super nova and heavy elements
so at minimum 5 or 6 billion years from Mother star to intelligent life.
27 divided by 6 is 4.5 generations
more than enough time for intelligent life to form

Second the Brightest objects in the universe are Super novas, Quasers, Pulsars, and stars
Third to produce any sort of intergalactic signal,
you would literally have to highjack a pulsar, and modify it's frequency [FM] or brightness [AM]
or turn a star into a morse code lantern with a massive dyson sphere to shroud the star
Any signal of short enough frequency to easily send a message across space
would either be a very short message broadcast on a long wave signal
or a longer message broadcast on a shortwave signal
the problem with either is picking up and recognizing a weak signal
when space is filled with the background static of microwave radiation left over from the big bang

Fourth, intelligent life is going to come in one of two flavours
Evolved - probably similar to how we evolved, death, violence, and survival of the fittest being the deciding factors
Artificial - either Artificial intelligence, or Genetically modified
and if they've travelled from a far away star when they arrive on earth
there will be very few options
will they want to trade and share technology and knowledge?
will they want to colonize our planet as refugees ?

>>9000533
will they colonize our planet as invaders?
will they enslave the life forms on our planet?
will they terraform the planet killing all life, then colonize?
will they mine the whole solar system to rebuild their fleet?

>>9000533
>will they want to colonize our planet as refugees ?
They can fuck right off then, we're full

>>9000583
they have the technology to travel to other stars
how do you plan to fight an intergalactic war?

>>9000604
>refugees
>starting wars
Then they're not refugees are they

>Observable universe
Please kill urself

>>8992949
Eh, happens with human archeology all the time already.

File: space_niggers.jpg (156KB, 780x751px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 780x751px

>>9000604

They can go to an empty system if interstellar travel is that easy for them

>>9000714
empty systems are usually empty because they can't support life

We very well might be the only or rare few species to develop reasonably advanced tech, such as radio.

We should have seen ET radio waves by now if any have come before us elsewhere.

>>8992674
This, this right here is the stupidest fucking post I’ve ever read on 4chan, ever, and the guy claims to have a masters in physics.

Rejecting the null hypothesis doesn’t me the alternative hypothesis is necessarily true. You just say, I don’t know. Also, you appear to have retardedly confused evidence and proof.

There is evidence that the earth is flat, but there’s better evidence it’s not.

There is some evidence that we’re alone and some that we aren’t, but no proof of either.

Jesus fuck kill yourself.

>>9001004
>and the guy claims to have a masters in physics.
really makes you think about how easy it is to get graduate degrees these days

also lol he says he 'got a real job' so his ability to think scientifically might be slipping

>>9000929
>We should have seen ET radio waves by now if any have come before us elsewhere.
See:
>>8994969
>>>8993574
>>we would have certainly detected their signals by now
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Humans_are_not_listening_properly
>>SETI estimates, for instance, that with a radio telescope as sensitive as the Arecibo Observatory, Earth's television and radio
>>broadcasts would only be detectable at distances up to 0.3 light-years, less than 1/10 the distance to the nearest star.

We're very unlikely to notice any alien radio signals.

>>9000748
but nobody would be ever looking for a planet to settle, as it is leagues more cost effective to construct habitats and house your civilization that way
you need only raw materials to do that

File: 1471657945046.gif (2MB, 320x228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x228px

>>8992570
>>8992645

>There is no evidence that there is any other intelligent life in the universe and the Femi paradox seems to show that we are the only ones in our galactic cluster and possibly even observable universe
>Why is it so hard to believe that we are the first intelligent life?
>At first I thought it was unlikely but after thinking about it's by far the most likely explanation.

What the fuck is this retarded argument?
That's like saying "hurr durr I looked out my window and saw no one around my house so that must mean I'm the only living being on the planet".
Fucking kill yourself you retard.

>>9000533
>>9000539
>>9000583

>will they want to colonize our planet as refugees?
>will they colonize our planet as invaders?
>will they enslave the life forms on our planet?
>will they terraform the planet killing all life, then colonize?
>will they mine the whole solar system to rebuild their fleet?

Once space mining is unlocked there is literally zero reason for a civilization to out of their way to conquer another when they have all the resources they need.
There is resources for everyone out there and then some.
Populating the whole galaxy with one species just to keep space territories is going to take for fucking ever, so that idea goes out the window really fast.
An intelligent civilization will keep it's population low, have the machines do all the work and if they ever pay us a visit for shits and giggles they're going to send a drone, why risk your life in space?

File: das.jpg (30KB, 522x593px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 522x593px

>>8992570
>How come science fiction doesn't seem to want to deal with this?
Hey there champ, this is a board for actual science. On top of that, if you think we have developed a technique to decided definitively that a planet does or does not harbor life. You're a pretty special fellow, pic semi related

>>8992570
>The Epitome of ignorance.

My god are you deluded.

