Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    A Dyson sphere AI entity is borderline invisible. Its star produces no readily-identifiable wavelengths, because it's inside the sphere and all that energy is used by the entity. Security through obscurity.
    That's, obviously, clearly incorrect on several levels. In particular it violates the first law of thermodynamics.

    There have been a number of attempts at detecting Dyson "spheres" (building a solid sphere is problematic) - either by detecting infra-red radiation and JWST might help with that, or that it's just a partial sphere and it causes periodic dimming of the star.

    Since a normal emissions would be impossible to detect at even at a few light-years - and the potential Dyson "sphere" Tabby's star was more than a thousand light-years away it's clear which one is most detectable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And if an enemy is so advanced that doesn't matter, the AI likely can't beat it, so what's the point of fighting? Survival struggles are, again, a biological impulse, and there's no reason to think an AI would share them in remotely the same way.
    Survival is an evolved characteristic, and thus non-static AI-systems would likely evolve to have them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    I get what you mean, but playing devils advocate: radio signals do attenuate (even in a vacuum, there's still FSPL) and are subject to distortion from other kinds of EM radiation. That said, I don't actually know how far these signals have to go before they become indistinguishable from any universal "background noise".
    It primarily depends on the size of the detector so far.

    SETI can only detect about a few light-years, SKA allegedly might be able to detect up to 50 light-years away - if they look at the right direction. Thus, an earth-sized detector (and really earth-sized with detector all over earth - not cheating like EHT) would be bit more than a thousand times better, so possibly the entire milky way - but not much further. After that solar gravitational lensing seems to be sensible.

  2. #42
    Scarab Lord Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    4,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If we're at the tipping point, then we're 5 minutes to midnight, but the day started at "noon" almost 14 billion years ago, and the "crunch" is another 14 billion years or so off.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Well, assuming it contracts at the same speed, it looks like we're around 13 billion years away from being gobbled up.

    I hope we all have our affairs in order given that timeline, it's just around the corner!
    But it could contract a lot faster, the universe has been pushing against the void for so long and the push back could come sooner..the sheer forces that will push the entire universe into one tiny single point..once it gets going, it might not give us much time...

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    But it could contract a lot faster
    Based on...?

  4. #44
    Scarab Lord Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    4,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Based on...?
    I haf a bad feeling!

    Also, we weren't around last time it happened, so how do you know? huh? HUH?

  5. #45
    @Edge- @Ihavewaffles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B4tj9c0vG8

    This is a small video, but everytime I tried to type out an explanation it was difficult to word it correctly.

    (He is a theoretical physicist)

    Also, PBS Spacetime (hosted by an astrophysicist) goes into the topic more in depth too, but at a college+ level.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The best evidence against "UFOs" is how everyone's carrying high-quality high-resolution cameras in their pockets these days, ready to take a thousand photos at a moment's notice and not limited by film at all, even able in many cases to take similar-quality full-motion video, and yet, possible UFO sightings have plummeted in number over prior eras. Because when you get a higher-quality shot or footage from multiple angles, the sightings generally get way more explainable as natural phenomena or tricks of the light. Oh, yeah, G> tricks of the light or optical illusions.
    This is kinda ignorant. First off not everyone is carrying high quality high res cameras in their pockets these days. How privileged do you gotta be to assume that? Second how often are people looking up at the sky? Third if UFO's were a real thing and intelligently operated why would you assume they wouldn't be more careful after our technology improved? Fourth how many "UFOs" are there? A human can see what? less than 1% of the sky at a given time? What are the odds that a person would be looking up in the sky at the exact time a UFO crossed their field of view and had the foresight to have a camera ready and focused on the area an UFO would appear?

    I live in a small town of less than 5k. We have deer, a wolf/wolves, and pine marten that come into town all the time and yet it took 6 years for someone to get a picture of the wolf and even then it is a medium/low quality picture from a trail cam they had set up 24/7 while nobody has gotten a picture of the pine marten even though it lives in the more active part of town. Once it ran across the road 3 feet in front of me while I was walking to the store and while I got a good look at its face and body as it looked back at me and ran away the interaction was so quick there is no way if I had a cell phone I would have been able to pull it out of my pocket and take a picture in time.

    Not saying that makes UFO's real or that I believe in them. I'm just saying it's ignorant to think that because some people got better cameras and more people have them overall that that would mean they clearly don't exist when we don't yet have millions of high quality photos of things we know exist and are much more common.
    Last edited by qwerty123456; 2022-05-17 at 08:31 PM.

  7. #47
    I am Murloc! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    5,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    Want to hear the latest theory to brighten your day? Some scientists think the universe is reaching its end of its expansion, that we are heading towards the big crunch, where the universe will be shredded to make a new big bang...We are maybe living 5 minutes to midnight..
    Marvel did it already "Crunch Condundrum", Wolverine 51-53.
    Mojo approves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  8. #48
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    71,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    That's, obviously, clearly incorrect on several levels. In particular it violates the first law of thermodynamics.
    Not even a little bit, no. Where the heck did you ever get that idea?

