I read a hypothesis that the reason we don't see aliens is that significantly advanced civilizations will develop antimatter weapons and will blow themselves up.
Is anti-matter really that much stronger than nukes?
I read that a thousand kilogram bomb would be like 220 gigatons of TNT, but are bombs normally even that heavy? And how much bigger than the Tsar Bomba would that even be?
Second, how do we make some? Could we pack it into bullets and have bullets that will blow up a tank?
It's far more likely that civilizations destroy their homeworld in an ecological catastrophe before they are able to send a viable population elsewhere. Which unironically is what humanity is doing right now with fossil fuels.
Most likely though, the universe is paradoxically still relatively young and we are in the very first generation of civilizations that arose. Therefore we are separated from aliens by incredibly vast distances of unoccupied space.
But the potential weapons of space faring civilizations are so fricking cool, so can we just ignore that.
Imagine having a 22 kiloton bomb the size of a pea (antimatter), or lasers that can intercept incoming fire at the speed of light.
Or I've heard of bombs that spawn small black holes that then ricochet around a planets core and totally destroy it. And unlike the antimatter bombs, you can't intercept the black hole munitions with lasers.
I guess you could also conceivably make plasma fields that would act as shields or huge magnetic fields to repel incoming munitions and defect them back at the attacker.
Also nanobots that stealthily enter an atmosphere in pea sized doses, but reproduce exponentially into killer swarms, devouring everything and making more copies of themselves.
>But the potential weapons of space faring civilizations are so fricking cool, so can we just ignore that.
Giga space weapons are a meme, just like mecha walkers on earth. Want a planet destroyer? Send in a relativistic missile such as huge rock.
Destroying planets doesn't look like a good idea though, since it may end up badly for the destroyer.
Too easy to spot. Another ship will nuke or antimatter it way out. Sand grain sized antimatter bombs that can still wreck an Empire State Building sized ship would be harder to spot and easier to accelerate to near light speed from a Gauss gun.
You are not spotting something that is travelling near the speed of light before it actually reaches you.
Additionally, at that point adding any type of warhead (even antimatter) will not really contribute much to the destructive power of the projectile as it will be a drop in the ocean compared to the kinetic energy.
>dude just use a huge rock
Every time people say this I roll my eyes. The effort into redirecting a rock of the right size, mass and composition to hit a planet at the right angle, right speed and all the minor adjustments and taking into account stellar abnormalities and shit.... it's just flat out better to use conventional weaponry.
>killer swarms, devouring everything
You can do better things with nanobots
>Or I've heard of bombs that spawn small black holes that then ricochet around a planets core and totally destroy it.
.22LR is a hell of a round, son.
>Or I've heard of bombs that spawn small black holes that then ricochet around a planets core and totally destroy it. And unlike the antimatter bombs, you can't intercept the black hole munitions with lasers.
the amount of mass-energy needed to pull this off is unironically higher than Earth's mass. If you can manipulate that you're a K2.5 and don't care about single planets in your galactic civilization
Nah, outside of spreading yourself to other systems to reduce your risk of total annihilation there's not a whole lot of drive to become interstellar.
It's more likely advanced life is rare, it's even more likely that space survival adaptation is really really fricking hard, interstellar travel really really fricking long (And pointless) so only the species with the most risk adverse and survivalist style of traits will manage to spread.
These style of civilisations will purposely avoid signals to minimise risk from other civilisations. Or maybe OP is right, and in a universe of no answers all civilisations get depressed and suicide, or becomes hyper conservative, unwilling to further entropy so will exist, but only as a self sustaining biomass on multiple planets until their star dies.
Realistically humans will never go to other stars, the only humans that may go will be vat grown embryos, but realistically we will just send probes and maybe have a few bases in system till the star explodes and our desperate search for another system might work, or might not.
Base model homosapiens won't, post-humans will have no problem moving between the stars.
You mean AI
"Post humans" will be AI in shells.
If humanity is to become androgynous blobs traveling through space like some gelatinous dickless cucks I'd rather have a good old nuclear war than this to happen.
Realistically, we'll hit peak technology sometime soon, maybe we are already there. In time this stupid internet shit will die down and return to something like early 1990's level, to limit power consumption which today is horrifyingly moronic. Smart people will again reign on the internet. Low IQ people will work the farms. Cities will be largely abandoned and we will have kings again. It will be a return to the natural way of life for most people.
Power consumption will only ever increase, however our population will shrink for sure, and our reliance non renewable sources of energy will reduce to nuclear only (As a biproduct of material mining).
Peak tech is far from peaked anon. You're just blinded by your lack of vision and understandings of the complexity of reality. For humans you may be right, but AI and AI tech will carry research on past bars we can only dream to reach without it.
Also, that "gelatinous dickless cuck" could very well be stronger than your b***h body could ever be. There is nothing stopping it becoming hyperviolent monarchists hellbent on dominating weak stupid "intelligent high IQ humans" to non existence because they are inferior.
You are inferior, after all. You will only be kept as a backup.
Something that can't frick will always be inferior. Cope, seethe and dilate.
Your horny is literally just to make babies, to continue entropic thought.
Take the next step, give birth to AI
man Take your /X/ schizo and godless satanic transhumanist shit somewhere Else. God created US in HIS Image and Ill rather die in his Image than become Some "advanced" androgynous dickless cuck
>/x/
Lol what part of transhumanism is /paranormal/, if anything your god worship is more relevant.
We can engineer it with a dick if you're so inclined, anon.
