Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

Humanity can and will Survive those things.

Can, perhaps. Will? Assumptive.  Tempted to quote @valdyrgramr here.

[whm1974]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Can, perhaps. Will? Assumptive.  Tempted to quote @valdyrgramr here.

Our Human Species have lived through multiple Near Extinction Events. 

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Humanity can and will Survive those things.

Mmmm no, I think at least the event of Nuclear was would irradiate the atmosphere and kill most life on the planet.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Partly incorrect in what way? For doing things here on Earth and sending probes to Mars, Newtonian Physics just works. Going to Mercury or at very large and small scales... That is well different.

Actually Newtonian physics does not "just work" with planetary bodies - at least, not all of them. Specifically, Mercuries anomalous perihelion advance had no credible explanation until General Relativity was developed. So sending a probe to Mercury could in fact fail if you were calculating your insertion using Newtonian physics.

 

Now, as for why the Standard Model is "partially incorrect"? I can't really comment on that.

 

It's probably true, in the sense that we still don't have a unifying model that reconciles General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

[whm1974]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Mmmm no, I think at least the event of Nuclear was would irradiate the atmosphere and kill most life on the planet.

The US dropped two Nukes on Japan at the tail end of WWII, and multiple Nations did nuclear testing during the entire Cold War, and yet Life is still here... Along with Mankind.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Mmmm no, I think at least the event of Nuclear was would irradiate the atmosphere and kill most life on the planet.

That would entirely depend on the scale of the nuclear exchange. Even a full blown nuclear war would not wipe out all humans immediately.

 

Whether or not humans would survive long term past that would depend on a lot of factors, including how bad the fallout and resulting nuclear winter was. But it's entirely conceivable that humans could survive the fallout and nuclear winter in sporadic pockets.

 

And even in the event of a large scale nuclear winter - eventually the planet would recover. Humans might be able to survive that long due to human ingenuity and technology.

 

A literal scorched earth that sterilizes the planet is not all that likely, actually. Remember that most nuclear weapons are stockpiles, not actively aimed weapons - it wouldn't even be possible for a country like the US or Russia to launch all of their nukes during a nuclear war.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Global warming, resource shortages, nuclear war, antibiotic resistant bacteria to name a few.

None of those things are likely to wipe out the entire human species. They may well collapse society as we know it, and destroy existing countries, but some humans would likely survive any of those things.

7 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

To get to the CLOSEST star it'd take around 100 years travelling at the speed NASAs latest probe is expected to achieve whilst slingshotting around the sun. 

Yes, and? That's with the current technology - technology which is only going to get better over time.

 

How fast would it take to send the fastest probe with the latest technology if we sent that probe 100 years from now? Would it still take 100 years? 90? 75? Even if we assume that we cannot reach superluminal speeds (which is unlikely long term, given research around warping space time, such as the Alcubierre drive that @dizmo mentioned), we will still develop new and better and faster technology that will at least approach some meaningful percentage of the speed of light.

 

For example, if we can manage to develop a space probe that can reach 0.1c (10% of the speed of light), it could reach Alpha Centauri in about 44 years. If we could then extend that tech and speed to a human capable spacecraft, it would mean we could send people to that system within a human lifespan. Increase the speed further and you get to the point where a human could travel there and then return to Earth within their lifespan.

 

Increase those speeds to 0.25c and it'll only take a little over 17 years - or about 35 years for a round trip.

 

Reaching these speeds are well within the realms of science - it's just a matter of energy and engineering.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

None of those things are likely to wipe out the entire human species. They may well collapse society as we know it, and destroy existing countries, but some humans would likely survive any of those things.

But society and technology would degrade to a ridiculous level

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes, and? That's with the current technology - technology which is only going to get better over time.

 

How fast would it take to send the fastest probe with the latest technology if we sent that probe 100 years from now? Would it still take 100 years? 90? 75? Even if we assume that we cannot reach superluminal speeds (which is unlikely long term, given research around warping space time, such as the Alcubierre drive that @dizmo mentioned), we will still develop new and better and faster technology that will at least approach some meaningful percentage of the speed of light.