>>9001180
>it is leagues more cost effective to construct habitats and house your civilization that way
[citation needed]
Just like interstellar travel, we have no experience building habitats, so it's hard to draw any firm conclusions.
But look at the Earth. Most of the surface is ocean, and most of the land is unused, but we still house 7 billion people.
Just irrigating the desert should give us lots more capacity.
How hard would it be to build the equivalent space habitat? How much would it cost to create an artificial environment for even a billion people?
I'm pretty sure terraforming Mars would be a more viable option.

>>9001180
>but nobody would be ever looking for a planet to settle

...sure

>>8992584
I love the boondocks

>>9001327
how much would it cost to make? if you're hauling every ounce of construction mass into orbit, trillions per habitat
if you're being intelligent and sourcing your material from space through asteroids, next to fucking nothing, as iron, the shit we build damn near everything out of, is outstandingly common in them

>>8992570
I mean its kind of like the fallacy about how people say the earth being in the perfect place with the sun and moon and jupiter is evidence of god. Some intelligent life form had to be first, and that life form would look up and say wow there has to be other life out there

>>9001573
>if you're being intelligent and sourcing your material from space through asteroids, next to fucking nothing,

You still have to transfer orbit them to one place, melt them down, presumably add carbon to make steel, forge structural members, assemble them, etc. before you even have a place to stand. Then you need to make an airtight enclosure, and shield it from radiation while either letting in enough light to grow crops, or provide artificial light.
And of course there's the issue of gravity,
All this just to catch up to what a planet like Earth has already.

And using asteroids just doesn't scale up as well as you might think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Characteristics
>Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty.
>The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×10^21 to 3.2×10^21 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon.[3]
>The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.[4][5]
...without tackling one of the 4 really big asteroids, you've got about 2% of the material the moon does.
So you're not going to be building a Dyson Sphere, Dyson Swarm, or Ringworld out of asteroids.

There's no way you can rule out aliens looking to colonize other worlds, even if habitats were cheaper, and I'm pretty sure they aren't.

>>9001624
while there is quite a few steps involved in refining the raw materials, it is well worth it compared to the costs of getting things off earth, we're still in the 3k per kilogram price range, and an O'Neil cylinder is going to be well into the millions of tons

traveling the colossal interstellar distances to get to a planet that may or may not even be habitable at all for humans is also really expensive, since if you don't have fusion, you'll be paying out the nose for your energy costs, as accelerating a colony ship up to a good percent of light speed, a requirement to have it done in an even remotely reasonable amount of time, takes quite a bit of energy to do

at least with habitats, you can be 100% sure that you can live in it, and can tailor it to what ever climate you desire, and effortlessly maintain such a climate, hard vacuum is quite good at insulating something, so your tropical beach will stay that way for good
and 4% of the mass of the Moon is still fucking massive, and turning all of it into living space would still get you an absurd amount of room to stick people in, and when you take into account that you can mine moons just as easily as the asteroids, and we got plenty of mass to work with for any megastructure projects

this is not going to be an easy task, but I strongly argue that it's a far less expensive one than hauling up and sending ship after ship into the void
We need an industry in space to do anything, so why not dedicate some of that industry to making shit to live in, where would the workers live, after all?

>>9001645
>it is well worth it compared to the costs of getting things off earth,
But that's not what we're comparing.
It's still far cheaper to just move into a world like Earth than build an equivalent habitat.

I get that you really like habitats, but there's just no way you can say:
>>9001180
>but nobody would be ever looking for a planet to settle,
ESPECIALLY if you're trying to guess at the motives and decisions of a hypothetical alien race we know nothing about.

ALL OUR EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF LIFE OUT OF EARTH.

THAT'S IT.

IF "SUPERIOR" "INTELLIGENCE" EXIST, IT EITHER DOES NOT COMPUTE COMMUNICATION AS WE DO, OR CAN'T COMMUNICATE THIS FAR.

Why doesn't compute? They made us, we have no meaning, meaning has no meaning, any reason for anything to be what it is, they might as well have read /pol/ and decided not to contact us. Maybe they aren't that superior, maybe superiority has no significance or maybe maybe is not maybe and everything is as it is and nothing can come out of speculating and that's why they left us to rotten.

File: 1482168454134.gif (1MB, 205x223px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 205x223px

>>9001654
An interstellar colony ship is going to be a very large craft, one that would make an aircraft carrier look like a motorboat in comparison
to have a colony, you'd need at the absolute minimum 50000 people to have enough genetic diversity to prevent a bottleneck, in all likelyhood, it'd be around 100k, to ensure you have every type of person you need, since new ships from home will not come for a very, very long time
You then need all the hydroponics to feed the population, all the factories to clothe and supply them, all the entertainment to keep morale up and prevent boredom, all the supplies for educating the children that will no doubt be born, and all that living space to house everyone
in fact, The living space that a colony ship would have for it's colonists, an internal rotating habitat, is quite literally an O'Neil cylinder, just shrunken down for a smaller population, so by building a colony ship, you are building self sustaining habitats that just have thrusters or solar sails on them

To build one of these ships? You are using asteroids and moons for that material, because you'd probably bankrupt the entire god damn world in rocket launch costs, even after taking cost reductions from mass production into account

three very good videos that go in detail for all this are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y3MmmfZmP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THqtAQOicQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6BQSgidbmc

We ain't got no warp drives, and probably never will, so century long voyages at sublight speeds will be the norm once we finally claw our way into the heavens

>>9001672

Humans are starting to use lasers instead of radios for communication because they are superior. They are much more difficult to detect, meaning if that's how other species communicate we would not detect their signals unless they were specifically aimed at us. Also, we have only been broadcasting our radio signals to space for a century or so and we have only been making a dedicated effort to search for alien radio signals for a few decades. That's nothing in cosmic terms.