    There have been a number of attempts at detecting Dyson "spheres" (building a solid sphere is problematic) - either by detecting infra-red radiation and JWST might help with that, or that it's just a partial sphere and it causes periodic dimming of the star.
    I said "Dyson sphere" for a reason. I'm well aware that there are simpler megastructures theorized, like rings whether solid or interspaced plates.

    A Dyson sphere is full encapsulation, and presupposing that it truly captures and uses all the energy from the star, there's no infrared to detect. That's what a Type II civilization on the Kardashev Scale looks like.

    I'm really not interested in the mechanical complications, since the hypothesis was an AI sufficiently advanced, so we can presume they've resolved those complications; they were issues of practicality, not possibility.

    Survival is an evolved characteristic, and thus non-static AI-systems would likely evolve to have them.
    Evolution is a biological characteristic, and there's no reason to presume an artificial life form would experience such a thing. There's little reason to expect that any adjustments made would not be fully intentional and deliberate; "body" modification to achieve an intended purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    This is kinda ignorant. First off not everyone is carrying high quality high res cameras in their pockets these days. How privileged do you gotta be to assume that?
    By comparison to 30 years ago? I engaged in a little hyperbole. If you've got a smartphone from the last 10 years, you qualify.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ta-since-2005/

    78% of the global population has a smartphone. Sure, that's not "all", but it's most of us.

    Second how often are people looking up at the sky? Third if UFO's were a real thing and intelligently operated why would you assume they wouldn't be more careful after our technology improved? Fourth how many "UFOs" are there? A human can see what? less than 1% of the sky at a given time? What are the odds that a person would be looking up in the sky at the exact time a UFO crossed their field of view and had the foresight to have a camera ready and focused on the area an UFO would appear?
    Any answer I give here is gonna point to the 1960s-1990s and ask what was so different then that so many more UFO photos were taken and passed around. Did the aliens just get better cloaking tech when we developed smartphones? Or is the more-reasonable explanation that there never were any alien spacecraft, and it was just weird photo artifacts and strange effects that phones couldn't capture with any degree of precision, leaving nothing but fuzzy evocative blobs?

    It's the variance between those two eras that matters, here. Since if you want to talk about "evidence of alien spacecraft", I'll let you dig through the absolutely 100% empty shoebox of all the evidence that we've gathered thus far, and that just seems like a waste of everyone's time.


  9. #49
    I am Murloc! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    5,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    I haf a bad feeling!

    Also, we weren't around last time it happened, so how do you know? huh? HUH?
    Mon'keigh don't discover the Warp-drive until the 18th Millennium.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  10. #50
    Scarab Lord Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    4,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Nilinor View Post
    @Edge- @Ihavewaffles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B4tj9c0vG8

    This is a small video, but everytime I tried to type out an explanation it was difficult to word it correctly.

    (He is a theoretical physicist)
    That is...a bit confusing..he says two things, that universe is either two things, everything or universe + nothing (what I call the infinite void) it can't be everything cuz that would require infinite energy, makes you wonder if there's a limit to big bangs n big crunches, how much is scooped up for each event and eventually it all just fizzles out...and everything becomes the void, but then how did it all start?
    2nd thing he says, universe n nothing, well I wouldn't call it that, since there's something in the void that does pushback otherwise there would be no big crunch..
    the 1st thing can't be right cuz the universe was the size of a pebble at one point, then expanded into a space and has currently expanded 92 billion light years into it, that is just mind boggling and since the void is infinite one can never ever expand to any percentage of it...its so weird..

    Also, PBS Spacetime (hosted by an astrophysicist) goes into the topic more in depth too, but at a college+ level.
    think i have seen a video or two, some time past, can't remember any..

    Oh, I see now which one I have watched, the one about the three body problem...yeah, nobody can give an answer that...
    Last edited by Ihavewaffles; 2022-05-17 at 09:01 PM.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Not even a little bit, no. Where the heck did you ever get that idea?
    Because above you falsely claim that the energy is used up in direct contradiction of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and you double down on your error below.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    A Dyson sphere is full encapsulation, and presupposing that it truly captures and uses all the energy from the star, there's no infrared to detect.
    Still wrong, and just to be clear, Freeman Dyson introduced that in the paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation".
    Notice the last two words?

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/....131.3414.1667

    Your errors regarding evolution are minor, misunderstanding thermodynamics is fundamental for any understanding.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Because above you falsely claim that the energy is used up in direct contradiction of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and you double down on your error below.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.


    Still wrong, and just to be clear, Freeman Dyson introduced that in the paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation".
    Notice the last two words?

