Is this a good investment? I hope they wouldn't spend money for things that wouldn't work!

http://tass.com/science/896683

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/health...ch-for-aliens/

http://www.space.com/34505-alien-meg...ti-search.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/video/ind...-aliens-wrong/

https://news.sky.com/story/seti-scie...rithm-11495075

If it is in many distant galaxies and its similar then its not aliens likely because they wouldn't all be using the same signature that probably represents a tiny fraction of their evolution timeframe technology. Deep in their future they would have developed much more efficient methods like antimatter. Solar sails are crap actually and works only to small speeds if you study it well.

Just to see how ridiculous this technology is imagine you wanted to accelerate to 0.1c within the range of a solar system of say 4 bil km using solar magnetic/electric etc sails. Clearly the further out you get from the sun the more weak the effect gets. So now you need to have experienced an acceleration a such that 0.1^2*(3*10^8m/s)^2=2*a*(4*10^12m) which is ~100 m/sec^2 or 10g. No you wont get that from magnetic and electric fields of stars. Noway never. And if you did using lasers etc you would not feel very good accelerating at 10g for 30 days.

I think they evolve too quickly to have similar signatures at different galaxies.

Or maybe somebody heating up a burrito in a leaky microwave.


PairTheBoard

Aliens steal my socks. It explains a great deal.

This guy however seems unable to imagine that given we have yet to reproduce the particular abiogenesis sequences (of events that lead to breakthroughs and eventually to first few cell structures) the probability could indeed be 10^-23 and less even. Some procedures may require special conditions to happen or life would be starting in labs all the time or even in places on earth we would be seeing new things that had emerged millions of years ago from different initial settings. So it must be a rare event and it may depend on 20 different 10^-1 each get it right factors for all i care (like even having a big moon or volcanoes of certain only activity or core that doesn't freeze fast or specific early conditions that no longer exist on earth even). Life may require 1 bil years of stability of some type to not get wiped out before its complex enough to adapt to change. That could be a very long time for a planet to remain friendly. After life has proliferated to many degrees of freedom then it may adapt better to change.

I still dont see people using together the fact that we are 4.5 bil years old here vs 14 bil for the universe and the way it looks out there in far places to conclude that we are one of the first really and that they are all far from each other and probably less than 100 allover the visible universe. I conclude both that we are rare and that we are also almost inevitable. Its the right conclusion that justifies what you see easily.

Also the argument that they die because they destroy their planet with climate change is terrible if you think about it.

We can definitely the way we go destroy the balance and then still because of technology not only recover in time and learn from it but create 10 places like earth in the solar system on the way to hedging the idiocy out.

We can recover after civilization collapsed and restart a new society that is exactly as i describe it (scientific society that now finally cares for the big things and doesnt leave them to chance). Who cares if 99% of people died because they were idiotic to not do the right thing when time was ok. I mean sure its bad but it wont end life or intelligent life in this planet. It will reset the rules only.

And you better believe it that nature is so powerful that if we destroyed the balance it would reset us and recover climate in 1000 years if needed. We could see 99% of population decline and the survivors would get it together and recover everything in time.

Also even if there is a 90% chance to not recover ever the other 10% over trillions of planets still makes the argument that we are very rare strong. Even if 1 in 10 of 10000000 civilizations made it out of the bs destroy your planet phase it would be enough to conquer entire galaxies and set rules that some of them are preserved areas eternally protected plus they would create trillions of artificial worlds with controlled climate. The universe would look very different or we are already in their experiment!

I think we are an experiment (but this still requires to explain the rarity of the first) or we are one of the first 100 say. Probably the second.


An experiment is easy to imagine!

If your spaceship uses antimatter it would take you 4 bil years to go back and forth to a very distant galaxy and help 100 planets in different destinations start abiogenesis and then get back to your ship and back to your home galaxy taking only a generation in your own proper time!!!

Why do that (rare but here it goes)? Because say your own civilization collapses or is in trouble and you are a rare survivor with access to enormous technology (but it is failing rapidly for some reason except this spaceship) and the last act you did is to create 100 world experiments and then go back and harvest the technology and their math and AI to recover your own failure in the space of only 100 years!!!

What better investment for a failing super being to start life experiments in many places and use relativity to wait for them to build all that in your own time frame where you have no ability to recover anymore before you run out of your own technology.

Out last act as civilization is this;

To start 1000 basic AI driven spaceships in many directions with dormant nuclear reactors as engines that would reach in 10000 years as many stars as you want and land rovers in them and introduce life to all of these systems and some of them would allow it to survive (our life can survive on mars right now).