Anyways, we have made a couple notable discoveries that might be indicative of intelligent aliens - the Wow Signal and Tabby's Star. Both might be the product of natural causes, but given what we know now it's not impossible they were caused by aliens. The JWST will be able to detect which exoplanets have habitable atmospheres, meaning it will give us good SETI targets as well as good targets for future generations of telescopes that will be powerful enough to image exoplanets.

>>9001686
>An interstellar colony ship is going to be a very large craft,
>>9001686
>you'd need at the absolute minimum 50000 people
>>9001686
>century long voyages at sublight speeds will be the norm

>>9001685
>This is the third thread this week started by/popular with people who seem to think they have all the answers to purely hypothetical questions we have no practical knowledge of.
>Let's wait until we've sent a few ships to other stars before we start quoting numbers


Here, play with this:
http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html

IF we can produce sufficient acceleration, we can dispense with the whole "flying cities" approach to interstellar flight.
And let's not forget, we're not talking about us going there, we're talking about aliens visiting us, and colonizing our solar system.
Your absurdly exaggerated figures are for humans, not hypothetical aliens.
P.S.:
http://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/
https://dna-explained.com/2015/07/09/what-is-a-population-bottleneck/
>Assuming for purposes of discussion that all of the people who founded the Native American population came at once,
>or in what is referred to as one wave, we know that there were at least two men and 5 women.
...all Native Americans may be descended from as few as SEVEN colonists crossing the land-bridge.
Not a recommended practice, sure, but let's not say " absolute minimum 50000 people to have enough genetic diversity".
Let's also not forget that if our hypothetical aliens have interstellar travel, they probably also have the ability to freeze embryos, assuming they don't hatch from eggs or grow from seeds to begin with.
AND don't forget, I'm ultimately fighting against the idea that we can presume aliens are or aren't going to do this or that when we've never even met one.

>>9001817
>IF we can produce sufficient acceleration

We can produce sufficient acceleration. It's interstellar gas and dust hitting your spaceship at 0.9+ c that's the problem.

>>9001817
that calculator completely forgets the fact that interstellar space is not empty, but is instead filled with junk, that if not vaporized, would smash the ship apart
at 20%c, grains of sand are on par with explosives, and a pea, a small nuke in kinetic power
if we just keep accelerating, we will very quickly run into something that will turn our once happy ship into a scattered mess of scrap metal, so that glorious less than a decade travel time is not particularly viable if we want to get there in one piece
and even if you freeze embryos, you still need a decent sized population to use said embryos, as I don't think women would be particularly happy with being made to be constantly giving birth from 13 to 35 just to get population numbers up, you'd need artificial wombs to sidestep that one

Humans and our technology are used because it's all that we have in terms of what an intelligent space fairing species could be like, if we want to play the 'but aliens may be different in some magical way" game, then thinking of hypothetical actions aliens would take is fucking worthless, since any argument for or against can just be disregarded by both sides by shouting "but u don't know" at each other

if we want to produce anything, we have to make assumptions, logical ones, but assumptions nonetheless

>>8992570
I'd be fine with either possibility, but something that really intrigues me and I like the idea of even if its logically less likely than the other two is the possibility that there are other humanoid species like us out there, very similar to humans, similar or better technology level, virtually indistinguishable from us except for their own languages they developed on their world/s.

I dont know out of every possibility I like this one the most even though its the least likely. Because even if we fuck up on Earth at least some other human like species will still be travelling the stars, discovering incredible things about our universe, thriving in space, travelling to other galaxies - curious, exploratory and inquisitive like us. Another fun idea is that since we would both be looking for the same type of worlds to settle we would eventually run into each other and that would be our first contact. Some people find the idea of aliens that look just like humans boring but I don't, its an exciting if implausible idea, anyone else like it to?

>>9001850
>'but aliens may be different in some magical way"
Why wouldn't they be different than us?

>since any argument for or against can just be disregarded by both sides by shouting "but u don't know" at each other
>both sides
No. ONE side of this argument is saying "aliens must be exactly like us" while the other says "no, they might be different".
The idea that we don't know anything about aliens is the core of one side of the argument, and not the other.