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/....131.3414.1667

    Your errors regarding evolution are minor, misunderstanding thermodynamics is fundamental for any understanding.
    You are wrong here buddy, you clearly don't even grasp the basics. What Endus implied and which was perfectly understandable is that none of the energy radiated by the star escapes the solar system. which has nothing to do with the thirds law of I only studied high school physics.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by P for Pancetta View Post
    You are wrong here buddy, you clearly don't even grasp the basics. What Endus implied and which was perfectly understandable is that none of the energy radiated by the star escapes the solar system. which has nothing to do with the thirds law of I only studied high school physics.
    That wasn't clearly not what was stated, that's not what a Dyson sphere does, and neither what any other physical system does.
    If someone were monumentally stupid and tried it they would notice that the sphere would reach thermodynamic equilibrium and become plasma. Same reason that computers have fans - harnessing energy also means getting rid of the excess heat.

    You shouldn't have stopped at high school.

    That's why Dyson talked about detecting IR-radiation as a sign of an advanced civilization. And Dyson, obviously, didn't talk about a solid sphere:
    Quote Originally Posted by Freeman Dyson
    A solid shell or ring surrounding a star is mechanically impossible. The form of 'biosphere' which I envisaged consists of a loose collection or swarm of objects traveling on independent orbits around the star

  14. #54
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    71,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    That is...a bit confusing..he says two things, that universe is either two things, everything or universe + nothing (what I call the infinite void) it can't be everything cuz that would require infinite energy
    The universe, and the energy it contains, is finite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Because above you falsely claim that the energy is used up in direct contradiction of the 1st law of thermodynamics, and you double down on your error below.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.


    And? I never said energy was being destroyed. Converted to mass, or used mechanically, like literally any engine; this one just reduces waste to zero and is powered by a star.


    Still wrong, and just to be clear, Freeman Dyson introduced that in the paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation".
    Notice the last two words?

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/....131.3414.1667

    Your errors regarding evolution are minor, misunderstanding thermodynamics is fundamental for any understanding.
    Congrats, you've noticed Dyson contributed more than just ideas like his Dyson Sphere. That paper isn't talking about Dyson Spheres in particular, just advanced species in general, and not even every possible species, hes just proposing one particular avenue of investigation.

    I'm not the one making basic errors, here.


  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The universe, and the energy it contains, is finite.
    What? The size of the universe and whether its total energy varies is a complicated issue that has nothing to do with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And? I never said energy was being destroyed. Converted to mass, or used mechanically, like literally any engine; this one just reduces waste to zero and is powered by a star.
    Still misunderstanding it.

    When energy is harnessed to do work it isn't consumed; and some portion generally ends up as low-temperature heat - that's how entropy works.
    Have you lived on earth - used a computer? A TV? Breathed? All of that generates heat.
    The idea that you just "use" all of the energy totally misunderstands how energy works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Congrats, you've noticed Dyson contributed more than just ideas like his Dyson Sphere. That paper isn't talking about Dyson Spheres in particular, just advanced species in general, and not even every possible species, hes just proposing one particular avenue of investigation.
    You seriously claim that the paper that introduced the Dyson sphere, and has 400+ references, isn't talking about Dyson spheres?

    Looking at them clearly confirms that I'm not alone in believing that Dyson's paper on Dyson spheres actually talks about Dyson sphere.
    Here are some scientists citing it:
    the so-called Dyson sphere (Dyson F Science 131 1667 (1960)).
    The most famous example of circumstellar mega-engineering is that of a “Dyson sphere” (Dyson 1960).

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm not the one making basic errors, here.
    You sure about that?
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-05-17 at 10:19 PM.

  16. #56
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    33,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Congress is holding its first public UFO hearing in 50 years in about 40 minutes. After the public portion they’ll be holding a closed classified briefing. Should be at least mildly entertaining.
    Few things capture the public imagination quite like UFOs and sci-fi suggestions that aliens might be vacationing on our humble little planet. And on Tuesday, May 17, the US House Intelligence Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Subcommittee plans to shed some light on UFOs -- more formally known as unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP -- with an open hearing.

    Among those presenting information on these elusive objects will be Ronald Moultrie, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security, and Scott Bray, deputy director of naval intelligence. In the days leading up to the hearing, others involved definitely haven't shied away from heightening the anticipation.

    "Americans need to know more about these unexplained occurrences," tweeted Indiana Rep. Andre Carson, who will chair the proceedings.
    https://www.cnet.com/science/space/c...-how-to-watch/
    It would be pretty amazing if all the conspiracy theory nut-jobs and "I was taken and probed" whack-jobs were actually right, and Earth has been visited by alien life etc etc.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It would be pretty amazing if all the conspiracy theory nut-jobs and "I was taken and probed" whack-jobs were actually right, and Earth has been visited by alien life etc etc.
    Randy Quaid is about to get real excited.