 

For example, if we can manage to develop a space probe that can reach 0.1c (10% of the speed of light), it could reach Alpha Centauri in about 44 years. If we could then extend that tech and speed to a human capable spacecraft, it would mean we could send people to that system within a human lifespan. Increase the speed further and you get to the point where a human could travel there and then return to Earth within their lifespan.

 

Increase those speeds to 0.25c and it'll only take a little over 17 years - or about 35 years for a round trip.

 

Reaching these speeds are well within the realms of science - it's just a matter of energy and engineering.

How many times to I have to explain this, our technology does NOT make spacecraft achieve the highest possible speeds, slingshotting around objects with extremely large mases does that. In the case of the probe NASA has sent out that would be the sun. To put this into context escape velocity is around 12x10^3 m/s which is around the speed we can get to with just propulsion give or take. The speed the parker probe hit going around the sun was 2x10^5. That makes our best attempt equal to 6% of what we gain through gravity. And even using parkers speed you're still talking 6000-7000 years of travel time between the nearest star and us. 

 

Honestly you're not understanding the magnitude of the numbers you're talking about. Using the largest gravitational object between us and the closest star we can only get to a fraction of a percent of the SoL. The fastest we've gone without gravitational assistance is a few percent of that fraction of a percent. 

 

No those numbers are NOT within the realms of science, you're essentially trying to provide more energy that the Sun's gravity, bear in mind we orbit the sun. You would need to generate more energy for that flight than what is contained in the entire planet.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

But society and technology would degrade to a ridiculous level

Yes and? It would regress, then slowly rebuild (or we would go extinct, but unlikely. Humans are very tenacious - we outlived multiple other human-like intelligent/sentient species, among other things).

Just now, Lord Vile said:

How many times to I have to explain this, our technology does NOT make spacecraft achieve the highest possible speeds, slingshotting around objects with extremely large mases does that.

Yes and no. Our technology DOES have a direct and specific impact on spacecraft speeds - even among the high end. Using large masses such as the sun to slingshot does indeed help, but for the entire rest of that journey, we're using conventional propulsion. The faster that conventional propulsion is before and after the slingshot will directly affect how much of a boost it gets.

 

Just now, Lord Vile said:

In the case of the probe NASA has sent out that would be the sun. To put this into context escape velocity is around 12x10^3 m/s which is around the speed we can get to with just propulsion give or take. The speed the parker probe hit going around the sun was 2x10^5. That makes our best attempt equal to 6% of what we gain through gravity. And even using parkers speed you're still talking 6000-7000 years of travel time between the nearest star and us. 

6% - and?

 

6% of a small number is smaller than 6% of a larger number. If we can increase the starting speed of the probe before the slingshot, it'll go faster.

Just now, Lord Vile said:

Honestly you're not understanding the magnitude of the numbers you're talking about. Using the largest gravitational object between us and the closest star we can only get to a fraction of a percent of the SoL. The fastest we've gone without gravitational assistance is a few percent of that fraction of a percent. 

Yes. For now. You're talking about a species that has been a "space fairing" society (in the loosest way possible) for under 100 years. This is for a civilization that's been around for around 10,000-12,000 years (the dawn of modern civilization is roughly agreed upon as about 12,000 years ago).

 

How can you possibly say that we're not going to substantially improve in, say, another 12,000 years?

Just now, Lord Vile said:

No those numbers are NOT within the realms of science, you're essentially trying to provide more energy that the Sun's gravity, bear in mind we orbit the sun. You would need to generate more energy for that flight than what is contained in the entire planet.

Not exactly - gravity is only one form of energy. There are many more forms - including Fusion (how the sun powers itself), which theoretically can provide much more energy available compared to conventional current propulsion.

 

You're severely limiting yourself to current technology and you seem to have no ability to extrapolate how technology will improve in all areas - including space propulsion.

 

And that's not even considering the more esoteric solutions like the Alcubierre drive (which while theoretically possible - the main issue now is power consumption - we basically need an extremely powerful energy source or some kind of exotic matter - something that in time way well be within our grasp).

[Praesi]

Physics simply doesnt exist for some People i guess.

[Sauron]

I feel like we're so culturally afraid of aliens because we know what we'd probably do if we found a less technologically advanced civilization on a resource rich planet...

