[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1549890672334.jpg (593 KB, 1080x1697)
593 KB
593 KB JPG
Doesn't this btfo the fermi paradox?
>>
It's probably bullshit to get more money
>>
>>10378600
cant believe that anon some days ago was right
>>
>>10378600
There is no Fermi paradox, why?
Let's start by saying that observable universe itself is massive with a radius of 46.5 billion light-years, or a diameter of 93 billion light-years, and we haven't even explored or mapped 1% of that.
Now, for the main crux of the issue for those who understand the massive nature of it, why we haven't received any artificial radio signals, other than the Wow! signal, is because of signal attenuation. By the time signals get here, they're too weak to be picked up by our current technology.
As for why they haven't replied to any of the signals we've either consciously or ambiently sent is, again, due to the massive nature of the observable universe.
We have only been broadcasting radio signals into the universe for around 100 years, that is to say, those radio signals will have only travelled 100 light-years, which isn't really any great distance, and may have passed by exoplanets with extraterrial life that wasn't intelligent enough to receive them.
Part of the way we might be able to mitigate these issues is through the creation of equipment like the James Webb Space Telescope, that will allow us to collect and analyze more data from stars and their exoplanets.
Just wait, we're going to find something.
>>
>>10378675
Your optimism is inspiring, Anon. Thank you.
>>
>>10378709
We still discover new species on Earth, some novel, and we think we understand a fair amount about this planet, let alone exoplanets.
>>
>>10378600
Possibly but the paradox is bunk. The fags in the early 20th century did not have the tech nor right concepts to detect anything.

The main idea is that if there are tons of aliens why do we not detect them. But:
> The energy needed to do a unidirectional broadcast is not worth it for any sane Alien civ
>The universe is too young and full of radiation/catastrophic events to have lots a of life.

Chances are we will not detect life via communication, but by atmospheric analysis (James Webb) if someone is nearby.
>>
>>10379272
This more like it, eloquently put anon.
>>
>>10379272
>The universe is too young and full of radiation/catastrophic events to have lots a of life.
Although, life could've existed for far longer.
>What's incredibly interesting, though, is that the raw elemental ingredients necessary for life began existing back shortly after the first stars formed, and the most important ingredient — carbon, the fourth most common element in the Universe — is actually the very last ingredient to come about in the abundance we need. Rocky planets, at least in some locations, come about much earlier than life can: just half a billion years after the Big Bang, or perhaps even sooner. Once we have carbon, however, 1-to-1.5 billion years after the Big Bang, all the steps we need to take to produce organic molecules and the first steps towards life are inevitable. Whatever life processes took place to lead to humanity's existence, as best as we understand them, could have begun when the Universe was just one-tenth the age it is now.
As for the reasoning behind this, you can find it here:
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/07/ask-ethan-how-fast-could-life-have-evolved-in-the-universe/
>>
The fermi paradox is complete bullshit and makes a lot of assumptions. there's no reason to assume there's a barrier that halts civilization development, if anything it's more like a balancing act through spacetime than hitting a wall and trying to overcome it.

also why the hell are we assuming aliens develop even remotely like what we have here? we're more likely to metaphysical sentience or something akin to the flood from halo
>>
>>10378600
wow it's a pulsar
>>
>>10379359
>we're more likely to metaphysical sentience or something akin to the flood from halo
Is where you lost my support.
>>
>>10379366
>possibility of finding some kind of underlaying intelligent design/structure to the universe
>possibility of finding some space disease