If god really cared he would stop it, without your help.
if you can create a robo-dick for robo-sex, then you can also create an artificial seratonin + endorphin feedback and response systems a priori. the dick is vestigial, and you're already in the matrix.
That sounds gay and stupid and ill happily fight about it.
>MUH PENIS!!!!
You are about as stupid and shallow as anything that Humanity spawns. You make a good case that it is preferable for us to go extinct.
counterpoint: post-human super penis
who the frick said transcending the mortal coil required sacrificing genitalia? upgrade that shit too
They won't think of themselves as cucks. For one, they'll be able to outlift Thor and Eddie Hall with ease, our run Usain Bolt, etc.
Also, war is already increasingly about who has the best chips and algorithms. When you're shooting things at relativistic speeds at each other and intercepting them at a million plus miles difference, with battles being decided by whose algorithms are better and whose auto factories run dry first, war probably seems a lot less heroic.
this 100%. digitize yourself, time compression so time has no meaning, send a copy to travel as long as you want. get to where you are going, and build a transmitter. then using quantum entaglement comms send a copy back to your original self to sync up. there is no feasible reason any of this could not happen. not sure when, or course, but it is plausible, and probable. i'm sure other species have come to this conclusion, or are more adept with their biological constructs. DNA is just code after all.
/ somewhat incoherent rambling.
>quantum entaglement
Cant travel faster than light speed.
doesn't need to. that's the beauty of quantum entagled pairs. i assume you are just making an absolutist point though. it's fine, i know i'm talking "sci fi".
You cannot transmit information with quantum entanglement faster then the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.
For the machine is immortal
Lmao
How much did klauss schwab pay you?
Have you seen China lately? Or Africa for that matter (not that anyone GAF about Africa, least of all Africans).
You're a gay homosexual if you actually believe that. CO2 emissions are meaningless as far as planetary climate goes unless you notch things up a couple orders of magnitude. Planetary climate is driven by the only meaningful energy source in the solar system - the sun - and you're a homosexual if you think otherwise.
>what is the Permian–Triassic extinction event
A flood basalt volcano that emitted more CO2 and, more importantly, SOx than humans have in all of recorded history.
You're making a fundamental mistake. The primary solar input is not irradiance - it's magneto-electric interactions between earth's magnetic field, sun spots, and the solar wind. Look up equatorial energetic heating as a result of auroral activity in northern latitudes, for example. It's neat stuff. As for CO2, it is 00.041% of earth's atmosphere. Venus is 96.5%. Venus has approximately 2100x the CO2 of Earth, and lies 30% closer to the sun, meaning that it must be receiving approximately twice the solar input if we're using the irradiance-only model. If we entertain that model we find that either
>A: CO2 has a linear effect and somehow the temperature of the earth would reach 40,000F at the same concentration
or
>B: CO2 has a non-linear effect and concentrations of less than a tenth of a percent don't fricking matter
The end of the younger dryas period should spell it out plainly. The planet warmed so fast that greenland's average temperatures raised 10C in a decade at most. We are insignificant. CO2 emitted by us is insignificant. The temperature of the planet will do whatever the sun tells it to.
>A flood basalt volcano that emitted more CO2 and, more importantly, SOx than humans have in all of recorded history.
Which volcano?
>all scientists are wrong and instead I am right because I understand science better than scientists do
Doubtful
Believe le science. Because science is a majority vote and there was never a wrong model or intentional fake regarding muh heckin climate change due to free massive state subvention.
Do you know that there are enough scientists and studies claiming the opposite of the narrative?
Don't worry the science behind blood letting was obviously correct which is why it's still widely believed and practiced today... oh wait. Oh and cigarettes are good for you, so smoke up. Have you head of asbestos? It's a miracle material.
Thanks for proving my point, both were accepted and dogmatic beliefs of the majority at the time. The second one even showing how data can be easily made to your liking by waving around a hand of cash.
Mhm, really wonder which side the governments around the world are paying huge sums?
asbestos is a miracle material, it's not my fault Black person parents let their Black person babies chew on insulation that's supposed to be inside walls.
>A flood basalt volcano that emitted more CO2 and, more importantly, SOx than humans have in all of recorded history.
you mean this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps
>Planetary climates are simplistic systems where if X goes up by Y, Z goes up by Q.
>What is chaos? What is complex dynamical systems?
ironically undermines the entire CO2 = temperature argument
Dear God, thank you for creating whoever posted this. He is proof that You exist and that You love us.
We're not insignificant.
We don't die directly from heating, but it will change sea levels and average temperatures, and force people further from the poles.
Water wars aren't a meme they're happening right now, and Poccia holds a frick ton of land for farming.
Toward the poles, even.
if you increase the amount of liberated Co2 by 65% in 100 years after it being stable for 100,000 years, the planet gets warmer. You can tell it's happening, because people are measuring it. They go out every day, look at a thermometer, and and write it down. I don't know what parts of this you goons can't grasp.
Doesn't have to be co2, could be any gas comprised of molecules containing 2 or more atoms of different elements. if you put more of that kind of gas in the atmosphere, it is impossible for the temperature of the planet to not go up. It's just physics.
I have no idea where this shit comes from. Are all the temperature measurements just fraud? Are all the physicists lying?
>A flood basalt volcano that emitted more CO2 and, more importantly, SOx than humans have in all of recorded history.
Yeah, and it did that over 700,000 years.