Your last act is the easiest one! You only need to send automated systems that go into orbit after thousands of years flight and introduce life to all these systems. In fact you can create systems that go to other solar systems, copy themselves and recover life locally. But that will come much later. Now what we can do in the next 100 years is easily what i just described. We can build technology that can last for 5000 years of space travel and then land on all of them traveling bio lab rovers that will help the experiment get started in all of them.

0.1% of speed of light is doable technology within a century. I am actually conceptually working on it and it has solvable problems. 1% and 10% of light is very hard though.

We can right now easily if we wanted to focus on good things vs f-ing bs you see in the news 24/7 develop 1000km/sec speeds within the solar system. That is 1/300 of light. Ion propulsion nuclear reactors. Or solar arrays ion propulsion ships.

Faster ship to this day is near 50 km/sec with past technology (not counting ones going to sun this wont matter that they get to >300). We can improve on that a lot with slow acceleration methods.

We can accelerate ions to 0.1% c and gain momentum using nuclear reactors.

That makes going to another system if no human inhabitants are on board, with purpose to explore and settle very robust life forms, easy. The main ships after 5000-10000-15000 years can reach easily over 100 destinations close to us. There it can open up and release its machines in all planets and it can keep something in orbit around that star for 1 mil years until the conditions on the planets have improved where a new life form is introduced that thrives under the modified planet's biosphere.

It would take 1 mil years to make random destinations teaming with life and then good luck to it.

Within 100 years we will have developed very strong fast multiplying proper cycle bacteria that can thrive under not very bad conditions and simply release Oxygen to the planets they adapt to or whatever will make the system develop friendlier conditions.


How hard is all this? It takes only a mega company or a mega society's 1% budget in 100 years to develop this for fun as side survival of life project.

Try modifying all these for some extra advantages and settle them in planets like mars or better

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms


"More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species,[13] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[14][15]

Some estimates on the number of Earth's current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million,[16] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[17] However, a May 2016 scientific report estimates that 1 trillion species are currently on Earth, with only one-thousandth of one percent described.[18] The total number of DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 10^37 with a weight of 50 billion tonnes.[19] In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 trillion tons of carbon.[20] In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth.[21] "

"The Earth's biosphere includes soil, hydrothermal vents, and rock up to 19 km (12 mi) or deeper underground, the deepest parts of the ocean, and at least 64 km (40 mi) high into the atmosphere.[22][23][24] Under certain test conditions, life forms have been observed to thrive in the near-weightlessness of space[25][26] and to survive in the vacuum of outer space.[27][28] Life forms appear to thrive in the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot in the Earth's oceans, reaching a depth of 11,034 m (36,201 ft; 7 mi).[29][30][31] Other researchers reported related studies that life forms thrive inside rocks up to 580 m (1,900 ft; 0.36 mi) below the sea floor under 2,590 m (8,500 ft; 1.61 mi) of ocean, off the coast of the northwestern United States,[30][32] as well as 2,400 m (7,900 ft; 1.5 mi) beneath the seabed off Japan.[33] In August 2014, scientists confirmed the existence of life forms living 800 m (2,600 ft; 0.50 mi) below the ice of Antarctica.[34][35]"

The problem is life is hard to start but if introduced to a planet it will thrive in a few hundred million years and modify the planet's future to fit its survival path to higher complexity.



Why not do it as your last act as civilization? Start the game again! You have to believe in it damn it! I have planted right from seed, trees since i was a child (almonds, peaches, figs, pine trees). Why? I dont currently eat their fruits where they are or enjoy their shade (i dont have to take care of them either though lol). But they are big now. I have a little crocus (iris) bulb i stole from a school trip visit to the mountains when i was like 8 to bring back to mom that still blooms every year.

Believe in time after you damn it. It's your immortality. The dream wont die with you. And you will therefore live in it.

DIGITAL Evolution is the only Solution . . .
I met god the other day.

I know what you're thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?

Well, I'll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers. Every question I flung at him he batted back with a plausible and satisfactory answer. In the end, it was easier to accept that he was god than otherwise.

Which is odd, because I'm still an atheist and we even agree on that!

LOL space and aliens.

How exactly did the Hubble Telescope & the Mars thingy get thru the Van Allen Belts with no electrical problems again??

https://youtu.be/IDBBUwdyz4I

How did we go to the LOL moon again?

#FLATEARTH

2 Corinthians 4:4 - Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe.


Also, also LOL ancient Greeks...

https://www.historyextra.com/period/...ct-or-fiction/

How much of all the worlds history is #Bull****?

Nerds

What on earth is this bs fascination with Van Allen belts?

Big deal really that cannot be shielded properly if you want to. The idea is you go fast through regions of high intensity so its way less damaging than staying longer in areas of low intensity like outside earth completely. The point is away from earth its even worse if you stay there long enough. But its trivially easy to protect sensitive equipment and people if it's a priority.

"Spacecraft travelling beyond low Earth orbit enter the zone of radiation of the Van Allen belts. Beyond the belts, they face additional hazards from cosmic rays and solar particle events. A region between the inner and outer Van Allen belts lies at two to four Earth radii and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[28][29]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[30] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[31]

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[32] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][33]

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity"








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Wouldn't it be more efficient to create entire universes in a physics lab?

Not possible yet.

I posted this once before. I'll post it one last time, promise. The reason being that it literally kept me awake all night thinking about it, anxiously, when I had work the next day and I would like to share that torment with others. I could paraphrase and such but this is just more efficient.

Basically, they don't exist. Or they die out. Or else we would know about it.

There are other supposed answers to the Fermi paradox but this is the most logical in my opinion.

I do believe that we are going to turn inwards, and live in simulated worlds as opposed to reality, but I see no way around outliving the life of the sun, so we must go outwards. And that can't be done without intelligence.

(Alternatively, we are already in a simulation, which implies simulators, who may be our future selves.)

http://www.thelittlebangtheory.com/cosmogenesis/
Stage 1
Take a monopole — a particle with a single magnetic charge, either a North or South pole — and place it in a particle collider, along with a selection of more common particles, like protons. Accelerate the particles until they reach close to the speed of light. When a monopole is struck with enough energy it can do something dramatic: It can be transformed into something that, from the outside, looks like a mini-black hole, but from within creates its own spacetime. A whole new universe is born.

Stage 2
Spacetime around the monopole will start to warp as it transforms. To make things easier to visualize, here spacetime is shown as a two-dimensional sheet. Spacetime begins to bend, creating a bubble — the beginnings of a baby universe. The bubble begins to inflate. The walls of this expanding bubble do not push into our universe, however. Instead, the bubble grows its own spacetime. At first, the bubble is connected to ours through a wormhole — a tunnel between two universes. But this wormhole will eventually pinch closed, divorcing the baby universe from ours forever.

Stage 3
If we could travel through the wormhole into the baby universe, before it pinches off, we would see a whole new universe expanding before our eyes — perhaps eventually evolving its own stars, planets and even people.

Would something like that work but not possible yet?
If yes, any way to leave a signature or slip something through the wormhole just in case intelligent life emerges and starts questioning its origins?

Undetectable aliens will never tell you in a detectable way that you are wrong for suggesting they don’t exist.
And, nothing is undetectable because as nothing it is no thing to detect. So they are undetectable or nothing equally.
Uncertainty is detectable though, eh? So is alienation.

What can even non-existent or undetectable aliens suggest? Sense can progress. What that mystery to explore? Can the undetectable become detected? Was this post undetectable before it became posted?

Cliffs: posters on the internet are undetectable aliens. The search is over and has just begun.

Very good. Respect. But how do you try to outlive or rather live as long as the life of the galaxy without it being being blatantly obvious to anyone else in the galaxy that, that is what you are doing. Moreover, why would you try to hide it when you have the power?

It should be Star Wars up in this bich, but it ain't. The jig is up man. We are alone.

In 2001, a space odyssey, there was a monolith on the moon, waiting.

Bacteria may be able to live a long time, without needing intelligence, but what happens to it when the Sun becomes a Red Giant, white dwarf or black hole.

I really liked the theory floated in the Three Body Problem (trilogy of scifi novels). Spoilered cause if you haven't read it, you should.

You guys know that 90% of the baryonic mass of the universe is between galaxies right? Yes only 10% is in galaxies or so (and yes i am talking about that small 5% of Baryonic if you trust the models that say 95% of energy and mass is of other forms).

With so much mass and space out there a very advanced technology civilization does not need a galaxy takeover (there are billions of them anyway). They can collect one with machines over time. So struggle for resources? I dont think so. There is a ton of it out there if you have advanced technology.


And no they do not die out. There is no future filter. The only filter is at the past in abiogenesis and large scale animal explosion of the Cambrian that makes it hard for others to exist as often as they almost all thought before. Think how long it took for bacteria to make something more interesting in a relatively friendly world. Over 2-3 billion years. Then it took what only 80 mil years in the past 500 mil to give you so many animal forms and plants? That right there shows how difficult it is to make the transition and how easy it is to explode after it. Still 500 mil to give you very intelligent life. The barriers are looking at you in these numbers. A lot can go wrong to a planet and solar system in 3-4 bil years and even 500 mil.

100 years from now it will be impossible to be wiped out. We will be all over the solar system.