>if we want to produce anything, we have to make assumptions, logical ones, but assumptions nonetheless
That's not an excuse for statements like: "An interstellar colony ship is going to be a very large craft," or "nobody would be ever looking for a planet to settle".
You can't use our inexperience with hypothetical alien races to excuse blanket, unfounded assumptions about them.
Yes, some alien race might want to colonize a planet, maybe, instead of building habitats just because you think they're nifty.
No, you can't assume the only way an unknown species might do that would involve a whole flying city full of them because you can't conceive of any alternative.

File: 1494742468129.jpg (45KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 512x512px

>>9001911
>doesn't actually refute anything
>just focuses on the very end of the post and ignores everything else
>
you say habitats are nifty, and thus will not be used
I stay colonyships are nifty and thus will not be used
you have not refuted absolutely fucking anything I've said, and I've refuted most of what you did

No you cannot just keep accelerating, because space dust will fuck you shit up.
No you cannot freeze embryos to solve all your problems, because you need a population to use those embryos in a span of time that isn't ridiculous, 1 birth per person per year is a good ballpark for most large complex life.
if you have the infrastructure to construct these ships at all, you can also construct other things alongside it.
and lastly, the ship itself will require living space, this very living space is the same thing you'd be up-scaling to design larger habitats, since they are genuinely the same thing.

please refute the actual post this time, instead of ignoring it to complain about a few choice thought processes

>>9002388
don't fucking even just ignore it because it doesn't look at aliens, you're the one that arbitrarily declared that habitats were a pipe dream, so prove it fuckboy

File: darkmatterapoth2.png (1MB, 1266x839px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1266x839px

>>8992570
>There is no evidence that there is any other intelligent life in the universe

Maybe not in 3-space in our immediate vicinity...

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGlwr44hsoE

>>8997028
You clearly don't understand the Fermi Paradox.
It's not about an alien detecting us, it's about the fact that if aliens did exist exponential growth would mean that we would find them almost everywhere on almost every star.
Because we don't that means there are no space faring alien species.

>>9001234
>Life
Intelligent life anon which would use energy and release it along with probably many other things that should be easily detectable

>>9002547
>Reddit

>>9002388
>and thus will not be used
Sigh...
I put a lot of effort into that post.
And you didn't even read it.
Are you my soon-to-be-ex-wife?
Because you sure seem like a useless cunt.

>>9002388
>No you cannot freeze embryos
You DO understand we're still talking about HYPOTHETICAL ALIENS, AND NOT HUMANS RIGHT??????
For all you know they don't even have embryos, and instead grow from pills that expand when you drop them in water like those dinosaur sponges, RIGHT?????
And FYI, YES, YOU CAN FUCKING FREEZE EMBRYOS. (or at least you can freeze sperm and ova, we've been doing it for decades).

>>9002388
>in a span of time that isn't ridiculous
Even the 1970's-era Project Orion projected 133 years to Proxima Centauri, Maybe (just maybe) real-life alien space can go a little faster?
btw, you've got some shitty memes there "friendo".

>>9002591
>if aliens did exist exponential growth would mean that we would find them almost everywhere on almost every star.
1) We haven't looked at "almost every star", just the one.
2) Perhaps the E.T.s are leaving us alone for some reason?
3) "Exponential growth" could just mean their domain doubles every 100 billion years, That's still exponential growth (welcome to the "math and science" board).
4) It could just be that a truly advanced civilization doesn't spread like locusts (duh).

But let's take a closer look at "exponential growth".
Forget the aliens, let's just assume we launch our own colonial ships.
Let's assume we double the size of our space-empire every hundred years (or every decade or whatever suits your autistic sense of self-empowerment).
That means the size of our empire doubles every ten "generations" (every thousand years in my example).
One thousand years = 1000 colonized worlds
Two thousand years = 1,000,000 worlds.
Three thousand years = one billion worlds
Four thousand years? Well there just aren't a trillion solar systems in the galaxy, so let's just say it takes less than 4,000 years to colonize the galaxy?
Sorry, nope.
Starting from Earth, we can't even reach one of the main spiral arms in 4,000 years, even traveling at 99.999999% of light speed.
(fyi, we're on an odd little "bridge" between two main spiral arms)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Arm

As much as you'd like to believe that ANY possible alien life would expand exponentially to every star system in the galaxy, it's not only not inevitable, it's not even particularly practical.

>>9002640
>No you cannot freeze embryos to solve all your problems
>to solve all your problems
I like how you literally ignored half of the fucking sentence just to make your shitpost

>>9002683
Wouldn't you be happier on /b/ downloading pictures of underage boys in drag?
What's your point?
Aliens can't freeze their embryos, or whatever their equivalent is?
Ultimately, you can't make broad, categorical assumptions about hypothetical aliens and pigeon-hole them into a very specific behavior just because you're so narrow-minded you believe there's only one possible scenario they surely must fulfill, especially when you start making categorical statement that aren't even true of humans.

>>9001597
Unless you believe you believe the apparent emptiness is evidence that god is lacing the rest of the universe with a growth inhibitor, the chance that we're the first is astronomically low.