>Planetary climate is driven by the only meaningful energy source in the solar system - the sun
Yes, and carbon gasses prevent solar energy from radiating away from the planet, co2 absorbs infra-red radiation that would otherwise be blasted into place. This is why venus is hotter then mercury despite being further from the sun
Infrared pictures of the earth kinda disprove that in a matter of seconds. Not like a greenhouse gas moron would spend that much time questioning the "believe le science" propaganda.
Wanna know what's a real ecological disaster? Fricking asphalt deserts, solar panel production, lithium batteries, wind power plants that kill birds and bats by the thousands and globalization due to the hostility about national socialistic economies. Imagine how great we could have it if we just stopped shipping everything three times around the world from china to America and Europe and back. If we could stop producing wasteful solar panels and toxic lithium batteries and use thorium reactors.
But no, you just had to doom our planet.
>Infrared pictures of the earth kinda disprove that in a matter of seconds.
How? Carbon absorbs infra-red. increasing the time it takes for energy to radiate away from the planet. The way all objects in space cool down is by radiating energy in the form of infra-red, as heat cannot transmit through a vacuum.
If a billion joules of energy hits the earth and a billion radiates away then the planet stays the same temperature, if you reduce the amount that escapes while inputs stay the same the planet will get warmer
The spectral absorption properties of carbon are well understood and measured.
You can test this by shinning a light on 2 cokes bottles, 1 filled with air and the other with air and some extra carbon, the bottle containing more carbon will heat quicker.
Your other points are fairly valid especially the ashphalt and concrete deserts, as they emit large amounts of infra-red into the atmosphere
Take your meds.
But liberals do want a carbon tax and to tax overseas pollution. They're generally moronic, but they're better on the off-shoring thing. That's 100% Reagan, neolib shit, Dem unions always hated shit moving to China.
>Imagine how great we could have it if we just stopped shipping everything three times around the world from china to America and Europe and back
Way to out yourself as a midwit
>This is why venus is hotter then mercury despite being further from the sun
Venus is hotter and has no temperature change between day and night because it has an atmosphere 98 times thicker than the Earth. It's very much like being covered in a global ocean. You could make it out of almost any gas and get the same effect.
>Why yes, I don't understand high school physics, how did you know?
Do you also think the temperature on the surface of the Earth is solely dependant on the distance to the sun and is the same across latitudes? Or let me guess, the Earth is flat...
You're a midwit moron. Current climate models are wrong because they assume energy input from the sun and space are only related to photo-irradiance, leading to such anomalies in the modeling as 'solar flares decrease energy input into the system because of drops in photo-output,' despite documented mechanisms for high energy particle thermal forcing in the atmosphere. See the following for examples of solar forcing not related to visible light spectra absorption:
"A 300-Year Typhoon Record in Taiwan and the Relationship with Solar Activity"
>negative correlation between sunspots and typhoon formation
>likely occurs because of increased cosmic ray penetration warming the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere
"Global upper-atmospheric heating on
Jupiter by the polar aurorae"
>solar wind induced magnetosphere compression results in atmospheric heating
That is my point exactly. It's a complex system for sure, yet the sun is reduced to a nearly static energy input in the models despite the sun having wildly varying outputs when all things are considered. The sun doesn't just soak us in IR/UV/visible spectra light - it bombards us with varying levels of high energy particles, and has a dynamic magnetic field of its own. Magnetic fields interact, and magnetic fields interacting result in energy transfer. This is how a wireless phone charger works, for example.
We can trace back gas concentrations, yes. We also know that warming results in banked organic carbon being released from frozen and semi-frozen subsoils back into the atmosphere. The interesting question is, does carbon go up at the same time as temperature because carbon causes the warming effect, or because the warming effect causes trapped organic carbon in the frozen soils and subsoils of the arctic to release? The data resolution is not good enough to answer this question - both are possible.
No one mentioned CO2, Humanity is destroying the planet in other ways like driving species to extinction from overconsumption and cutting down forests for lumber that are home to very complex ecosystems that are currently in freefall.
There's a reason we're inching towards the 6th mass extinction.
The whole thing started with a claim that we were committing ecocide with hydrocarbons - considering SOx and NOx emissions from ICE (cargo vessels notwithstanding) are negligible any more - the direct implication is CO2. As for
>destroying the planet in other ways like driving species to extinction from overconsumption
a great example is the palm oil plantations in Indonesia. The primary driver for their creation was as a feedstock for biofuels so we could 'reduce our carbon footprint'. You and I are actually on the same side here - ecosystem destruction is a travesty at best. I live in the boreal forest, I see the effects of over harvesting. Last year was the 3rd highest commercial salmon harvest on record while the in-river runs were some of the lowest. Sustainably managed? A joke, but it pales in comparison to Siberia. The russian settlers in siberia described fish migrations so intense that thousands of fish would get pushed onto the riverbank and now many of these same rivers are dead, sterilized by poison from the soviet legacy.
Thanks? Or you're a gay, depending on how you meant it.
When it comes to the impact from our CO2, yes we are. There's more of an argument for our efficacy in cooling the earth with coal plant emissions increasing atmospheric albedo.
>There's more of an argument for our efficacy in cooling the earth with coal plant emissions increasing atmospheric albedo.
The temperature is going up anon, as it has to do. Global dimming is not outstripping the effect, which you can tell by .. looking
Are you paid by big oil or are you just moronic.
Most scientists agree that we are already in a mass extinction event. They don't happen overnight - they take hundreds or thousands of years sometimes (K-T for example). We are most likely the root cause of it as well.
Without googling, define what constitutes a greenhouse gas, and then explain how such gases can trap the heat of the sun.