it's not just you, why does /sci/ generally shy away from these ideas, specifically the first? geuinely curious, are they just too "out there" to be considered worth even considering at our point in time?
>>
>>10379398
Because, from looking at the evidence, Earth probably needs an Earth analog to exist.
As such, since it probably requires an Earth analog, which would have similar conditions and thus selection pressures to Earth, we should look at convergent evolution.
What this approach does, looking at convergent evolution, allows us to theorize about what types of adaptations, and thus organisms, we might encounter in extraterrestrial settings.
That's why, it's about likelihood and predictability.
We have evidence for this type of life existing, but not for things like Boltzmann brains (metaphysical sentience).
As to directly address this idea of an extraterrestrial "macroparasite", seeing at it would have evolved separately from the species of Earth, unless it were highly similar (see above about life and Earth analogs), it wouldn't be able to predate upon Earth species.
>>
>>10379417
>*... Earth probably needs an Earth analog to exist. -> ... life probably needs an Earth analog to exist.
>>
>>10379417
>Boltzmann brains
never heard of this. neat. i get what you're saying though, it's more practical to look for what we know already works. if i were to play devil's advocate, I would suggest that something akin to the Boltzmann brain already happens on earth. matter+emergence=life and strange behavior on this planet, take for example evolution, biology, and hivemind/colony-thinking. but that simply wraps the argument back around to it being practical to look at things similar to how we grew. I just think it's naive to completely dismiss the possibility with what we know plus human imagination (to even think of the things that exist even outside the scope of our imagination!)
>>
>>10379446
Interestingly, swarm intelligence, or as you put it "hivemind/colony-thinking" isn't really at all similar to the concept of a Boltzmann brain. It's more about simple function and probability:
>The behaviour of insects that live in colonies, such as ants, bees, wasps and termites, has always been a source of fascination for children, naturalists and artists. Individual insects seem to do their own thing without any central control, yet the colony as a whole behaves in a highly coordinated manner.[60] Researchers have found that cooperation at the colony level is largely self-organized. The group coordination that emerges is often just a consequence of the way individuals in the colony interact. These interactions can be remarkably simple, such as one ant merely following the trail left by another ant. Yet put together, the cumulative effect of such behaviours can solve highly complex problems, such as locating the shortest route in a network of possible paths to a food source. The organised behaviour that emerges in this way is sometimes called swarm intelligence.[60]
For some light reading:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour
>>
Explain to me why "FTL travel is fundamentally impossible" isnt an answer to the fermi paradox
>>
>>10379446
>>10379468
Also:
>The concept of emergence—that the properties and functions found at a hierarchical level are not present and are irrelevant at the lower levels–is often a basic principle behind self-organizing systems.[18] An example of self-organization in biology leading to emergence in the natural world occurs in ant colonies. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do.[citation needed] Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scents from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and buildup of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behaviours and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.
>>
>>10379472
Because of how long life could've existed, and the distances. Although, the real answer is:
>How would they know to come in this direction?
Certainly when we've only been giving away our position, outside of atmospheric analysis, for about 100 years.
>>
>>10379480
Say a smart civilization decided to expand outwards 5 billion years ago, how likely is it they would have come to earth given that there are trillions of other planets? Ok i guess its a bit weird we havent seen any sort of sign.. maybe god is real after all that would explain shit
>>
>>10379495
Someone should stick this into a combinatorial program and see, but I would guess, seeing the estimates for amount of Earth-likes is 40 billion.
So: [math]40,000,000,000/1[/math], or so.
>>
>>10379468
I've read some wikipedia articles that you've posted and described and I am still under the belief that in both equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems, fluctuations have driven all aspects of the universe we can observe. And it works on such as a scale that the fundamental forces organize themselves, the atoms of the universe does so, and space-time, and eventually biology and emergence. It's these fluctuations and "mutations" of nature and physics that I supposed I'm trying to describe. However you've provided some solid reading material, I'm really enjoying this wikipedia journey I'm on. Thanks for the solid discussion m8
>>
>>10379527
I was reaching Boltzmann brains for a heavy science fiction novel I'm writing, and I wanted to see if they were actually plausible and what mechanisms they would function through.
>>
>>10379532
>*... reaching... ->... researching...
>>
>>10379532
Boltzmann brains are a very blunt description of what I'm talking about. They take into account only what takes place in the human experience, and eventually leads itself to the same ideas as the simulation theory (which I believe is just as absurd). If I were to write a sci-fi novel perhaps intelligence coming from a counting machine that just processes pi. However, this is again just a twist on the human experience aspect. I think more realistically statistical anomalies happen everywhere, and constantly (even in states beyond current and possible comprehension). They are more likely to form some kind of structure or intent that a silly combination of atoms or numbers, however these ideas are more grounded.
>>
>>10378600
no
it comes from stars
>>
>>10379547
>... even in states beyond current and possible comprehension.
I don't agree with this, considering that for the universe to exist then the laws of physics must be uniform, and from all predictions and evidence we have, they seem to be.
Also, the 'possabilities aren't endless', as the universe itself isn't infinite. It is a finite amount of matter and energy, expanding to possible infinity.
Although, it seems that it wont continue until infinity as due to either heat death, the Big Crunch or the Big Rip.
So far, heat death seems the more likely.
Anyway, the point being, because the universe and everything within it is finite, and follows uniform laws, some things truly are impossible.
>>
>>10379359
>there's no reason to assume there's a barrier that halts civilization development
lol we are destroying ourselves at this very moment
and i bet the absolute majority of all life elsewhere (if it even exists) selects for NPCs like animals and niggers, not inventive white man
>>
>>10379618
>/pol/tard doesn't understand evolution, again, the [math]nth[/math] post.
>>
File: 6161615615615615.jpg (429 KB, 809x397)
429 KB
429 KB JPG
>>10379601
You come from the stars.
>>
File: consumer5.jpg (100 KB, 835x471)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>10378600
Is this another form of the
>consumefest is grrreeeat!!
threads?
>>
It's probably natural radiation
>>
>>10378600
I'm currently sitting next to an obese middle aged man, who stinks of chicklets.
>>
>>10379627
dinosaurs don't know what radio waves are anon, they didn't build civilizations