File: sample-ed089c466d6472ba0c712a3894e92ea4.jpg (198KB, 744x1000px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 744x1000px

>>9002693
>Wouldn't you be happier on /b/ downloading pictures of underage boys in drag?

Traps are Not gay if they have a feminine penis.

>>9002667
>Almost every star
You don't get it. We wouldn't have to look at almost every star. They would be at almost every star.
If aliens exist that have space travel technology then they would be in nearly every star system.

>>9002725
>If aliens exist that have space travel technology then they would be in nearly every star system.
...unless, of course:
1) They don't relentlessly expand like locusts
- or -
2) They've only been at it for 10-20 million years and haven't gotten here yet (or 100-200 million years if from a neighboring galaxy).
- or -
3) They only colonize worlds/stars similar to
their homeworld.
- or -
4) They aren't willing to displace /interfere with existing life.
- or -
5) Nothing lasts forever, and they evolved/devolved/changed enough that their expansion phase only lasted long enough to cover a few billion star systems, and not the _hundreds_ of billions of systems in the galaxy.
- or -
6) Their expansion led to infighting, preventing them from expanding indefinitely.
- or -
7) Interstellar travel is less practical than you'd like to believe.
- or -
8) The aliens have decided to safeguard their existence through secrecy, and deliberately avoided expanding.
- or -
9) They're just so different from us that we wouldn't/don't recognize them.
- or -
10) Dozens of things I haven't thought of myself.

We have no actual knowledge of aliens, and your personality issues don't give you clairvoyance.
Science begins with observation.
You can't draw conclusions about something you have no experience with.

>>9002732
Or, intelligent life that expands is in proportion to intelligent life similarly to intelligent life is to life in general.

We may detect signs of intelligent life that never leaves its homeworld just like we haven’t. That may be as good as it gets.

But that’s still intelligent life.

>>8992781
For a science board you guys are pretty fucking stupid. You're making a very large assumption that every single intelligent species even has the resources, culture of curiosity and exploration, and physical ability to develop rockets and interplanetary travel. You're using your bias as a human to automatically place other completely unrelated species in a human mindset, much like a person seeing a smiling dog and thinking it's happy because that's what humans do when we're happy. That's not the case, and to just fly off baseless assumptions that all intelligent species are like humans is ridiculous.

>>9002693
>still going vast lengths to ignore the whole point to serve your own arguement
the key word was "to solve all of your problems" you cum gargling faggot
It said absolutely nothing on if they could do so, or if it could be done, just that it cannot be used as a reason of why you can shrink interstellar colony ships to clowncar size, since frozen embryos still need a living person to turn into another person, and the person they need also needs supplies to go the journey
You are not fucking getting away with shitting out "but maybe aliens don't need food, water or air to live", since every single of the TRILLIONS of species that we have found on earth require food energy of some form, and for aliens to not require any of it because literal magic would go against everything we know of biology
fuck off if you try

>>9002799
and before you continue being an ass bandit, The embryo problem still applies to eggs and seeds, as young still need to be cared for, regardless of how they came to be

>>8992570
The truthful reaction is that we don't know. But that's not what people want to hear. They want their binary biases assured.

>>8995338
No, his argument is that we should be working on the basis of "intelligent life not existing", not that we should altogether reject it as a concept. By working from that perspective we can draw more reliable conclusions which we can prove as false to provide a reasonable limit to our search, as once contact is made it is impossible to continue to work from that perspective.

File: how-far-in-space-our-radio-broadcasts-reach - ignoring inverse square.jpg (70KB, 1000x917px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x917px

>>8992570
Because there's a fuckload of stars.

Turns out most of them have planets.

Turns out our star isn't even the most likely type to have rocky planets in its habitable zone.

Turns out the type that is most likely is a hundred times more common and lasts a hundred times as long.

Turns out we're way out in the rural boonies in terms of our own galaxy, with a whole lot more stars and solar systems in suburbia and the city.

Turns out there's a fuckload more galaxies than we ever thought.

Turns out a lot of them have already red shifted forever beyond our view. Judging by the CMB, maybe even most of them.

Turns out the elements that make up life are pretty damned common, all among the most common in the universe.

Turns out even asteroids have nucleotides on them.

...and all of this has been true in all of the universe, well before our star was even born.

So yeah, it is kinda hard to believe we're the first intelligent life in the universe. I mean, yeah, we might be among the first 1% - but there's probably a lot of company in there.

Now if you want to argue whether or not there's any in the same galaxy as us so we can actually meet them some day, that's another thing... But there's at least 10^24 opportunities for this to happen, so the odds of it not happening again somewhere else - pretty damned slim, as that'd be a lot of lottery winners.

>>8992570
>Why is it so hard to believe
Perhaps there is a better world out there that some people for some reason don't want you to know about because it would invalidate some particular worldview?