You can't do this, because you're a peon that should be sterilised
A greenhouse gas is one in which the molecular structure has a bond with a strong energy resonance peak corresponding to infra-red, or other sub-visible light frequencies. This characteristic causes the molecules to absorb radiation from the sun, which it then re-emits in a random direction. Due to the nature of probability, there is a significant chance it is emitted towards the planet. This alone would not cause any issues, in fact it would cool the planet by occasionally reflecting radiation. The warming effect comes from infra-red (and other sub visible frequencies) being reflected back towards the surface of the Earth, as the dark side of the planet emits stored heat as infra-red light.
>This alone would not cause any issues, in fact it would cool the planet by occasionally reflecting radiation. The warming effect comes from infra-red (and other sub visible frequencies) being reflected back towards the surface of the Earth, as the dark side of the planet emits stored heat as infra-red light.
It's rather that a not insignificant amount of energy comes form the sun as visible light (and IR-wavelengths the greenhouse gasses don't interact with?) that waltz right past the greenhouse gasses, hits the Earth and gets absorbed, at which point it turns into heat which the greenhouse gasses do trap.
Also the entire planet emits IR radiation, not just the dark side, the day side a bit more even since it's going to average a touch higher temperatures. Now on the dark side this leads to things cooling down since there's frick all energy coming in from the universe there, while on the day side the sun provides more than what is lost.
Aliens don’t real
I agree abandoning our birth world is a sin we must protect her by taxing the poor more.
>muh CO2
We should just eradicate darkies, muzzies, and communists and build thorium reactors.
It would be incredibly interesting if after imaging in sci-fi so many ancient aliens or predecessors if in reality humanity became some galaxy hopping predecessor to other races instead
> "hypothesis"
The word you are looking for is "speculation," or perhaps "assertion." We have no information to go on to reach "hypothesis" levels of discussion. In fact, antimatter explosions should produce energy & radiation signatures that can be identified. As far as know, we have never detected any energy release (at a planetary scale) that can be considered an antimatter-matter annihilation event. Given the number of civilizations we should be seeing (Fermi's Paradox), if even 1% of them were wiping themselves out with antimatter explosions we should be seeing evidence of those energy releases several times a day (if not per hour) if your speculation was even slightly correct.
We should also be regularly detecting artificial radio signals and laser pollution. Possibly we just don't have the right instruments for that (yet), but it's very weird that we have detected absolutely nothing at all. Even some fragmentary and debatable hints should have turned up by now. Even chemicals created by industrial activity would show up in spectrum analysis of stars we can't detect planets around. Those should be persistent for centuries or millennia, even if the civilizations that created them have gone extinct.
A more interesting speculation is that civilizations go through a normal period where they are very incautious about the evidence they broadcast into the universe, but it's quite short, maybe a hundred or two hundred years. Then they shut down low tech broadcasts as they move on to another technology &/or mature enough to cloak their broadcasts. On the scale of even a million years, it would make it hard to detect those wavefronts in the short time we've been looking.
>the universe is paradoxically still relatively young
True, but ...
> and we are in the very first generation of civilizations that arose
not true. As young as the universe is, it's still old enough for us to be (at least) 3rd or 4th gen (or 50th) as far as civilizations go.
>laser pollution
why would we ever detect tightbeam comms that aren't directly pointed at us?
C02 is plant food and with out C02 there would be no 02.
You are low iq and do not understand basic biology.
>Therefore
If you weren't a ratard you'd know that the universe being young is
A. Meaningless and unknowable, it's 13 billion years old. Maybe it lives 14 billion years. Maybe it lives forever..
B. The universe is expanding. If it were young relative to it's overall lifespan, this would mean that everyone and everything is closer together as less space exists in which to spread out
literally every point in existence is the centre of the universe. pretty dope really.
The universe is between 13.77 and 13.79 billion years old. Our current understanding is that the universe will continue to exist for at least several trillion, or perhaps even several hundred trillion, years. Or more. We are in an incredibly young phase of the universe right now.
If you tried to imagine it as compared to the lifespan of a human, we are currently at the place where the doctors haven't even cut the umbilical cord in the delivery room yet, the universe probably hasn't even drawn its first breath yet to learn how to cry, it is at least that young.
everyone knows climate alarmism is bullshit. scientists lied about the pandemic and vaccines. nobody trusts scientists.
>muh climate change
bullshit mask homosexualry before bullshit mask homosexualry.
why isnt everything underwater like we were promised since the 60s? wheres the next ice age we were supposed to freeze in? only a Black person trusts pop-sci homosexualry.
>climate change
Nope. I can't even tell you what the real threat is due to the mods on /k/ being a bunch of Redditors.
Sounds kinda /misc/
Or for bearer term, we can already land drones on a comet. The best step is to steer it into orbit and hold it there as a weapon. Way faster deployment than nukes and potentially way bigger yields. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs was the equivalent of around 200 million Tsar Bombas.
the amount of asteroids that size in our solar system are limited and changing the orbit of one to collide with earth can take hundreds or thousands of year
the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was 10km in diameter
the size of mount everest
At the galactic scale, thousands of years is the blink of an eye.
Probes, its called a probe not a drone you negrified Black person, drones have a live feed and constant control/feedback loop, probes recieve a set of instructions, do things, and beam data back home
Get your ass probed nigguh
And the smallest of the 3 major impactors since the Hadean Era.
thats what they did 13k years ago TO US
Shhhhhh! They arn't ready yet anon!
>Is anti-matter really that much stronger than nukes?
Per unit of weight? Theoretically sure. The question is how one would go about producing and containing any significant amount of antimatter.