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Sauron said:

I feel like we're so culturally afraid of aliens because we know what we'd probably do if we found a less technologically advanced civilization on a resource rich planet...

We assume aliens will be murder-bots who steal oil because we are murder-bots who steal oil.

 

Frankly I don't think there will be any consistency - assuming there's at least one other sentient alien species, there's likely going to be many different species. And each one will be a little different. Some will be resource hungry and willing to commit violence, like humans. Others may be pacifistic. Others maybe be completely different in a way we don't expect.

[Praesi]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I feel like we're so culturally afraid of aliens because we know what we'd probably do if we found a less technologically advanced civilization on a resource rich planet...

The same the USA is doing when it smells Oil somewhere?

[Sauron]

Just now, Praesi said:

The same the USA is doing when it smells Oil somewhere?

yeppp

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes and? It would regress, then slowly rebuild (or we would go extinct, but unlikely. Humans are very tenacious - we outlived multiple other human-like intelligent/sentient species, among other things).

Yes and no. Our technology DOES have a direct and specific impact on spacecraft speeds - even among the high end. Using large masses such as the sun to slingshot does indeed help, but for the entire rest of that journey, we're using conventional propulsion. The faster that conventional propulsion is before and after the slingshot will directly affect how much of a boost it gets.

Jesus Christ no it doesn't the propulsion we give it compared to the grav assistance would be the equivalent of putting a bike pedal in a motorsports care to assist the engine, the speed difference caused by propulsion is negligible which is why for the solar orbit they had to slingshot off Venus multiple times to even attempt a pass of the Sun, because conventional propulsion cannot approach the speed required to not just be sucked into the sun.

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

6% - and?

 

6% of a small number is smaller than 6% of a larger number. If we can increase the starting speed of the probe before the slingshot, it'll go faster.

Yes. For now. You're talking about a species that has been a "space fairing" society (in the loosest way possible) for under 100 years. This is for a civilization that's been around for around 10,000-12,000 years (the dawn of modern civilization is roughly agreed upon as about 12,000 years ago).

Yes we increased the speed by multiple passes of Venus. 

 

Ever heard of diminishing returns? Look at he land speed record for example, it was broken every other year for decades and now the last one was set in 1997. The last record beat the previous by about 15% and it took 14 years. From the first record set in the 1898 in the 14 years it increased by 400%. so in around 100 years we went from increasing performance by 4x to 1.15x

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

How can you possibly say that we're not going to substantially improve in, say, another 12,000 years?

Not exactly - gravity is only one form of energy. There are many more forms - including Fusion (how the sun powers itself), which theoretically can provide much more energy available compared to conventional current propulsion.

FFS fusion isn't a type of energy it's an energy source. And even so if you took all the tritium out of the water on earth you're looking at 1.2x10^19J which for the entire planet isn't that much. The sun also achieves fusion through gravity, we have to put a significant amount of energy into a fusion system to get anything out of it.

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

You're severely limiting yourself to current technology and you seem to have no ability to extrapolate how technology will improve in all areas - including space propulsion.

I am using the laws of Thermodynamics and General relativity. There is such a thing as impossible.

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

 

And that's not even considering the more esoteric solutions like the Alcubierre drive (which while theoretically possible - the main issue now is power consumption - we basically need an extremely powerful energy source or some kind of exotic matter - something that in time way well be within our grasp).

You mean the "solution" that is purely theoretical, shown that in reality it doesn't work  bevcause it would have to use negative time and the person who thought it up has come out and said it probably can't be done?

[dizmo]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Increase those speeds to 0.25c and it'll only take a little over 17 years - or about 35 years for a round trip.

With advances in cryosleep, it's also pretty probable that by the time trips to Mars are required on a regular basis they can just use that.

They're already at 2 weeks.

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

How many times to I have to explain this, our technology does NOT make spacecraft achieve the highest possible speeds, slingshotting around objects with extremely large mases does that. In the case of the probe NASA has sent out that would be the sun. To put this into context escape velocity is around 12x10^3 m/s which is around the speed we can get to with just propulsion give or take. The speed the parker probe hit going around the sun was 2x10^5. That makes our best attempt equal to 6% of what we gain through gravity. And even using parkers speed you're still talking 6000-7000 years of travel time between the nearest star and us. 