and most life elsewhere would probably not even be terrestrial but aquatic, here on earth we have creatures like whales and dolphins and they are pretty smart but they are biologically gimped in a way humans aren't, the vast majority of life just won't evolve to be weak vulnerable mammals
>>
>>10379638
no the literal pulses come from stars

it is not intelligently made
>>
>>10379662
Dinosaurs could've evolved into intelligent life, idiot.
>>
>>10379616
>>... even in states beyond current and possible comprehension.
>I don't agree with this, considering that for the universe to exist then the laws of physics must be uniform, and from all predictions and evidence we have, they seem to be.
There are going to be things beyond our five senses. Do you believe in string theory? It suggest other spatial dimensions than what we are able to perceive, and we've only just started using simulated physics to try to even grasp this idea. You can't deny that a nature of the universe is to form amazing structures of complex design, some of which may simply be imperceptible to us.
>Also, the 'possabilities aren't endless', as the universe itself isn't infinite. It is a finite amount of matter and energy, expanding to possible infinity.
Although, it seems that it wont continue until infinity as due to either heat death, the Big Crunch or the Big Rip.
So far, heat death seems the more likely.
Anyway, the point being, because the universe and everything within it is finite, and follows uniform laws, some things truly are impossible.
totally agree with this. however again I think statistical anomalies and fluctuations and the such are much more common in the way our reality works than numbers or matter, and while not infinite are numerous enough to consider patterns emerging
>>
>>10378641
link to thread?
>>
>>10379672
>cold blooded
>creating stuff
sure if you count humans
>>
>>10379686
>I know what could've happened in 66 million years, the post.
You don't.
>>
>>10379686
>t. meteor
>>
>>10379698
there is fossil evidence

>>10379701
that only stopped them from eating each other

reptiles can only be bipedal and have fingers, they can't evolve intelligence because they are cold blooded
>>
>>10378600
it’s just a bunch of objects colliding.
>>
>>10379736
>there is fossil evidence
You're really stupid.
I mean, if they hadn't been wiped out. You don't know what they could have evolved into in 66 million years.
Around the same time, our ancestors were rodents.
>>
>>10379736
>cold blooded
Actually, there's a lot of evidence that they may have been warm-blooded, or neither, and had warm-blooded and cold-blooded traits:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology_of_dinosaurs#Metabolic_options
>https://phys.org/news/2013-07-evidence-warm-blooded-dinosaurs.html
>https://source.wustl.edu/2009/11/dinosaurs-were-warmblooded-new-study-says/
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27794723
Et cetera.
They might (at least) had 'inbetween traits', they could have evolved intelligence.
>>
>>10379745
>rodents
nothing bad with being a rodent, even beavers are smarter than any dinosaur

they are gimped in the same way aquatic animals are

>>10379767
>they may have been warm-blooded
lol they weren't warm blooded
>>
>>10379786
>lol they weren't warm blooded
Oh, sorry, proof? Because I just gave you evidence.
>>
objects colliding.
>>
>>10379793
lol just google it, these studies you linked are bullshit

