T
TorontoReign
Guest
Future of war. Futerwar. Fuar.
NUCLEAR WAR!
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
Future of war. Futerwar. Fuar.
Alkuam
Lurker
IIRC it was the Centauri bombing Narn. Mass drivers had been outlawed due to the devastation they cause.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Nuclear free world.
For a moment I thought you said It was Centauri bombing Nam.
Anyway, the Series was awesome.
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
As of 2017, to my knowledge, Humanity has tested machine guns, chemical laser pistols, a nuclear bomb, and a neutron particle beam in space. A massive megawatt laser was launched in the last days of the Soviet Union but tumbled back down.
There was a game out there were planets shot each other with artillery. Boring, probably, but that could easily replace MAD; at least between planets. After all, it's just a game of inserting an object to hit a bunch of coordinates, and no one will disparage the implementations of capabilities just because they're not flashy. Mobile assets would still exist to protect the planets from blindspot shots and deal with minor affairs, so maybe that game wasn't so boring after all (if it allowed us to play with the mobile assets).
There was a game out there were planets shot each other with artillery. Boring, probably, but that could easily replace MAD; at least between planets. After all, it's just a game of inserting an object to hit a bunch of coordinates, and no one will disparage the implementations of capabilities just because they're not flashy. Mobile assets would still exist to protect the planets from blindspot shots and deal with minor affairs, so maybe that game wasn't so boring after all (if it allowed us to play with the mobile assets).
Two planets meet each other.
The first planet asks the second one: "How are you today?".
He gets as anwser: "Eh, not so well, I have humanity".
To which the first planet repplies: "Don't worry, it'll pass".
The first planet asks the second one: "How are you today?".
He gets as anwser: "Eh, not so well, I have humanity".
To which the first planet repplies: "Don't worry, it'll pass".
Well, given that the sample size for that highly scientific assertion right now is not even 1 (last time I checked we were only on one planet, and we're still living), I wouldn't be so sure that there's any merit to that, either.
Oh well, <0.5 sample size is probably good enough for sociologists, so it's all good.
Oh well, <0.5 sample size is probably good enough for sociologists, so it's all good.
There are dozens billions habitable planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone. Our radio-telescopes can easily detect any planet in our galaxy which would emit exactly as much as we do here on Earth nowadays. But we detect none. Zero. Nada. They all are dead out there. Means, they self-destruct very soon after starting to use radio as much as we do now. Significant percentage of such self-destruct cases must come via gigaton-scale global nuclear fire. That's definitely good enough to kill a planet.
Or most planets out there are simply sterile.
The research is still out on that one, the Fermi Paradox while an interesting thought, is far from established science. Albeit, it is very unlikeky that we're the only life form in the universe or out galaxy. However, with saying that, life would be already a small amount of bacteria on some rock formation out there. There is no reason to assume that all live has to be sentient, leave alone intelligent. THis is what Hass means with the sample size. We have currently only one. Our self. But that's a rather problematic view on things, as that alone isn't sufficient as clear proof.
The research is still out on that one, the Fermi Paradox while an interesting thought, is far from established science. Albeit, it is very unlikeky that we're the only life form in the universe or out galaxy. However, with saying that, life would be already a small amount of bacteria on some rock formation out there. There is no reason to assume that all live has to be sentient, leave alone intelligent. THis is what Hass means with the sample size. We have currently only one. Our self. But that's a rather problematic view on things, as that alone isn't sufficient as clear proof.
Except that you're applying a causality where you don't know anything of.
Fermi's Paradox can potentially be solved by a multitude of ways. Intelligent life destroying itself is just one.
How do you know what i know? Maybe i solved Fermi's paradox conclusively all by myself, just can't tell much details to any public. "Multitude of ways", you say. But is there really?
Some say other guys out there do not broadcast because they don't want to be detected. I say, don't make me laugh, i'm yet to see anyone here on Earth stopping using GPS and such outta fear of some ET detecting our radio signatures thousands years into the future on some distant world.
Some say - including the above, - that sentience and intelligence are rare. I say, they fail to recognise that even on Earth there are more than one sentient species, as they have not a slightest idea how highly sentient dolphins, whales, elephants and few kinds of apes in fact are.
Some say we here got extremely lucky not to be wiped back to a soup of organic compounds by regular near-enough gamma-bursts and such. I say, they fail to recognise simple facts of life: namely that life starts in water, and deep enough layer of water is excellent protection against pretty much any cosmic energy which gets through magnetosphere and athmosphere.
Some say ET life is rare. I say, they fail to understand how life is built and how in fact inevitable it is.
Some say noone's dead out there, it's just we here are among very first ones to evolve to the stage which we're at. I say, chances of this are stupifyingly small.
But sure, YMMV, i ain't convincing you. Just please don't decide i don't know anything only because i didn't write a lecture about it right here, OK?
P.S. Just an example of one of those points above, in case you don't trust my word.
Some say other guys out there do not broadcast because they don't want to be detected. I say, don't make me laugh, i'm yet to see anyone here on Earth stopping using GPS and such outta fear of some ET detecting our radio signatures thousands years into the future on some distant world.
Some say - including the above, - that sentience and intelligence are rare. I say, they fail to recognise that even on Earth there are more than one sentient species, as they have not a slightest idea how highly sentient dolphins, whales, elephants and few kinds of apes in fact are.
Some say we here got extremely lucky not to be wiped back to a soup of organic compounds by regular near-enough gamma-bursts and such. I say, they fail to recognise simple facts of life: namely that life starts in water, and deep enough layer of water is excellent protection against pretty much any cosmic energy which gets through magnetosphere and athmosphere.
Some say ET life is rare. I say, they fail to understand how life is built and how in fact inevitable it is.
Some say noone's dead out there, it's just we here are among very first ones to evolve to the stage which we're at. I say, chances of this are stupifyingly small.
But sure, YMMV, i ain't convincing you. Just please don't decide i don't know anything only because i didn't write a lecture about it right here, OK?
P.S. Just an example of one of those points above, in case you don't trust my word.
Last edited:
Ah, sorry, I forgot you are that supreme genius that knows everything and can do everything. Should have known that you already conclusively solved one of the more important questions of mankind.
Since I assume that you already unified quantum mechanics and gravitation, how is that Theory of Everything coming along?
I'm so happy we have you on this forum, so we'll be the first in line to bask in your glory when you solve every problem ever!
Since I assume that you already unified quantum mechanics and gravitation, how is that Theory of Everything coming along?
I'm so happy we have you on this forum, so we'll be the first in line to bask in your glory when you solve every problem ever!
Yeah, it's ridiculous, isn't it. But so is your assumption about me "applying a causality where you don't know anything of". I've humorously put it to the other extreme, and it seems i gotcha. 
If to be serious, sure, nobody can conclusively solve Fermi's yet. But it's not a lie that about nearly half of "official" proposed solutions to it are utter crap. That much, i am seriously sure about. You?
If to be serious, sure, nobody can conclusively solve Fermi's yet. But it's not a lie that about nearly half of "official" proposed solutions to it are utter crap. That much, i am seriously sure about. You?
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Still waiting on that definition for pretentious.
The thing is @Fins, that even if you solved the qestion it would be meaningless unless you actually find the proof for it. In other words undeniable signs of intelligent life, like radio messages, radiation or what ever else that could be only send out by an intelligent species.
You can make all sorts of claims, but at the end of the day you need something measurable or you will never have any absolute certainty since you have no way to check if your conclussions are right or not.
You can make all sorts of claims, but at the end of the day you need something measurable or you will never have any absolute certainty since you have no way to check if your conclussions are right or not.
I didn't mean that you don't know anything about Fermi's Paradox, I meant that you don't know anything about the circumstances of the universe so you can't just apply some causality nilly-willy.Yeah, it's ridiculous, isn't it. But so is your assumption about me "applying a causality where you don't know anything of". I've humorously put it to the other extreme, and it seems i gotcha.
If to be serious, sure, nobody can conclusively solve Fermi's yet. But it's not a lie that about nearly half of "official" proposed solutions to it are utter crap. That much, i am seriously sure about. You?
Well, how is it build then and why is it inventiable as it is?
Just a sidenote for Crni Vuk. Really sure about that "something measurable" part, aren't you? Well, it's not always true. Plenty things science knows do exist, despite never been measured or even simply observed. Here's some.
As for how life is built, and why it is such a usual phenomena on Earth-like planets (means, most rocky-surface planets abundant with liquid water) - that's complex. I can recommend to read those for only a start. This certainly can't be explained properly in a forum post.
As for how life is built, and why it is such a usual phenomena on Earth-like planets (means, most rocky-surface planets abundant with liquid water) - that's complex. I can recommend to read those for only a start. This certainly can't be explained properly in a forum post.
Last edited:
If they haven't been observed then we don't know they exist. They're still hypothetical.
Take black holes for examples. The Schwarzschild metric was the first exact solution for Einstein's field equations, and from that (and the generalized solutions like the Kerr Newman metric) we can assume that black holes exist, but at the same time we know that we don't know all there is to know about gravity. I mean, it is extremely likely that black holes exist, but what we don't know is how quantum mechanical effects could apply there, especially in microscopic black holes. The center singularity will most likely be affected by it, because, well, singularities are never a good thing.
Similarly, the Oort cloud is still hypothetical. It's highly likely that it exists, but we do not know for sure that it exists.
Gluons, as many of the more outlandish parts of the Standard Model. So far the Standard Model holds up extremely well, especially with the measurement of the Higgs boson, but we don't yet know that gluons exist. Of course, the alternate theory must explain everything the Standard Model explains without having an exchange quantum for the Strong force, which seems much more complicated to pull off, but no, we don't know if gluons exist.
It goes fundamentally against the principles of science to claim that science KNOWS something to exist despite it never being measured. Theory follows experiment and vice versa, theory without verification is NEVER to be seen as absolute truth.
Take black holes for examples. The Schwarzschild metric was the first exact solution for Einstein's field equations, and from that (and the generalized solutions like the Kerr Newman metric) we can assume that black holes exist, but at the same time we know that we don't know all there is to know about gravity. I mean, it is extremely likely that black holes exist, but what we don't know is how quantum mechanical effects could apply there, especially in microscopic black holes. The center singularity will most likely be affected by it, because, well, singularities are never a good thing.
Similarly, the Oort cloud is still hypothetical. It's highly likely that it exists, but we do not know for sure that it exists.
Gluons, as many of the more outlandish parts of the Standard Model. So far the Standard Model holds up extremely well, especially with the measurement of the Higgs boson, but we don't yet know that gluons exist. Of course, the alternate theory must explain everything the Standard Model explains without having an exchange quantum for the Strong force, which seems much more complicated to pull off, but no, we don't know if gluons exist.
It goes fundamentally against the principles of science to claim that science KNOWS something to exist despite it never being measured. Theory follows experiment and vice versa, theory without verification is NEVER to be seen as absolute truth.