>>9002799
>it cannot be used as a reason of why you can shrink interstellar colony ships to clowncar size,
???
>>9002799
>since frozen embryos still need a living person to turn into another person
Ohhhh....
It _would_ be a lot easier to dispute your nonsense if you actually stated your case more clearly.
To be fair, you did say:
>>9002388
>because you need a population to use those embryos in a span of time that isn't ridiculous
..but I pretty much ignored that because it's so unfounded.
Even humans have speculated about sending _just_ embryos, and letting machines (or local aliens) raise them. And even if you want a small crew to raise them, as long as we postulate artificial wombs, we just need enough people to work the machines.
And _again_ we're talking about hypothetical aliens. For all you know, they might have a single parent that lives thousand years and spawns a thousand eggs at a time.
Or a species that abandons their young anyway, like frogs do with tadpoles.
There's really nothing about the issue that requires a population of 50,000+.
>>9001686
>absolute minimum 50000 people

>>9002799
>You are not fucking getting away with shitting out "but maybe aliens don't need food, water or air to live",
Wow, that's a complete strawman. I never said anything of the sort.

But what is your point anyway? You seem to either be OP, or at least share his views about the Fermi Paradox "proving" there's no intelligent life out there.
If you're right about flying cities being a prerequisite to interstellar travel for _any_ potential alien species, (and you're not) wouldn't that idea undermine OP's original point?

>>9002725
>We wouldn't have to look at almost every star. They would be at almost every star.
They might be living in orbit around "almost every star", but if the Sun is one of the rare exceptions, we wouldn't meet them just sitting here.

>>9003013
What are the odds among the trillions of galaxies in this universe that there exists another species that looks like humans? Humanoid at the very least even if not of primate origin, walking and standing on 2 legs, 2 arms, opossable thumbs, large brains, propensity for making tools, developed language, societies, civilization etc.

Its something I like to wonder about a lot.

>>9002697
My point is calculating the probability of the creation of the being capable of calculating the probability is absurd. There is a 100% chance that the first intelligent life form looked up and wondered if it was the first

"Life" as we define it could very well exist in other forms too.
Take the (highly speculative) Boltzmann Brain for example.

>>9001194
> why risk your life in space?
eventually you'll have to move because of entropic decay
assuming we live long enough, we'll have to move for a number of reasons
1. Earth's core will cool, the magnetic field will collapse, and the solar wind will strip away our atmosphere
2. The Sun will die as a red giant, before shedding it's gasses, and leaving a white dwarf star behind
3. The Milky Way Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy, potentially resulting in another solar system colliding with ours.
4. the Galaxy will eventually age to the point all the stars are dead and we'll have to move to another galaxy
5. Entropic decay, Heat death of the universe, long after the last star has died, the universe will reach the point of entropy,
and the fabric of space and time will no longer have the energy to maintain it's matrix and the universe will dissolve back into the void.

we will have to go into space,
we will have to visit other stars
we will have to travel to other galaxies
we will have to find a new universe.

assuming you don't just go extinct with the rest of your species

>>9003717

>we will have to travel faster than the speed of light every trillion years
>assuming we don't just make our own safe cocoon with all our technology and stay there instead of moving

you have truly opened my eyes

>>8992570
What is remarkable to me is that life has been around for two third of the time of this universe, and around 19/20th of the time of formed stars. I have no idea what this implies. It just adds a little bizarity to this whole story.

>>9003744
It's pretty much guaranteed that one planet would have the perfect conditions to create life right off the bat. Now the real question is how remarkable it is that you exist in the wee wee infancy of the universe, and not a universe hundreds of billions of years old. There is still plenty of time for life to pop up elsewhere. Whole solar systems will form over the coming billions of years, and some of those will also have perfect conditions for life right off the bat. Why don't you exist there? Seems much more likely if you have sprung into existence randomly.

>>9003777
From your reasoning, the chance of -atleast- one planet with life would be one. The chance of having -exactly- one planet would again be zero (And so would the chance of having exactly 1342 planets, but its easy to see that the multiplicity of a number of 1, or between 1 and 10, or 1 and 100 for that matter is way lower than the multiplicity of a number between 10000 and 100000. If a steady chance exists, then there'd be way more planets with life. (Stating that 'these '3000' planets have simply not yet been found is not an argument. as its the ratio of (planets with life)/(planets without life) that is important in trying to lable a chance process to life formation. ))

What the 19/20th fraction that I referred to, adds, is that conditions have changed for planets, but undoubtly the conditions now are probably similar to those several billion years ago. Atleast not that dissimilar that would prevent the possibility of the formation of life. Life starting at 1/20th of the time that its possible at all, adds another 'unlikelyhood' factor of 20. Is it large? Only relatively, but it is a nice a addition and a 'buffer' unlikelyhood, in case that the other argumen turns out to be not true.

Though, I'm not at an astrophysicist so I can't say too much about the conditions.

>>8992570
Nobody here who believes the universe is over 10000 years old can explain spiral arms on galaxies.

Thank you.

>>9003717
Or your humanistic worldview is bogus.