Probably cheaper to just build a bigger thermonuclear fusion device.
>I read that a thousand kilogram bomb would be like 220 gigatons of TNT, but are bombs normally even that heavy?
"Regular" warheads are probably somewhere between 50 - 300 kg.
>And how much bigger than the Tsar Bomba would that even be?
220 gigatons would be about 3793 Tsar bomba (58megatons).
>Second, how do we make some?
Currently: Big particle accelerators that require a huge amount of power.
>Could we pack it into bullets and have bullets that will blow up a tank?
Currently: No we can't even store a single antiproton for any significant amount of time and the more you try and store the harder it gets.
What about a whole bunch of anti-atoms? Then you could program a self steering anti-matter drone.
Now we're talking.
Well yeah, gotta spam them to every solar system and then have them spam more. You need to lock down all the galaxy's resources before they do.
>What about a whole bunch of anti-atoms? Then you could program a self steering anti-matter drone.
Even if we had an easy and cheap source of antimatter we would have no practical way of containing it such that it doesn't come into contact with regular matter until it's delivered to the target. Even in space, a single stray cosmic ray proton would frick it up.
Good lick trying to store anti matter, as it will explode when it comes into contact with literally anything made from matter.
1kg of antimatter would be equivilent to every nuclear weapon that has ever been created, scraped, and/or tested -- combined.
We already have some.
That's all you need to know, civilian
pure antimatter weapons dont give enough bang for the energy required to make them. using antimatter to trigger a fusion or fission bomb is the application
>using antimatter to trigger a fusion or fission bomb is the application
That's assuming you could make the antimatter containment smaller than a regular fission device?
sure but the amount of AM needed is just a microgram
>gets hit by cosmic ray because containment wasn't absolutely perfect
>nuke goes off
While maybe most of them go extinct there is the fact that space is fricking big, if they can't leave their home system because FTL travel is impossible than it's no wonder we see no trace of them and even if they did leave their system they could easily just avoid earth and we would have no means of noticing that they exist as we might very well be unable to detect their ranged communication whatsoever.
Beyond that I have an issue with anthropomorphization of aliens. Highly intelligent species even on the same planet as us and thus fairly related to us exhibit though patterns and for lack of a better term moral codes that are already aliens. Octopi have most of their neurons in their limbs which act semi-autonomously, an octopus will be doing something out and an arm will just start shoving food into its beak, dolphins are disturbing to say the least with infanticide seemingly for entertainment purposes as well as gangrape and murder at rates any human society would find highly distressing.
Aliens by all logic should be even more alien than that as they share no genetic relation to humans whatsoever. Maybe they go extinct, maybe most species realize that hunter gatherer lifestyle is fine and never go further, maybe they wipe themselves out in war or ecological disasters, or maybe they have a collective nihilistic breakdown and commit universal self-genocide. Aliens shouldn't be treated like green aliens, they should be treated as aliens whose actions and thought processes might differ massively from humans.
>if they can't leave their home system because FTL travel is impossible than it's no wonder we see no trace of them
Exactly, that the universe is so quiet is proof that large scale interstellar travel is not possible, also sapient life must be exceedingly rare. But even so, theres just so much shit out there there simply must be at least be thousands more.
Because if it was so rare that it only happened this once taking into account just how many stars there are in the observable universe, a gigantic number in itself not even taking planets into account, why the frick would it only happen just this once?
>Because if it was so rare that it only happened this once taking into account just how many stars there are in the observable universe, a gigantic number in itself not even taking planets into account, why the frick would it only happen just this once?
Why the frick wouldn't it? We may be severely overestimating how likely intelligent life is, we only have the one sample point after all. Besides even if it is likely that other intelligent life will arise in the universe we have no idea what kind of timeframes are involved in developing from an empty rock to a civilization we can detect. Maybe we're early and on average intelligent life takes a few more million more years to develop and we just lucked out and happened to get a head start.
Thank you. Cephalopods and cetaceans are demonstrably highly intelligent creatures, but their physical form and cognitive processes are a fantastic example of aliens sharing our world with us. If they were slightly more advanced and living happily in a liquid environment (water or methane or whatever), any industry they develop could very well be undetectable ... or the evidence so unobvious that we just haven't thought of how we might look for it. Yet.
Land creatures living in atmosphere could very well be what's very rare. Liquid-based civilizations living in oceans could very well never develop radio for us to discover, or change their atmosphere with industrial pollutants that we might detect & recognize.
I am very concerned that FTL is not possible. If that's true, then every civilization is (almost entirely) trapped in their own solar system, and doomed to extinction be it in a hundred or ten thousand years ... still the blink of an eye when measured against ten million or a billion years.
However, a civilization that is trapped in its own solar system, yet still colonizes it, should still be broadcasting some sort of communications scatter & pollution. Enough and for a long enough time frame that we should have detected some hint of it by now. Meaning civilizations are quite rare, or the smart ones develop communication & broadcast tech that we Earthers have yet to imagine & develop.
Anyway, antimatter weapons & tech might account for some civilizations going extinct in wars &/or other 'accidents.' But, it's extremely unlikely it accounts for nearly every civilization, ever, wiping itself out. There's some other explanation, or probably a combination of explanations.
>infanticide ... gangrape and murder at rates any human society would find highly distressing.
white society anyways, don't claim to speak for the rest of us
I’ve seen UFOs. I don’t know if they where Ayys but they where definitely advanced metal craft that could hover completely silently.