>2009 dinosaurs weren't cold blooded
>2010 dinosaurs weren't cold blooded
>2012 dinosaurs weren't cold blooded
>20xx dinosaurs weren't cold blooded

it is some guys who don't agree with the consensus so they publish inconsistent garbage, it doesn't answer anything
>>
>>10379873
There's whole portions on the Wikia about it too, including studies linked in the footnotes.
Also, that isn't an argument.
>>
>>10379893
i don't care what a couple of studies say, i can already see some rebuttals, and it is not the consensus
>>
>>10379910
>Armand de Ricqlès discovered Haversian canals in dinosaur bones, and argued that they were evidence of endothermy in dinosaurs. These canals are common in "warm-blooded" animals and are associated with fast growth and an active life style because they help to recycle bone to facilitate rapid growth and repair damage caused by stress or injuries.[63]
>Endotherms rely highly on aerobic metabolism and have high rates of oxygen consumption during activity and rest. The oxygen required by the tissues is carried by the blood, and consequently blood flow rates and blood pressures at the heart of warm-blooded endotherms are considerably higher than those of cold-blooded ectotherms.[72] It is possible to measure the minimum blood pressures of dinosaurs by estimating the vertical distance between the heart and the top of the head, because this column of blood must have a pressure at the bottom equal to the hydrostatic pressure derived from the density of blood and gravity. Added to this pressure is that required to move the blood through the circulatory system. It was pointed out in 1976 that, because of their height, many dinosaurs had minimum blood pressures within the endothermic range, and that they must have had four-chambered hearts to separate the high pressure circuit to the body from the low pressure circuit to the lungs.[73]
Et cetera. That doesn't seem like some fringe thing.
>>
>>10378675
>Just wait, we're going to find something.
I agree, atmospheric analysis and later direct images should allow us to detect something.
However we already detected numerous Dyson Sphere candidates in various searches, and there were radio signals detected too(META study).
The thing is we can’t confirm Dyson Spheres and signals weren’t directed at us so they weren’t accepted by SETI.
If you study this research it isn’t so clear that we never detected anything.There is certain ambiguity in what was found.Whatever exists there isn’t interested in us or direct contact.
>>
>>10380313
This has piqued my interest. I don't suppose you could give me some white papers, or something?
Thank you in advance.
>>
File: 1497122155989.jpg (147 KB, 728x1044)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
No because there are still visible stars in the sky. Meaning this repeating pattern is just a physical phenomenon since stars being visible is a direct indication there are no technology using species except humans in the universe.
>>
>>10380492
I've already addressed this before, stop saying it. It doesn't make sense, and you're a retard for still saying it.
>>
>>10380492
>>10380501
In fact, it doesn't even make from a numerical rumination.
There are thought to be 17 billion Earth Earth analogs in the Milky Way, and between 100–400 billion stars.
So even if all 17 billion of those Earth analogs had this infeasible technology, that we the most intelligent species known to exist, are a very long way away from creating (if ever), then that still leaves between 83-383 billion stars.
So, just your very premise is utterly bullshit, without actually having to address the Dyson sphere, or any of the other suppositions required.
Now, stop espousing it, you're wrong, you're stupid, stop saying it.
>>
>>10380465
IRAS-based whole-sky upper limit on Dyson spheres

Richard A Carrigan Jr
The Astrophysical Journal 698 (2), 2075, 2009

On the search for artificial Dyson-like structures around pulsars

Zaza Osmanov
International Journal of Astrobiology 15 (2), 127-132, 2016

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/on-the-search-for-artificial-dysonlike-structures-around-pulsars/F81897B07199173A573226D4DC8B77A7/core-reader