 

Honestly you're not understanding the magnitude of the numbers you're talking about. Using the largest gravitational object between us and the closest star we can only get to a fraction of a percent of the SoL. The fastest we've gone without gravitational assistance is a few percent of that fraction of a percent. 

 

No those numbers are NOT within the realms of science, you're essentially trying to provide more energy that the Sun's gravity, bear in mind we orbit the sun. You would need to generate more energy for that flight than what is contained in the entire planet.

Right. You seem to be so hell bent on believing that the human race is stuck with the technology we have now. You must not be that old to have that kind of belief. Even in the past 20 years, technology as improved by leaps and bounds in virtually every sector. Very odd stance to take, given it only takes one breakthrough to completely change everything we thought was possible.

1 hour ago, Praesi said:

Physics simply doesnt exist for some People i guess.

Have you ever looked into the advances in space flight they've been working on? Or are you just assuming based on what you think you know?

[Praesi]

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

Have you ever looked into the advances in space flight they've been working on? Or are you just assuming based on what you think you know?

I already said about speed what there is to say. And its nothing "i think i know", Mr. Professor, its Law of Physics.

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, Praesi said:

I already said about speed what there is to say. And its nothing "i think i know", Mr. Professor, its Law of Physics.

So you're ignoring the fact that one of the methods they're working with...works within the laws of physics?

[Praesi]

20 minutes ago, dizmo said:

So you're ignoring the fact that one of the methods they're working with...works within the laws of physics?

Lightspeed is impossible. And it wouldnt be enough anyway.

Did they manage to create a wormhole? Is that the method you didnt explain one bit yet?

[dizmo]

27 minutes ago, Praesi said:

Lightspeed is impossible. And it wouldnt be enough anyway.

Did they manage to create a wormhole? Is that the method you didnt explain one bit yet?

I'm not going to try and explain it. You want that kind of depth, go look it up. I already mentioned the Alcubierre drive.

Might be impossible now, doesn't mean it always will be.

[Moonzy]

-sips choccy milk-

as an introvert, no alien is better

 

as a serious note, no alien is still better

because that would mean we have to share resources, and u know what happens when you're asked to share something

[Praesi]

42 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I'm not going to try and explain it. You want that kind of depth, go look it up. I already mentioned the Alcubierre drive.

Might be impossible now, doesn't mean it always will be.

So Sience Fiction is your Answer? Ok.

[Lord Vile]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

Right. You seem to be so hell bent on believing that the human race is stuck with the technology we have now. You must not be that old to have that kind of belief. Even in the past 20 years, technology as improved by leaps and bounds in virtually every sector. Very odd stance to take, given it only takes one breakthrough to completely change everything we thought was possible.

TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BREAK THE LAWS OF FUCKING PHYSICS. No matter how advanced we make tech we can't travel anywhere close to lightspeed because what you're trying to move has a significant mass and the energy required to move something even at the speed of the parker probe without gravity assist would take more energy than we could generate even with something like fusion which is the most energy dense source in the universe. Like no matter how good nutrition and training gets or even making a genetically perfect human no one will ever run 100m in 2 seconds. There are some things that simply cannot be done. 

[Stockholmes]

6 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BREAK THE LAWS OF FUCKING PHYSICS. No matter how advanced we make tech we can't travel anywhere close to lightspeed because what you're trying to move has a significant mass and the energy required to move something even at the speed of the parker probe without gravity assist would take more energy than we could generate even with something like fusion which is the most energy dense source in the universe. Like no matter how good nutrition and training gets or even making a genetically perfect human no one will ever run 100m in 2 seconds. There are some things that simply cannot be done. 

So, if aliens really are visiting here how do they do it? How do you travel faster than the speed of light? I think that's pretty fascinating to think about.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Stockholmes said:

So, if aliens really are visiting here how do they do it? How do you travel faster than the speed of light? I think that's pretty fascinating to think about.

Aliens aren't visiting here, you can't travel faster than light I've explained this multiple times already. You could use wormholes but they're theoretical and aren't increasing your speed just shortening the distance.