Anti matter + matter releases all the energy that ever was and will be in either matter and deletes both from existence. The boom is extraordinarily powerful as a result
It's just 2E=MC^2 surely?
>Anti matter + matter releases all the energy
Only if it's positron + electron, proton + antiproton produces bunch of other particles, not just energy.
No, they do it by creating a micro-black hole that swallows their entire system.
A micro blackhole will evaporate from Hawking radiation and go off like a bomb (ironically more effective than antimatter). It won't swallow anything meaningful before doing so.
Imagine every electron in your body exploding outward at the speed of light. That's what anti matter weaponry does.
Ironically, the oldest and simplest form of warfare, a simple projectile, traveling at relativistic speeds, could be the most effective at destroying a planet or star. You should read the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, without spoiling much, every lifeform in the universe desires to stay alive but here is no way to know if other lifeforms can or will destroy you if given a chance; so the safest option for any species is to annihilate other life forms before they have a chance to do the same. Its called the Dark Forest theory.
>Remeberance of Earths Past
Actually read the American book that inspired Xi, The Killing Star.
You could also read Issac Asmov's last book, which is about a honey pot technology that advanced civilisations always adopt and end up getting killed by. Imagine if every phone battery on Earth turned into a live grenade at the same time.
Wikipedia says Forward The Foundation is his last novel, do you mean that or something else?
Sorry, I meant Issac Asimov's The Gods Themselves. It was the first sci-fi book he wrote after a 15 year hiatus, and his own favorite of his sci-fi writings.
Imagine a substance which will explode with exponentially more energy than anything else. Now imagine that if it interacts with anything, in any way, in any capacity, in any amount, for any length of time, it will immediately react violently.
Storing bags of nitroglycerine in a steel refinery, while piping in pure oxygen, would be immensely safer than handling anti-matter inside the Earth's atmosphere in any capacity whatsoever.
no balls
>a thousand kilogram bomb
>antimatter
The Great Filter is likely brain hacking.
For any life (organic or artificial) to survive, it must have a value system that motivates it towards life-continuing activities and away from life-destroying ones. But there would be no method by which an aversion to going meta could develop -- where you develop a system which fools you into thinking you're engaging in pleasurable life-continuing activities and avoiding life-destroying ones, thus, though entropy, destroying oneself. You need to go double-meta to avoid that. The single-minded approach to advance to better fulfil your needs has no barrier at short-circuiting the system and developing the perfect delusion that you're fulfilling your needs.
Since life is pretty persistent, it would tend to take the development of artificial life to truly exterminate it. But even artificial life is vulnerable to the above.
>Develop ultimate killer robots
>they are designed to seek out energy and resources to repair and reproduce, and are capable of learning to adapt to new situations.
>set them loose against your enemy
>they kill them all
>try to shut them off. Whoops, they have learned to bypass the shutoff
>Since you have programmed them to seek out and destroy organic life, they kill you to.
But there is still life there -- artificial life. How does it end?
>Robots, in seeking out the goals they desire, stumble upon the fact that video games can simulate reaching those goals. So they create a video game where they sit there seeking out virtual energy, virtual resources, are virtually reproducing, and killing virtual organics
>They play it until they rust away, as they have no escape from the perfect video game that leaves them no outside wants.
I'm kind of on board with this. I think three things are likely to be the explanation for the Fermi Paradox, with about equal probability.
1. Intelligent life on par with humans is incredibly rare and only emerges in an infinitesimally small amount of the places where life develops. So we are among the first. Or life actually requires "organic" compounds from comets and meteors to hit a planets surface early in its life, and these haven't been around long so we are one of the first forms of intelligent life.
2. Advances in technology rapidly develop after the ability of a species to edit its own genetic code develops, and the ability to create AI. This reveals facts about the nature of reality that make them no longer interested in colonization and exploration with hardware. This could be falling into a "video game trap," but I think it's more likely to mean there are more worthwhile things and ways to explore. Or it could just be that they recognize that reality is a mathematical object ala Tegmark, have been enhanced to the point that they can fully fathom the implications of this, and no longer have any interest in reproducing or traveling.
3. Aliens have already been here and we either haven't observed evidence or can't recognize it. A random probe floating in space would be very hard to pick up, impossible if it was camouflaged. A buried probe would be unlikely to be found on Earth. Additionally, even very advanced tech could have decayed past recognition over millions of years. Something buried on another planet or the moons of other planets wouldn't be observed.
We only began broadcasting a short while ago so even if aliens could pick us up (our best tech couldn't pick up non-directional radio waves at any meaningful distance), they wouldn't have time to reach us. More advanced civilizations might also move past using EM communications fairly quickly.
I lean toward 1
2 would leave evidence if 1 wasn't true (which would make intelligent life common enough that we'd have at least picked up signals or seen evidence)
3 is possible but probably less likely than 1.
I think the great filters humanity's made it through are DNA/analogues, the evolution of multicellular life, and then the evolution of highly social animals with high intelligence, manipulating appendages and a predisposition for vocal communication.
I'm also kinda heretical since I'd consider the survival of any AIs or other manufactured intelligences as de facto survival of the species. They'd be our offspring in a way.
the whole "video game trap" argument is basically just a tired retreading of old rhetoric about old entertainment forms that were new at the time. without fail, each of these entertainment forms has been defeated in its quest to stifle humanity into apathetic zombies by a simple, reliable, and thus far inexorable aspect to the human experience that the "simulation/stimulation trap" has to ignore: boredom.