Recently an interest to such an ambitious idea has significantly increased: a couple of years ago Carrigan has published an article titled: ‘IRAS-based whole sky upper limit on Dyson spheres’ (Carrigan 2009), where he considered the results of the instrument The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). This satellite covered almost 96% of the sky, implying that this is almost whole sky monitoring. According to the study, the searches have been conducted as for fully as for partially cloaked Dyson spheres. The search has revealed 16 Dyson sphere candidates, but the author pointed out that further investigation must have been required.
>>
>>10380508
What the fuck are you even trying to say in this post. The absolute state of your English and the absolute state of people who still believe we aren’t alone
>>
>>10380527
Are you retarded? I made one typo in that, repeating Earth twice. Aside from that, it was perfectly cogent.
Also, considering the fact you think I'm arguing against the existence of extraterrestrial life makes me think, the issue is more with your reading comprehension, rather than my English.
>>10380492 is saying that there isn't any other life, because we have stars in the sky. He's implying, that if there were alien life, we would have no stars because they would have made Dyson spheres around them all.
I'm telling me why he's wrong, simply based upon the mathematics of it.
>17 billion Earth analogs (the best bet on life existing here)
>100–400 billion stars
So, even if every one of those 17 billion Earth analogs had life, that life was intelligent, and more advanced than us and built Dyson spheres around their home star.
There would still be 83-383 billion stars in the Milky Way.
Do you understand yet, dumbo?
I'm pro-extraterrestrial life.
>>
>>10380547
>*I'm telling him why he's wrong
>>
>>10380547
Because you need only 1 species to make every star in the universe disappear you absolute mong.

The power generated from the home star is enough to send probes at near lightspeed to every other solar system in their galaxy and either encapsulate every star in the galaxy with dyson swarms. Or store the matter of the stars for future usage.

Letting stars burn is irrational because due to entropy the amount of matter and energy in the universe is limited. This means that in the long term the species will need to use every single joule of energy. Stars burning is the equivalent of wasting away millions of years of existence of species.

Therefor if there was ANY intelligent species out there capable of storing or encapsulating a single star in the universe they would have made all stars disappear by now.

Stars being visible is a straight up direct indication we are the only technological species in the universe.
>>
>>10380572
Do you know how big the Milky Way is, you mong?
>>
>>10378618
>probably
Lrn2probability fgt pls
>>
File: 1514640556162.jpg (87 KB, 540x546)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>10380572
>>10380573
Okay, let's do some quick math, to disprove your bullshit again.
The Milky Way has 100–400 billion stars in it.
The average distance between stars in the Milky Way is 5 light-years.
So, 5*100,000,000,000=500,000,000,000 light-years, and that's the lower-band estimate.
The earliest life could have existed in the universe, it thought to be, at the maximum, for carbon-based life is 1-to-1.5 billion years after the Big Bang. Which is, at the very best, 12.8 billion years ago.
Which means, even at the very best estimate, if complex life had started colonizing the Milky Way as soon as they started existing 12.8 billion years ago, they could have only gone 12.8 billion light-years.
Which means, they still have 487,200,000,000 light-years to travel, before they will have colonized the entire Milky Way.
So no, you're still wrong. We'd still have plenty of stars, even with me being overly generous and giving your theory the BEST odds possible.
Once again, you're an idiot, stop spouting this bullshit theory.
>>
>>10380572
>>10380601
To add a bit more context, that still leaves (even at the lower-band, let alone the 400 billion) 97,440,000,000 stars they haven't reached. Imagine how massive this number would be if it were the upper-band estimate of 400 billion.
>>
>>10380601
There are some faults with this logic, as you don't just go from one star to another. You could spread from one star to five, and each of those five could go to five and so on. It's probably better to just use the width of the Milky Way and imagine the colonizers spreading across like a wave.
But the point is still fairly valid. Worse is the distances between galaxies, and also then time delay for us seeing anything that has occurred in galaxies outside our own.
>>
>>10380601
It would only take about half a million years for a single species to colonize the entire milky way galaxy using von neumann probes.

Here's the calculations involved:

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/ComparisonReproNov1980.htm

It's not like this wasn't ever thought of. The fermi paradox was created due to how easy and quick it would be to encapsulate every star in the universe.