/sci/ - Trolls and Retards

>>9003717
Here's a fact for you: everything that lives also dies. Humanity has only existed for a while and eventually we will again return to nothing. It's a nice scifi fantasy but there are things that are possible and things that are not and it's something you need to accept, just like your own death

>>8994268
Some search terms for you:
"Nuclear pulse propulsion"
"Fission fragment rocket"
"solar sail" plus "laser"

Getting to Alpha Centauri in a century or two is doable. I concede that making the ship last for that long is, to put it lightly, nontrivial.

>>8992570

Life on Earth needed really a moment to get from nothing to us compared to how old Universe is.

>>9004173
And what will you do when you hit a tiny particle at that speed? Your ship and crew will turn into smoothie in an instant.

>>9004173
Keeping a spacecraft working for two centuries straight, especially at that kind of ridiculous speeds, is absolutely not nontrivial, it's downright impossible

>>9004237
shield generators just like in the movies!

File: Untitled.jpg (24KB, 610x710px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 610x710px

are black holes the overlords of our universe and we're just their livestock? how do we defeat them?

>>9004253
no such thing as impossible
difficult, yes
wake me up inside teir? probably
but outright impossible, absolutely not

it is possible to maintain a thing, that thing can then have it's life expectancy increase
so if parts break down, send a drone out to repair or replace that part

>>9004355
it's so difficult that for all intents and purposes you might as well call it impossible because it's never going to happen
keep a plane on air for a century or two and report back, that should be a million times easier than what you are proposing because they can actually get support from ground

File: 1477442040089.jpg (32KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x300px

>>9004366
spacecraft are not aircraft

You cannot open the airlock on a plane and make repairs on it mid flight, On a spacecraft you easily could

an interstellar spacecraft can also be built to be large if desired, massive enough to store all the fuel it would require, storing uranium fuel pellets wouldn't take an excessive amount of space that couldn't be accounted for by adding more space, if we can never achieve fusion instead.

the parts you need could be manufactured on site with stored materials, since if you're using a ship for 2 centuries straight, you'd probably go the "flying city" route for your design, the fear of running out would have to be solved by recycling everything possible, as well as increasing ship length to have more cargo

this craft would not be small by any means, undoubtedly enough to make an aircraft carrier look like a god damn joke, but all the issues that exist can most definitely be accounted for and fixed with the knowledge we have right now

Submarines stay under the sea for quite a while, what methods do you think they employ?

quit bitching about how everything is impossible in every fucking thread
why not do some brainstorming on how YOU might solve the problem, instead of responding on how everything I posted is impossible never ever never ever

>Why is it so hard to believe that we are the first intelligent life?
Because all of our fantasies about Aliens requires us to MEET the ancient aliens, not BE them
It's far easier to stand on the shoulders of galactic sized giants than to have to become one yourself.

File: vader_s_stormtroopers_by_lordhayabusa357-d8vx134.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>9004395
In Star Wars & the Movie Avatar

the Humans are the most advanced species, the "ancient ones" / master race.

While other dumber aliens are discriminated by Humans.

For Example:
in Star Wars the Fascist galactic Empire discriminated & despised Aliens, while the Rebels allied with Aliens.

in Avatar the Blue Cat-Apes were inspired by Native Americans. The Blue Aliens were more savage, less technologically advanced & were hunted by humans.

>>9003882
Here's a fact for you: everything that lives, does its damndest to keep living, and generally, pass its genes to the next generation, spreading, multiplying, and adapting to as many environs as possible.

We've gotten to the point where passing down knowledge is more important than passing down genes, and we're getting to the point that, when this biosphere inevitable dies, we don't have to go down with the ship - so, doing what life does, ie. spreading to survive, would be the next most logical step.

Now, whether we can escape the heat death of the universe is another thing, but if we can spread beyond the system, we'll have a few trillion years to work on that - many thousands of times what we'll have if we keep ourselves here.

>>9002784
Life trying to expand is the logical conclusion that all life forms seem to adher to.

File: ewok-and-jar-jar.jpg (60KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 615x410px

>>9004395

Continuing >>9004407

In Star Wars most aliens were more dumber & less technologically advanced than Humans.

In Star Wars the Humans were the 1st to do inter space travel, the smartest &most advanced species in the galaxy.

Fascist galactic Empire colonized most of Galaxy & discriminated Aliens.

The Liberal/Libertarian Rebels allied & befriend with the discriminated Aliens against the Empire.

In Avatar the Primitive Aliens.were colonized by the Humans.

File: patent_office_1899.jpg (38KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 728x546px

>>9004366
>keep a plane on air for a century or two and report back
Not him, but we could probably do that, and it'd be a lot harder. We solar powered aircraft that can continue flying through the night, perpetually. Albeit they can't carry much, and certainly won't last centuries, but the tech to do that, if you really wanted to for some reason, isn't exactly out of reach.

More importantly, it seems more likely we'll have several self sustaining colonies throughout the solar system before we get up the nerve to look at the daunting task of colonizing another, so we're looking so far into the future that the methodologies available to us are almost beyond speculation.

...and further, it's looking increasingly like that we may have virtual biological immortality before we even have those colonies here, the mechanisms for which are looking as about as close and perhaps more viable, in terms of economics, willpower, and profit potential. If such long lifespans under reduced consumption comes to the forefront, or if suspended animation becomes a thing, we might not care so much about how long the journey takes, and may not have to reach other systems at such ludicrous speeds.

Plus there's always the old embryonic colonization models. They may require some sci-fi level automation and DNA manipulation, but it is the sort of vanity project a civilization of the distant future could easily have access to.

I mean, yeah, we're not going to see much of any of this in our lifetime (save maybe some drastic human genetic engineering for the youngest of our members), but to call things we can theorize about, impossible, should really be reserved for patent clerks of the 1890's. Really, anything we can imagine potentially possible tends to one day be possible - it's all the impossible stuff we never thought about, however, that tends to have the most drastic changes when it suddenly becomes so.

You have to be really narrow-minded if you think we are the only intelligent life forms in the the whole universe.

>>9004407
>>9004424
Star Wars is a shitty Space Fantasy ripped directly from the Heroes Journey, of course it's going to depict humans as the dominant race. It's a fucking pleb tier narrative.

As for Avatar, several more movies are planned. I highly down the movie is going to stick to primitive pandora.

>>9004426
>but it is the sort of vanity project a civilization of the distant future could easily have access to
Vanity projects... For several decades you've been able to pay a service to have your ashes shot into orbit. More recently, they've started launching probes that'll launch a sample of your DNA into deep space, Voyager style (with a host of other customer's).

That used to cost millions and be reserved for a few rich essentrics. Now the price is $12-$24k. Space funeral services have actually become a minor driving factor in the commercial spaceflight industry.

File: avatar-the-movie.jpg (48KB, 458x305px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 458x305px

>>9004437

But Why We could not be the most advanced or the 1st space travelling civilization in our section of Galaxy?

All Aliens in Galaxy could be Like the movie Avatar. All very Savage, Primitive & Braiinlets like the Blue Aliens in Pandora.

The reason why aliens don't emit detectable radio signals to us may be because most Aliens are Brainlets & their technology is too primitive.

>>9004407 >>9004424

>>9004446
Radio waves have an inverse square problem. Even if there was an extraterrestrial civilization as equally prolific in radio and TV media as the we are, within our own solar system, if it was any further away that Mars we couldn't detect it (so no, aliens are not watching Hitler's speech at the Olympics 80 light years from here). At our power generation levels, only an active SETI program aimed right at us could reach us, and even then, with a few brief exceptions, only from very local stars. Even some of our scientists go on about how stupid an idea it is to broadcast your location to potential alien civilization, so it seems an even slightly more sensibly paranoid civilization wouldn't be likely to try to do so.

And again, we're out in the boonies. There's just not very many stars around here. If there's folks talking to each other, odds are they are closer to the middle of the galaxy than we are, and they may think life out here in the fringe is next to impossible, and thus not looking.

Not that it isn't all speculation... But is worth noting that the time period between "Injun savage" and "first space flight", for us at least, was less than 10,000 years - while single celled organism to humanoid was nearly four billion years. Assuming that pattern is the norm, the odds of us running into "primitives building huts" is next to nill. If we're going to find anything, it's much more likely to be bacteria and plants, or far, far beyond us.

It could just be that life is rare as fuck, however, and while there's probably something to be found somewhere, it maybe there's no such in our own galaxy, and thus, assuming FTL isn't a thing, we'll never encounter it.

>>9004461
Reasonable..

But I hope Humans start travelling away from Earth soon instead of just simply waiting forever.

because as you said >>9004461
>most advanced aliens may be closer to galaxy middle
>they may think life out here in the fringe is next to impossible, and thus not looking.

So We should not just be waiting forever. We should be proactive, take action & explore the space.

>>9004386
it's not, aircraft is much simpler, I just gave you a very difficult task that is childsplay compared to your meme technology
I'd rather focus on real technology instead of unlikely scifi

9004506
did you really just ignore the entirety of the fucking post, just to respond to the first fucking sentence?
You do not get a (You), you fucking cockmongler

>>9004512
stop acting like you didn't ignore posts and points that don't fit your opinion and resort to namecalling instead

>>9004515
>nuclear reactors are meme technology
>metal formers are meme technology
>3d printers are meme technology
>a remote controlled robot with arms on it is meme technology
you said it was impossible, I gave solutions on how it could be done
and now you declare technology that we have had and have been using for decades, or in the case of metal formers, MILLENNIA, is meme technology

why not state in detail a glaring problem, so I can debunk it, instead of declaring it's impossible sci fi without actually displaying HOW it's impossible

>>9004519
how about you scroll up, there's nothing to discuss if you ignore half of the points and change opinions when your point are proven not to hold any water and then get mad when someone doesn't buy your shit

>>9004386
Wait, how would you make repairs when the ship is moving at ludicrous speeds? Space stations are different because they are static to you, you're orbiting earth at the same speed. But if you leave a ship in motion you'd get lost behind.

>>9004526
bruh