The biggest problem is weapons for which there is no practical defense. That list is
Nukes
Hypersonic missiles
Hypersonic nukes(eventually)
Rods from God(eventually)
Useful idiots and the malicious entity’s that manipulate them.
>Hypersonic nukes(eventually)
moron alert
add communists to that list
Antimatter is not a useful weapon of mass destruction, because it can only be produced through artificial means, and you can never get more energy out of it than you put in to making it. And in reality, you lose most of the energy to the inefficiencies of the means of producing it. Sure, you could build a single bomb that would level a country, but it would take more energy than the entire power grid produces in a decade.
What antimatter could be useful for isn't making a super-nuke that can obliterate the world, it's making a bullet that can evaporate a tank.
>antimatter
>you can never get more energy out of it than you put in to making it
Not necessarily, and even the opposite of what makes antimatter interesting. The mass of antimatter is only one half of the explosion you get when it encounters an existing fragment of matter. You are putting energy into creating half of your reactants, then annihilate both halves to harvest the energy output. Quite literally, the definition of getting back more than you invest.
It gets even more interesting when you consider that you probably don't have to manufacture antimatter from scratch. It's probable that the way to create antimatter is to take matter and convert it. Somehow. The energy requirements for that process would be vastly reduced compared to what you would get out of it.
Antimatter also already exists. If we have a way of finding & harvesting it within our solar system, our energy requirements drop even further as we deplete naturally occurring antimatter that we find.
So, Yes. There are numerous theoretical possibilities where we could get much more energy back out than we have to invest in. We might even live long enough as a species to invent new physics that allow us to perform such magic.
>It gets even more interesting when you consider that you probably don't have to manufacture antimatter from scratch. It's probable that the way to create antimatter is to take matter and convert it. Somehow. The energy requirements for that process would be vastly reduced compared to what you would get out of it.
The answer is you use a particle collider and dump in a staggering amount more energy than you could ever get back out of it.
We're already harvesting antiprotons through LHC's AD and ELENA rings.
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/antiproton-decelerator
Environmental destruction is unlikely to happen. Even by accident.
Scientist say we could never terraform Mars and it’s waaaay smaller than earth.
As for humans destroying the earths environment
You need to convince me of these things
>CO2 is bad
It is literal plant food, we have more plant biomass on earth today than we did 200 years ago. People literally buy and pump it into greenhouses. We need CO2 for farms and plants.
>too much CO2/greenhouse
It was hotter on earth by like 5 degrees 2000 years ago
>CO2 is the greenhouse gas killing the earth
95% of the greenhouse gas effect on earth is water vapor, CO2 is like 4%, and humans have only increased total CO2 by like 6% since precise records began in like the 50s
>The earth is not in a natural hot/cold cycle
Ice ages are a recurring theme on earth, hot then cold, hot then cold…
Lastly if carbon was such an evil in the world then why did the Paris accords say the developed world must stop CO2 emissions but developing world can keep on truckin? Literally total CO2 is the only number that matters for global warming but it’s okay to keep ‘polluting’?!?
You will excuse me if I call bullshit.
Because, per capita, the developed world uses more than the developing world by far.
Like I said
TOTAL CO2 is the ONLY metric that matters for ‘GLOBAL warming’. We don’t call it ‘per capita warming’ or ‘per capita change’
Using the per capita metric tells you it’s purely a political maneuver, not a we need to save the planet maneuver.
>per capita
Useless fricking metric and anyone who uses it should be skinned with a rusty knife.
>we have more plant biomass on earth today than we did 200 years ago
Would like to see some sauce on that.
>humans have only increased total CO2 by like 6% since precise records began in like the 50s
Complete bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about. We can trace extremely precise records of all greenhouse gasses back for a couple of million years. Since humanity entered the Industrial revolution our various activities have about doubled CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. It was down in the 200-250 ppm range prior to the Civil War, and for hundreds of thousands of years before that. We are now approaching nearly 500 ppm CO2, which is entirely from human activity.
What's far more frightening is the methane load we have added to the atmosphere. Methane is ridiculously more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Not only are we making more of it and dumping it into the atmosphere, the global temperature increases we are experiencing are releasing vast quantities of methane that were previously kept locked into the biosphere.
The great filter is just virtual worlds, quantum computers promise to make all our dreams come true in the next 200 years and the only downside is that it's technically not real
Maybe you are already in a virtual world and one of the settings you set for this playthrough is no memories for immersion
>Maybe you are already in a virtual world and one of the settings you set for this playthrough is no memories for immersion
Did I hate myself then? Why would I choose my current life over being a king or something?
The same reason some people unironically enjoy shitty F2P games or do hard mode runs of already insanely hard games? There's no limit to the insane desires of some individuals.
You're an immortal virtual brain, your suffering in a temporary simulation is the equivalent of playing dark souls naked
Pussy shit, all of it
>englobe a star in either beamed power satellites or simple mirrors
>have enough power to run our present civilization a quntillion times over
>have enough power to simulate a galaxies worth of human minds in real time
>have enough power to push trillions of light sail ships up to high fractions of the speed of light
>have a beam weapon that can slag whole planets at light years distance, without warning
This is a very midwitt explenation to Fermi. Probably even more midwitt than that chang theory that all aliens are paranoic of being murdered by imperialist aliens and thus hide their signals.
The actual reason is time. Think about how long a timespan Earth had, and now consider, even while Earth was habitable, how short a time civilization existed. On top of that - how short a time radio waves existed. There are many potentially Earth-like planets, yes, but consider how unlikely it is for any one of them to have been in that exact, miniscule timeframe of having invented radiowaves when we would observe them. Add on top of it that climate disasters, meteors or other shit could temporaroly wipe out the life on a planet, and that most likely all planets experiance cycles of couple of hundred thousand years of lofe before getting nuked, and thr chance becomes even lesser.