If we aren't alone, why are there still stars visible in the sky? The moment a species has the ability to build a dyson swarm it would only take 500,000 years for all stars in the sky to disappear. This means there are no species out there with the ability to do so.
>>
>>10380613
Unless you're somehow violating General Relativity, this is impossible.
>>
>>10380613
>>10380617
In fact, you know what, I gave you the best odds possibe. You're incorrigible.
>>
>>10380613
>>10380617
>>10380619
Also, that's uberly retarded, as an argument.
>My unmanned probes randomly built Dyson spheres we're never going to get to use.
Whoa, these sure as some smart aliens.
>>
>>10380613
>The moment a species has the ability to build a dyson swarm it would only take 500,000 years for all stars in the sky to disappear.
What if dyson swarms are impossible?
Not even just impractical, flat out impossible?
>>
>>10379398
Dude, I could argue we became a space desease as soon as we were able to imagine turning stars and galaxies into our own generators for reproducing further. We decide if we become a swarm or "godlike" entities capable of safely roaming the universe in small groups. Assuming no extinction.
>>
>>10380613
>If we aren't alone, why are there still stars visible in the sky? The moment a species has the ability to build a dyson swarm it would only take 500,000 years for all stars in the sky to disappear. This means there are no species out there with the ability to do so.

There’s is no reason for anyone to do that.
>>
>>10380572
>Therefor if there was ANY intelligent species out there capable of storing or encapsulating a single star in the universe they would have made all stars disappear by now.

What for?
>>
File: 1545315168128.jpg (135 KB, 540x540)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>tfw the fermi paradox makes it seem likely that there‘s at least one von-neumann-probe on earth
>turns out it landed in antarctica a hundred million years ago and we‘ll never find it under all the ice now
>>
>>10380627
They aren't. Why? because they are just solar collecting satellites around a star. We technically already started building our own dyson swam with because we have some satellites around the sun.
>>10380654
To not waste the energy. They could also opt to just store the matter contained within the stars. But in all scenarios they would stop stars from randomly burning as that is wasting energy that they will eventually have to use due to entropy. Every rational being with the ability to do so will make it their top priority to extinguish all stars either with a dyson swarm to harness the energy or by storing the matter within stars until it is needed in the future.
>>10380651
Entropy is the reason. There's a limited amount of matter and energy in the universe meaning that a technological species will eventually in the grand scheme of things need to use every joule of energy they can. Letting stars burn randomly like it is doing now is technically wasting millions of years of existence every day due to that energy being lost forever to entropy.
>>10380623
They could also just use the probes to gather the mass from the stars and store it until further use. Either way letting the stars burn like they are doing now is inefficient and irrational. No species with the ability to stop it would allow stars to burn.
>>
>>10380547
I don’t think you are arguing against extraterrestial life. My post implied that we are alone, dummy. It’s you who can’t into reading comprehension :(

And if there were stars around which a civilisation had built dyson spheres, we would still receive infrared signals from the waste heat. Seemingly empty, dark spots in our galaxy from which energy is still emenated are pretty glaringly obvious
>>
>>10380677
>need to use every joule of energy they can
what for?
>>
>>10380677
This also make the galaxy unstable, even more them. Such a decrease in mass of the stars would cause planets to break free, and other cosmological structures of the galaxy to break free and be sent off into Local Group, which some of them would be pulled into.
In other words, they would destroy their galaxy, including their homeworld.
So, they would either be forced to live aboard their vessels, or space habitats, without ease of access to more resources, because those resources have been ejected into the Local Group.
It doesn't make sense.
>>
>>10380710
>*for them
>>
>>10380717
You do know that stars lose mass as they burn, right? Also, as you said here:
>They could also just use the probes to gather the mass from the stars and store it until further use.
That would, by the very semantics of your statement, decrease the mass of the star.
>>
>>10380677
>They aren't. Why? because they are just solar collecting satellites around a star.
Spoken like a retard, not an engineer.
Try to think for a second how much material will be involved.
>>
>>10380710
No advanced species lives on a planet. Planets are ineffecient constructs you are living on the surface of a ball. It's much more effective to break apart planets for their raw materials and build constructs around stars have every satellite be a cone shaped habitat.

Instead of living on the surface of a planet if you were to use the entire matter of the planet you could have more than a million times the living space of Earth if you made artificial habitats from Earth's matter.
>>10380707
For existence/survival which is the purpose of (evolved) life after all. The only thing life strives for is survival and sustaining existence as long as possible it's what billions of years of evolution had brought into us. You can assume this to be the same for all evolved life.
>>
>>10380741
>For existence/survival which is the purpose of (evolved) life after all. The only thing life strives for is survival and sustaining existence as long as possible it's what billions of years of evolution had brought into us. You can assume this to be the same for all evolved life.

So advanced species capable of building Dyson Spheres is unable to overcome its biology and acts like bacteria. Right.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.