165 réponses à ce sujet

[GLR-0053]

Might I recommend that we try to control them or negotiate.

[Filanwizard]

GLR-0053 wrote...

Might I recommend that we try to control them or negotiate.

And if that fails hack them and install Windows ME.   they would simply die,  I mean I doubt even a Reaper could adapt to that garbage code.

[BeDotWe]

I don't think we'll ever achieve superluminal motion that can be understood by the physics we understand at the moment.

[Keyrlis]

BeDotWe wrote...

I don't think we'll ever achieve superluminal motion that can be understood by the physics we understand at the moment.

By definition, we can't. To achieve it, we will have to understand it better than we do at the moment, or it would already be possible!

[The Protheans]

tractrpl wrote...

The Protheans wrote...

tractrpl wrote...



Ok, I guess I need to go into more detail.

1. Just google rare earth hypothesis. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of lack of observational evidence. It's truth or non-truth is independant of anyone's opinions.  Earth-like planets may be rare or non-rare, we just don't have enough data yet. Part of this goes into possibility 2. The sun is not a very common star, like was previously assumed. Most stars like the sun are part of binary systems, and such systems make planetary orbits very unstable.  As far as yellow dwarf stars that are not binary, our sun is very interesting. Just a tiny fraction more mass, like 10% more mass, our sun would have a lifespan of 4 billion years. Complex life didn't evolve until the sun was about 4 billion years old, meaning such a sun is unlikely to produce a space-faring civilization.  Finally, we have night and day thanks to our huge moon, and the unusual circumstances under which it was formed (giant impact theory).  An earthlike planet orbiting around any star like ours is likely to have an unstable axis and it's days would be so long that one side would scorch, the other freeze. Plate techtonics would stop working, and it would lose its magnetic field within a billion years. All of this makes it unlikely that any earth-like planet in the habitable zone circling around a sun-like star would harbor any life without something like our moon, and the probability of something like our moon be created around an earthlike planet is unknown, but we can probably safely bet that such circumstances should be very, very rare.

Its all a matter of opinion and no human really knows the truth behind it so it probably if you say it is one thing the opposite is true and vice versa.

2. This one is tied to 1 because, like I said, an earth-like planet with something like our moon revolving around something like our sun is probably rediculously rare. However, it might be more common that life revolves around red dwarfs.  Red dwarfs are the most common type of star in our galaxy, but an earthlike planet revolving around such a star would be tidally locked, with one side always facing its sun.  Perhaps a large moon could be created around such a planet from a giant impact, giving the planet spin.  It's more likely that a gas giant could settle in the habitable zone around such a star and one of its large moons could harbor life. Living moons might be more common in the universe than earth-like planets.  Therefore, civilization that arise would look for life within red dwarf stars containing gas giants in the habitable zones.  Most civilizations might ignore sunlike stars because, as I've already mentioned, such stars are unlikely to harbor life, but red dwarfs might be more likely to harbor life.

This one is tied to #1

3. As for this one, all we have is human nature. However, scientists have used the notion that we're nothing special and usually have been proven right. More than likely, a civilized species would evolve from a predatory species because predators must be smarter than their prey. Likely they will also have territorial instincts as well.  A species with predatory instincts is far more likely to be hostile than a non-predatory species, but non-predatory species are not likely to become sentient.

One example doesn't justify it to used in every encounter.

4. Says our own dependance on technology. Eventually we get implants to make us stronger. Perhaps a little genetic engineering.  We start replacing more and more of our bodies with tech until we replace our own brains with tech. Eventually we BECOME tech.  Instead of the sci-fi notion that synthetics wipe out organics, it's more that we become synthetics.  As synthetics, we'd have no need of earthlike planets at all, because as synthetics, we don't need to eat biological food. Instead we just get energy directly from solar radiation and all the resources we need from mining asteroids and such.

What if a group of people don't want to get a implant that makes them more synthetic than organic

5. See explanation number 3

6. See explanation number 3. If humans have a tendancy to be selfish @ssholes, what makes you think that other civilizations would NOT be selfish @ssholes?

See previous points

1) Opinion implies that there is no truth, or that truth is relative. In this case there is an absolute truth, but the truth is unknown. Being unknown does not make it a matter of opinion, the facts are merely unknown. We can debate the evidence, but one or both of us will be definitely wrong.

3)  This is why there are multiple possibilities. This particular possibility is countered by other examples that I have listed.

Funny my post implied the truth was unknown to us.
This is all in a relative timeframe so even if your opinion was close to correct then you're still wrong because the unknown facts have shifted in the time it took to recieve the information and it will continue to shift so to say one is closer to right or wrong is incorrect.

[tractrpl]

Doomhams wrote...

Or secret option number 7, his assumption is wrong.

Or secret option number 8, aliens have been here and they see no reason to deal with us in anyway. We have nothing to offer them so they ignore us, which is perfectly plausible. Do you go out of your way to deal with a group of people that you think has nothing to offer you once you find them?

There are an infinite number of possibilities, I merely stated the ones that came to my mind foremost.

[tractrpl]

The Protheans wrote...

Funny my post implied the truth was unknown to us.
This is all in a relative timeframe so even if your opinion was close to correct then you're still wrong because the unknown facts have shifted in the time it took to recieve the information and it will continue to shift so to say one is closer to right or wrong is incorrect.

This...frame of thought makes my head spin...or maybe it was the Corona I just drank during my excursion into mexico mere hours ago... Anyway, I believe there can be only one right or wrong answer at any one given plane sliced within a spacetime continuum.  To try and consider future possibilities that lie in the future spacetime cone is too complicated. I operate under the assumption of what exists right now, at this current slice of the spacetime continuum from our perspective, and also under the assumption that we'll find out with definite authority the absolute truth in a mere few thousand years, which may seem like a long time from our perspective, but from the universe's perspective it's damn near instantaneously.

[tractrpl]

Keyrlis wrote...

BeDotWe wrote...

I don't think we'll ever achieve superluminal motion that can be understood by the physics we understand at the moment.

By definition, we can't. To achieve it, we will have to understand it better than we do at the moment, or it would already be possible!

Yes, but according to Einsteinian general relativity, FTL speeds are possible, and we understand the mechanism needed to make it possible, we just don't know if materials exist to make it possible. A material such as Eezo could make FTL travel possible if it actually exists. Michio Kaku actually mentioned it on his own commentary on Mass Effect 2.

[tractrpl]

Epicly selfish and self serving bump merely to save this thread from being buried to where I can no longer find it

Modifié par tractrpl, 22 avril 2012 - 06:09 .

[Marixus99.9]

tractrpl wrote...

Epicly selfish and self serving bump merely to save this thread from being buried to where I can no longer find it

You can look at your profile for threads you made .. oh and bump for you.

[tractrpl]

Marixus99.9 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Epicly selfish and self serving bump merely to save this thread from being buried to where I can no longer find it

You can look at your profile for threads you made .. oh and bump for you.

Yeah, but it only shows my last 8 or so posts. Any way to make it show more?

[Marixus99.9]

tractrpl wrote...

Marixus99.9 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Epicly selfish and self serving bump merely to save this thread from being buried to where I can no longer find it

You can look at your profile for threads you made .. oh and bump for you.

Yeah, but it only shows my last 8 or so posts. Any way to make it show more?

You're looking at recent activity under profile .. click the forums tab. I see 10 threads made by you there.

Edit: Basically if you click your picture in the upper left .. you should see a row of tabs and that you're on the "profile" tab. The row of tabs should include this:

Profile, Friends, Comments, Projects, Forums, Games

Threads you make should be listed in the Forums tab.

Modifié par Marixus99.9, 22 avril 2012 - 06:38 .

[General User]

Technology is not a straight line progression. Not linearly, not exponentially. There are periods of dramatic advancement, periods of lengthy plateaus, and even periods of extensive backslides. Often times all three can be said to occur at once in separate fields of knowledge. And technology can be judged not by how old it is, but by how effectively it meets the challenges it was designed to face. Different challenges, different technologies.

In other words, it's possible that a race/civilization that spans galaxies and has for millions of years might be technologically inferior to a race that has never left it's home star system.

Modifié par General User, 22 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[tractrpl]

General User wrote...

Technology is not a straight line progression. Not linearly, not exponentially. There are periods of dramatic advancement, periods of lengthy plateaus, and even periods of extensive backslides. Often times all three can be said to occur at once in separate fields of knowledge. And technology can be judged not by how old it is, but by how effectively it meets the challenges it was designed to face. Different challenges, different technologies.

In other words, it's possible that a race/civilization that spans galaxies and has for millions of years might be technologically inferior to a race that has never left it's home star system.

True, it's possible they don't have computers, as propulsion tech is not dependant on that.

[General User]

tractrpl wrote...

General User wrote...

Technology is not a straight line progression. Not linearly, not exponentially. There are periods of dramatic advancement, periods of lengthy plateaus, and even periods of extensive backslides. Often times all three can be said to occur at once in separate fields of knowledge. And technology can be judged not by how old it is, but by how effectively it meets the challenges it was designed to face. Different challenges, different technologies.

In other words, it's possible that a race/civilization that spans galaxies and has for millions of years might be technologically inferior to a race that has never left it's home star system.

True, it's possible they don't have computers, as propulsion tech is not dependant on that.

I was thinking more along the lines of weapons.  A relatively peaceful race could expand across the cosmos... until they meet a militarily capable race.

[Siansonea]

I think most civilizations probably destroy themselves, evolution clearly doesn't favor high intelligence. All it does is give us the tools to destroy ourselves more efficiently, usually in the name of some backward concept like religion or other superstitions. Once you've unlocked the secrets of the atom, if you haven't worked out all your issues as a species, you're probably doomed. Humanity is probably doomed, because let's face it, as smart as we think we are, we're also really, really stupid. I mean come on. Gods? Afterlife? We're a spacefaring race, kind of, and we still believe in magic and wish fulfillment. Absurd.

And I don't think that the galaxy is necessarily all that quiet, it's probably too "loud" for us to hear what other civilizations are doing. What if there was a civilization on the other side of the Milky Way? Well, there's a giant black hole between us and it. You think we're going to hear their weather reports and TV shows? Our transmissions might seem powerful to us, but unless other civilizations are tuned to those frequencies, would they even be paying attention? Would we recognize the formatting of their transmissions if we saw them? Does a civilization necessarily have to devise radio communication? Do all species necessarily have to evolve hearing or vision? And the Milky Way is 120,000 light-years across, so it takes light and other EM radiation that amount of time to traverse that distance. We've only been listening for a little over 100 years or so. That is an infinitesimal span of time in galactic time scales. The idea that as soon as we start listening we should hear a cosmic telephone conversation already in progress is probably an oversimplification of the concept.