I hope we discover aliens during our lifetime.
hate to break it to you, soi-ence boi
but the alien waifus don't want to breed you
they don't even have the right gentalia to breed you
if you're really that desperate to not die a virgin, there's easier ways, such a prostitutes or going gay.
The answer is that both nuclear fission/fusion bombs and a hypothetical anti matter weapon are comically inefficient but they just have so much energy potential it's huge even with shit conversion. But anti matter converts so much more potential matter into energy it's no even the same range for a yield.
The fission/fusion has a very bad consumption of the nuclear material because well it's fricking exploding as it's trying to fuse the fusion stage so it mostly flies off.
Anti matter is bad because some of the energy released is as neutrinos.
The instant your anti matter hits matter it blows your anti matter away in the other direction limiting the matter annihilation.
Lastly the production of charged pions is just worthless as a weapon because they will decay into more neutrinos and muons.
But bad efficiency isn't the same as not very energetic.
I don't think the problem is the creation of anti matter weapons, because anti matter production would take something like 100,000 more energy to make than you get back. It's fantastic as a rocket fuel or battery but shit in terms of a weapon. With a solar array collecting enough energy to make enough anti matter to be useful you already have control of a solar death ray you could burn the surface of a planet with and then boil off the top layer of rock.
That's odd I swear I clicked on /k/
>Is anti-matter really that much stronger than nukes?
Anti-matter is exactly as strong as you want it to be. Want to blow up the planet, you use a ton of it. Want to blow up a tank, you use a microgram.
Earth is alone in the universe and the future ayys are the intelligent animals and creatures amogus.
all the clouds in the sky are aliens in their ufos, go check it out homie
>I read a hypothesis that the reason we don't see aliens is that significantly advanced civilizations will develop antimatter weapons and will blow themselves up.
This is cope, we not only do not encounter any alien intelligence, we don't encounter any *signs or signals* of alien intelligence, anywhere. We are so unfathomably early there is almost certainly nothing in our horizon.
One of the large number of possibilities of why we don't see alien life is due to them destroying themselves, true. In the case of humanity it is certainly possible that some suitably global catastrophe brought on by a breakaway faction could lead to the destruction of the species, or even life on the planet as we know it. After all, with continued technological advancement the means by which to doom a race has only become ever more apparent. In a few hundred years it may become trivial to lob a suitable mass into the planet at fractions of the speed of light to induce another K-T extinction event.
However, the true reason we likely do not see any signs of intelligent life is because space is truly, mind-bogglingly, incomprehensibly vast. Imagine Earth is the size of a pebble. The Sun would be about the size of a pool ball about 50 feet away. Pluto would be almost half a mile away. And the nearest star to us from our system would be about 2,500 miles away. Imagine traveling that distance of 2,500 miles, but you can only move one tenth of an inch at a time. You could do it, but keep in mind you can only bring a small bag of produce with you and nothing else. Or you could stay right where you stand, and possibly live forever in comfort.
The scale of the universe, along with the perilous nature of the vacuum of space and everything that comes with it, ensures we will almost certainly never venture out beyond our home. We will construct habitats at some point, yes, and we will become more technologically advanced. But there is no imperative to leave from here, and likely never will be. If there is intelligent life in the universe, and that is a pretty big if, they likely have faced the same simple roadblocks of nature. It's entirely possible the universe is teeming with life that will never meet one another, like incomprehensibly tiny motes of dust separated across a vast plain drifting until they are dissolved by some torrential downpour.
We don't see them because they don't want us to. That is either very good for us (Star Trek/Prime Directive outlook) or very very bad for us (Liu Cixin/Three Body Problem/Dark Forest Theory outlook). IMO it is far too unlikely we are alone in the universe to be true. It's more likely that a great bottleneck exists, and civilization is a lot more temporary than we realize because there is a technological or population ceiling for sentient creatures that inherently causes their attempts to build civilizations to self-destruct after a certain length of time. Most likely scenario is both the former and the latter; there is such a bottleneck, and the few societies that advanced past it understand that contact between them and us would not be good, so they choose not to.
Or, you know, they need something to laugh at.
Earth is a big planet. Way too big for the position in the solar system with a gigantic moon. This is good and bad. Good because it gives us massive resources and space to grow. Bad in that it is hard to access space. A smaller planet with less resources will have easier access to their solar system.
>first sentient race wins the race
>nukes or becomes 'gods' of all other life bearing systems
>Earth is a backwater on the outer arm that might be able to be space Switzerland, too much trouble to bother with as long as it doesn't make inroads elsewhere
>earth is recovering from round 1 at least of compliance glassing, including onerous Versailles style Treaty
or something like that
I don't think OP appreciates how absurdly cost-inefficient it is to produce antimatter particles. A civilization would probably have to be heavily developed in their own star system before thinking about harvesting / making antimatter in significant quantities. If CERN did nothing for an entire year except make antimatter they'd get no more than one BILLIONTH of a gram.
There was this old SF book by...I don't remember. But it had this alien shoot an antimatter pistol of some kind which proceeded to wipe out a continent. That kind of usage is probably straight up fantasy though.
I hate to break it to you Anon but your hypothesis is fatally flawed.
"Significantly advanced" civilizations have abandoned weaponry.
We humans on the other hand are still gleefully wallowing around in the primordial ooze.