  18. #58
    I am Murloc! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    5,905
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It would be pretty amazing if all the conspiracy theory nut-jobs and "I was taken and probed" whack-jobs were actually right, and Earth has been visited by alien life etc etc.
    All they've discovered 1 in 10 doesn't seem to mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    By comparison to 30 years ago? I engaged in a little hyperbole. If you've got a smartphone from the last 10 years, you qualify.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ta-since-2005/

    78% of the global population has a smartphone. Sure, that's not "all", but it's most of us.



    Any answer I give here is gonna point to the 1960s-1990s and ask what was so different then that so many more UFO photos were taken and passed around. Did the aliens just get better cloaking tech when we developed smartphones? Or is the more-reasonable explanation that there never were any alien spacecraft, and it was just weird photo artifacts and strange effects that phones couldn't capture with any degree of precision, leaving nothing but fuzzy evocative blobs?

    It's the variance between those two eras that matters, here. Since if you want to talk about "evidence of alien spacecraft", I'll let you dig through the absolutely 100% empty shoebox of all the evidence that we've gathered thus far, and that just seems like a waste of everyone's time.
    Maybe you should do a little more research bud. From your own website :https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ns-since-1993/ There were more subscriptions than the number of humans on the planet. even https://datareportal.com/global-digi...%20per%20year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._phones_in_use
    point out how people have multiple phones.

    There are lot's of "ufos" being taken now days. Why are there a dozen shows on tv showing "UFOS" caught on camera and shit using videos from 2000+? You are claiming they don't count cause you can't see E.T. fliping the person filming the bird. Also what device do people have now which tends to drop their gaze 35+ more degrees lower than they used to when walking?https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/o...your-mood.html Also explain to me why we don't have millions of high def pictures of things we know exist in numbers that would far exceed UFOs if they were real?

    Seems like a waste of time? Even if every single Ufo pic was a malfunction of the equipment/eyes of the viewer it wouldn't be a waste of time in researching it. If equipment (especially military equipment) can have such major fuckups that "ghosts" appear we should attempt to solve and correct it so no accidents happen. And if everyone who sees a Ufo has a mental/physical/etc defect that caused them to see something that didn't exist then we should be trying to find out the cause and a cure.
    Last edited by qwerty123456; 2022-05-17 at 11:20 PM.

  20. #60
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    71,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    What? The size of the universe and whether its total energy varies is a complicated issue that has nothing to do with this.
    You might notice that wasn't responding to you.

    Still misunderstanding it.
    When energy is harnessed to do work it isn't consumed; and some portion generally ends up as low-temperature heat - that's how entropy works.

    Have you lived on earth - used a computer? A TV? Breathed? All of that generates heat.
    The idea that you just "use" all of the energy totally misunderstands how energy works.
    Energy conversion doesn't mean there's electromagnetic radiation of some wavelength that necessarily results. Converting a star's energy output into electrical, mechanical energies, converting it directly into mass, these are all "using energy" to accomplish something. If I use a lever to lift a weight, I am using mechanical energy to lift that weight. And that weight can often be lowered back down, returning energy to the lever or some other system.

    "Using" energy is converting it from its current state/form/vector to a useful state/form/vector. It's not destroying that energy. You made that straw man up all by yourself.

    You seriously claim that the paper that introduced the Dyson sphere, and has 400+ references, isn't talking about Dyson spheres?

    Looking at them clearly confirms that I'm not alone in believing that Dyson's paper on Dyson spheres actually talks about Dyson sphere.
    Here are some scientists citing it:
    the so-called Dyson sphere (Dyson F Science 131 1667 (1960)).
    The most famous example of circumstellar mega-engineering is that of a “Dyson sphere” (Dyson 1960).
    And Dyson introduced the concept, hence why it's named for him.

    He isn't the sole authority on the concept and its limits. That's like trying to argue that we couldn't advance physics beyond Newton's understanding.

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

    "The variant of the Dyson sphere most often depicted in fiction is the "Dyson shell": a uniform solid shell of matter around the star.[20] Such a structure would completely alter the emissions of the central star, and would intercept 100% of the star's energy output."

    And I was pretty clear, I thought, in describing such a shell, so there shouldn't have been any confusion. And yet, here we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    Maybe you should do a little more research bud. From your own website :https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ns-since-1993/ There were more subscriptions than the number of humans on the planet. even https://datareportal.com/global-digi...%20per%20year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._phones_in_use
    point out how people have multiple phones.
    That doesn't debunk anything. The first link was what percentage of global population have smartphones. As you've now successfully confirmed, it's not just using the number of plan subscriptions or phones per capita, it's actually looking at the percentage of people that actually have a smartphone.

    You've just backed me up.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •