So, how would a space leviathan work?By space leviathan, I think of something HUGE, maybe our solar system long, or ten times this. A beast able to feed on stars and nebulas, so huge it as it's own atmosphere and can mess with the gravitational force of a solar system just by being too close. Something formidable enough to travel between galaxies.Can whe imagine a titan while whe are but mites? Could such a thing exist without involving a major rape of physics?
That shit would be too big
>>44300957>Could such a thing exist without involving a major rape of physics?No, but I don't care. It's epic as fuck and any good space opera needs at least one.
I would have no idea what to do with it if it worked. It crushes planets and system like ants, what are you supposed to do against it? Seems awesome tho.Contributing with world eater beast.
>>44300957How much XP?
>>44300957Don't speculate too loudly. She might hear you.
>>44300957That thing would leave a trail of crushed planets and nebulas.
>>44300957wouldn't anything that big just collapse in on itself?
>>44301009Maybe something that cannot be stopped but can be redirected for your players to find out how?It is hard to have epic space adventures when your solar system is about to be devored at best.
>>44300957>space leviathan>feeds on stars and nebulas>has it's own atmosphere>travels the hellish void between the galaxies>all logic and reason fail before it's very existence>there is only screaming madness and unfathomable evil between the starsLiterally all of my nightmares made manifest.
Something that massive would leave a reverse wake behind it. Things that it passes by would be drawn together into it by gravity. Even large objects that only get pulled a bit before it moves away would end up closer to its path.So yes, you do need to rape physics pretty hard to make something that supermassive capable of movement.
>>44301121better question would be: How could it not collapse?
Players would be an infiltration team to the surface of Planet Nibiru and should fight their way through the native lifeforms of Nibiru until they find a way to enter the Planet-Beast and kill it from inside with a thermonuclear device.That would be Armageddon to the eleven.
>>44300957No, but who says that our physics is the right one'
>>44301208If that thing can eat stars, I don't think any thermonuclear device would work.
>>44301073how awesome is that
>>44301181Could it work if it was able to sustain it's own form by the sheer strenght of its muscles?(I don't know shit about physics)
>>44300957>Could such a thing exist without involving a major rape of physics?Just think about it for more than 2 seconds. Even a planet the size of Earth has enough gravitational pull that it has shaped itself into a sphere with enough pressure in the centre to keep it molten. And you want a creature the size of a solar system, made out of meat? Obviously there's going to be some serious physics rape involved.
>>44301231you're not thinking big enoughway easier to kill using a black hole tho.
>>44300957If such a thing existed it would collapse into a star under its own weight
>>44301284Strength doesn't really matter, if something as tiny as earth has enough gravity to melt rock and iron through sheer pressure, muscle-strength isn't going to do much. But it's hella cool, so just invent some space magic bullshit.
>>44301292>You somehow manage to redirect the beast to enter the attraction field of a black hole>It looses some meat, but shrugs it off and continue its path>This is but a flesh wound
Capture it and use it as a spaceship just like in warhammer 40k
>>44301338It would just get sucked in and make the hole bigger.
Almost impossible to have as a plot device unless your story reaches TTGL levels of insanity. Perhaps a decent idea as a setting for your campaign, as the outside of the leviathan would still be millions of times larger than our earths surface.I would reckon the gravitation pull would be too large if you're talking technicalities though. Assuming it's still flesh, it would be less dense than rock but the sheer volume would still result in unimaginable gravitational pull.
>>44301321But that happens because of density and mass. If the Beast is mostly hollow and crawls by projecting itself like a worm/blob, it could be viable.
>>44300957>Could such a thing exist without involving a major rape of physics?No. The mere material strength would be impossible: There's a reason planets and stars are spherical. At that scale, its own gravitational force would force it to schlump into a solid, spherical, smooth blob of meat.
>>44301338I'm now picturing this solar system spanning hellbeast what swims the void between galaxies as the apex predator of the universe that has an internal voice like the Black Knight from Monty Python.
>>44300957OP here, forget the whole "whithout raping science". New theme is "with a minimum of science-raping"
>>44301454God damn you.
>>44301454Then my work here is done.
>>44301266sure, why not
>>44301502I think we're not going to get very far unless we slip Physics a roofie and fuck it in a grimy alley at two in the morning, but we can try.How about a propulsion system based around gravity? It hurls itself towards the nearest star that might be larger than it so that it can use it's orbit to eat all the other planets in that solar system
>>44301037that's no moon...
>>44301597That's Hellstar Remina.
>>44301338>you have to redirect the beast to several black holes to damage the beast
>>44300957While solar system sized is out (damned thing would collapse into a star or black hole, ya nut), planet sized leviathans aren't unthinkable. Indeed, there's a running theory that the Earth almost became one at some point.All you need is for one or more bacteria evolving on an existing planet to run amuck, and covering the whole surface, then developing specialized layer functions (as bacteria usually do when they do this on a smaller scale) where the ones on the outside form protective layers, and possibly photosynthesis, while the ones on the middle live on a combination of energies from that, and from the heat produced by the sheer size of the creature's mass, being radiated from the lower layers (which, essentially, are burning as fuel).If this combination provides sufficient nutrients to keep the whole mass growing, eventually, you end up with your space leviathan. Conceivably, in a system with a lot of ice, and a series of asteroids in a goldilocks zone, you can end up with multiple small leviathans, that maybe able to propel themselves with gaseous excretions, feeding upon one another, until one such very large colony creature dominates the system.Such creatures would be slow, but could become self sustaining enough, living on the energy generated by their sheer mass, to make million year journeys across the stars, (should their own fail, or just by life's natural evolutionary tendency to expand), possibly absorbing smaller planetoids for additional nutrients, and maybe dropping spores on more temperate worlds to create more of themselves.
>>44301645>This thing can reproduceI'm so fucking done
>>44301712You should read the manga anon.
>>44301569So, he would need a celestial objetc with enough mass to use. Could this work with the reverse wade thing? He wades throug a parsec in concentric circles to gather a big clusterfuck of maim and plasma, and then uses it to move?
>>44300957lets start from the simple things:I think it would be easier to make it a colony of multiple organisms rather than a single thing, like something akin to a pelagic cnidarian colony with extremely specialized dimorphisms and specializations of the components (which at those sizes would be like being cellular analogs to us), think of an eldritch version of a portuguese man'o war.simplifying further we could then implement metamerism of the bigger groups of colonies to make them possibly more independent from one another, speaking of acquisition and distribution of resources.then we must deal with movement and infrastructure, solar sails are a possibility, maybe a necessity; movement and an elongated structure could lead to a sort of cephalization of part of its colonies, for sensory purposes mostly, gravitational receptors, to make the best out of the pull of systems, radiation sensors, to identify position, stars and maybe composition of nebulas and atmoshperes, possibly even as communication among other of the species and its own metameric colonies if we implement parts dedicated to the production of light or charged particles; maybe chemical senses for tasting and valuing resources up close, appendages for the moving things in the front may be useful toowe should find a way to commute volume and mass, fractal surfaces both for the outside and the insides (celom)the infrastructure could be composed of repurposed minerals, making out the incandescent nucleus of each metamer, possibly providing heat and a geomagnetic field to protect from smaller ionized space debris), which could be part of its digestive system: introduce resources in the mouths on the lower parts of the metamers and a main one on the front, the resources then end up in the nucleus inside the celome adding to the cycle of these mini planets inside the thing, the surfaces of these mini planets would be then used as if they were enormous fields for agriculturereaching post limit
>>44301781>The thing is so big its cellules have developped their own civilization.That's fucking epic.
>>44301781rather than an organism it would end up being a superorganism that somehow builds mineral skeletons all over a collapsed nucleus which makes the center of the metamer, trying to lower the gravitational stress of its components by distancing them a lot from the center and distributing the mass all over an enormous and elongated bodyI'm a bit lost on where to move from here honestly, during the brainstorm there were thoughts of screams of ionized particles shot using the geomagnetic fields of all its metamers to fire them, possibly firing a solid projectile like a rail gun or even a single metamer or a dedicated part for reproduction too.thoughts of moving smaller organisms descending from the leviathan to attack the instantly edible resources of a planet before the consumption of the dead rock in the incandescent cores.and huge movements of all its metameric tentacles composing the thing to create gravitational flux to eat suns and big nebulas rather than grabbing them somehow.but I don't really know how to continue.make of this what you want.
>>44301361thats not how black holes work damn it. Things dont get sucked in, they fall naturally, any part of the worm that doesnt pass the event horizon is fine as long as it keeps moving along with whatever it uses for propulsion
>>44301954>thoughts of screams of ionized particlesI know this was a typo, and it was supposed to be "streams" but that is somehow entirely more frightening to think of.
>>44301289Honestly, the way physics dresses, she's asking for it.
>>44301158You forgot>nightmarish monstrosities have eked out a hellish existence upon its back
>>44301979no no, I meant screams, as they are artistically referred to when speaking about black holes'.
>>44302011Hoo boy, let's keep things civil shall we?On such a large scale, I'm not sure that you could have any viable biological machinery. However, a massive hollow sphere of flesh draped across a planet, devouring small flesh covered moons and accreting star dust to produce its own little moons that it reproduces by squirting out another fleshy hellscape onto it, that could work.
>>44301954>screams of ionized particles are used to strip stellar objects of the outer layers of their athmosphere, angling the scream to make the particles (both shot and stripped) then revolve around the gravitational ellipse to eat them using another part of its body
Does anyone have the screenshot of the guy attempting to generate stats for a WH40K ship 1 AU in length? Shit was absolutely hilarious, in addition to be somewhat relevant.
>>44300957I don't think you understand exactly how big the solar system is.
>>44302176well to be fair, considering that there's a star estimated at being almost 2 billion km in diameter, it's at least has the correct amount of digits to fit in with a solar system.
>>44302295I'm not sure what that is supposed to have to do with anything.
>>44301121We figure it should, but do you think it oblige us if we told it that?
>>44301158Don't worry, it's surface is pretty earthlike and it boasts more livable contiguous terrestrial space than the rest of the galaxy combined. The Andromedan have one to evacuate their Galaxy to in case of disaster, they seem to keep it in pasture using probability manipulation. It's a bit spooky but the Andromedans really seem to have their shit together
>>44302631Except when it molt
>>44302743>free dyson sphereI don't see the problem.
>>Space leviathan is rapidly approaching the planetWhat magic would you use to explain how -The heroes can get to the beast-The heroes can survive on the beast-The heroes can destroy the beast?
On the topic of propulsion systems, how about a solar sail? Of course, interstellar travel would still take eons since radiation pressure scales with the inverse of distance squared, so once you're sufficiently far away from a star, acceleration drops off. The final velocity that is reached would probably not be even a thousandth of a c unless the star in question emits a huge amount of radiation. The good news is, a solar sail wouldn't require any energy expenditure from the creature's part (other than to deploy/fold the sail), so as long as it can hibernate for the duration of the journey s'all good. One of the main issues with such a system would be maneuvering. As you can imagine, navigating with a sail becomes difficult if the wind only comes from a fixed point source. But that's where >>44301569 idea of using gravity to slingshot around celestial objects comes into play. It would require a highly advanced or specialised brain to calculate trajectories and solve multiple-body problems, though. The creature would also need incredibly advanced sensors to detect planets/stars/black holes/etc to have enough data to make the calculations. Ripping off Blindsight, it would make sense if the creature was non-sentient (or a colony of non-sentients) to reduce its energy consumption. This is all assuming that the creature isn't solar system-sized as the OP requested. Also, some questions that I decided not to touch upon since I'm rubbish at biology: How does it feed? How does it reproduce? How the hell did something like it evolve?
A solar system is too bigLarger than a planet, even as large as our sun I can buy, but a solar system sized creature just goes too far IMOLike, an really insignificant amount of our solar system is actually matter. All of it combined would probably be less than half the size of one of its eyes
>>44302631What ifWhat if small fractions of the populations from planets which the creature ate managed to survive and clamber onto the creature?What if they found others, from other planets?What if there was an entire vast society, hundreds, thousands of races, made entirely of people who managed to survive the end of their world, and now fly through the void on the back of the creature who caused their apocalypse?
>>44302911>How does it reproduce? How the hell did something like it evolve?It does not. It is unique, it always existed, wading through the endless night of space since the very dawn of existence.
>>44301394Nah, you've got it backwards. That much volume to a hollow form would collapse quickly. There's no air in space to keep it "inflated".What you'd want would be a hyperDENSE body, getting denser towards its core, like a planet, where the core can be molten metal. But this leviathan is measured in AU, with proportional girth. The core would be Sufficiently Dense that it would really start messing with physics. It'd need to consume enormous quantities of mass to sustain itself. A solar system would be a buffet.
>>44300957>>44300957Good luck with Newton's Second Law. You're going to end up with a blob of *something* that can't move and will get pelted with micro meteors going 20 km/s.
>>44302743It only looses a couple continent scales here and there as it traveles. There are rarely more than a few that come loose in any given place, and the gravity tends to keep them close as they slide through the atmosphere and debris field. This process is one of mega geology over eons
>>44301158Suddenly really glad I don't know physics.
>>44303036>>44302631>>44301158What would a sapient race that evolved within the internal ecosystem of a planet-sized creature be like? Intelligent gut flora? Telepathic white blood cells?
So lets say that billions of years ago a bunch of aliens run into a world like this>>44301645The primitive bacteria went nuts, made the world a skin and just generally went weird from there.This alien race and its world was, other than the Beast Planet, the only known life in the known universe at that time. This was not that long after planets as we know them had started to form.They took the Beast Planet and sculpted it and fucked around with it and made it strange in ways like this>>44301781>>44301954Why? They were aliens. They were old as balls, both as individuals and as a society, they knew that they really were alone amongst the stars and they were possibly slightly mad. At least by human standards. By their standards there might have been a perfectly sensible reason but from the human point of view it just boils down to "Because I saw no reason not to", "Because I could" or maybe "Because I had a nightmare and wanted to see if it could be real".Point is that it ate Earth.But the other point is that humanity had ninety or so years to prepare for the event.At large swathes of it's skin level the Leviathan has between 0.9 and 1.2 Earth gravity and an atmosphere that is similar enough to Earth's to breathe.Point is that that cold grey mineral skin has green blotches starting to form on it. That's right cosmic bitches! Humanity is surfing the Leviathan, devourer of worlds.
>>44300957>Solar system longNigger you don't understand how fucking big that is
First off, eating a nebula is out of the question. Nebulae are REALLY big. Event he smallest nebula is about 3 times larger than our entire solar system. If the creature were that large, it would never even notice things on the scale of our sun and planet. Second, eating a sun completely is out of the question. There no conceivable compound that could survive the extreme gravity and heat. This might be difficult for a imaginative layman to accept. But a sun is where elements are made. There isn't an element or molecule that exists that would not boil and turn into plasma. That being said, a large enough creature might use it's own gravity to syphon off some cooler plasma from a distance, assuming it can get close enough without melting. Thirdly, being as long as a solar system is totally out of the question. Just the distance from the earth to the moon, is about A QUARTER the DIAMETER of the sun. You gotta remember, space is REALLLYY big, and REALLY empty. A lot more than you think. More reasonable would be to make the leviathan something like 1million miles long, which is wider than the sun, and would make it large enough to swallow Jupiter whole.Eating planets rather than stars also makes more sense, because they have heavier more complex elements. It could swallow a planet whole, and it's digestion would strip the crust of the planet off, and then it poops out a smaller planet.
>>44302911I've got an alternative to solar sails for propulsion.On earth we have several creatures who generate propulsion without muscles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphagnum#Spore_dispersaland creatures who use chemistry within their bodies with explosive results.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetleSo the idea hat a creature could evolve a sort of biological rocket engine is not entirely impossible. Imagine large structures shaped something like a barnacle, perhaps made of collected minerals for heat resistance, with large orbs of some kind of bio-fuel it creates. Considering its size and likely age, it could even make petroleum oil out of its own excess biological material.As for navigation, if we go with the colonial organism idea it could have a section f itself that functions as a primitive brain, not capable of consciousness but able to perform the calculations necessary for interstellar travel.Really the only thing that strains the physics is the scale of rocket that can move a planet or star sized object, but for something like this scale is the part we're overriding.
>>44303342>>44303377Isn't the whole point trying to imagine something that absurdly, impossibly big? It's like an insect trying to understand how big Earth could be, but more amusing because whe actually can at least try.Being reasonable is less epic than a solar system long monster.
>>44303342Nigger it's a leviathan of SPACE. It's not big enough to make the entire galaxy collectively shit their panties then you're doing something wrong.That said you and >>44303377 are right. Solar system size is a tad too big. You want this thing to be viewable and intractable in at least the smallest way.
>>44303497the difference in scale between an insect and earth, is still 10,000 times less than the scale between earth and the width of the solar system. The distance that objects orbit each other is really many many many times greater than the size of the objects. You could just as easily say "lol a snake the size of the universe" if you're not putting any functional limit on what you're imagining.
>>44303672Fair point. I must say, I originally imagined it as something so big it would cause an alteration in gravitation strong enough to reorganize the map of space just by travelling through a galaxy. Sounds like I've overestimated it a bit.
>>44301008Solar system sized is just too big for me. It'd be so unimaginably huge that interacting with it in any way would be impossible. A planet-sized space-beast is more doable, even if it would also be physically impossible. At least it wouldn't destroy entire solar systems by being in the general vicinity due to it having 10000 times the gravity pull of the system's sun.
>Planets are formed around bones, the free-floating vertebrae of long-dead space leviathans
>>44303818to help put things in even more perspective, the range of the suns gravitational affect, called the Oort cloud, is is 1,000 times wider than the largest known star, which is 10,000 time wider than our sun.
>>44301645I have a thing in a SF setting I've come up that works kind of like that. Billions of years ago on some random planet there evolved a silicon-based colonial organism that gained energy from heat and sunlight. With no competitors (it was literally the first form of life to eveolve on the planet), the colony spread out until it covered the entire planet. Being composed of highly conductive material it could transmit electric signals over long distance to allow communication between individual component-organisms and eventually developed into what is essentially a planet-sized brain. After a several hundred million years it advanced its intellect to the point where it became the most intelligent being in the galaxy and figured out shit nobody else has been able to do, like how to open wormholes and move its entire planet to a different system when necessary.
>>44304030Now we have the basics of the creatures brain or brains sorted out to add to >>44301781>>44301954
>>44304071So Silicoforms, Pelagic Cnidarin and Bacterial Gloop.This is gonna be fun.
>>44303377>It could swallow a planet whole, and it's digestion would strip the crust of the planet off, and then it poops out a smaller planet.>The swath of destruction this thing leaves through the cosmos can be measured by the trail it leaves of former solar systems with dead stars and lifeless rocks that used to be planets
>>44304273Here's something to help with your anxiety.
Ok, here's the thing about raping physics and gravity and all that: it doesn't have to be filled up. The principle of a dyson sphere is that you can build things larger than suns, and they don't implode because they're hollow. If you did have something like this, here's how it'd work:>Thermonuclear fusion coreIt's mega-hot in the middle and it consumes things and burns the crap out of them to make energy>Photosynthetic mini-dyson-sphereAround the thermonuclear bit is a big orb that's like a plant, and absorbs the vast amounts of heat and light that come out of the core>Huge hollow around the sphereTo deal with the crushing gravity in its center, it'll have to have some lattice that moves energy out to the outer body, which is far enough away to survive. Of course, this means that a plucky adventurer that can pierce the side can cut that shit open and cause it to implode when the core floats into the edge>Solar Sail WingsTo keep it moving, it'll have to apply the concepts of the solar sail, maybe with some windsurfing, and gravitational bouncing. Basically, light is made of photons, which have a tiny mass, and a big enough wall that gets hit by all of them gets pushed back. So, huge wings to move away from suns, gravity to move towards things.>Mostly pointless Brain - decentralised consciousnessThis thing doesn't have predators, and it doesn't need to be smart. Mostly, it'll move towards small planets and away from suns, while it grows.It's big enough that responses will take seconds to cross it, and it doesn't really need to be smart, so it'll probably stick to just having auto-responses based on light level. Auxin or some shit.>Super-hard bodyNuff said. The outside, the lattices around the inner dyson sphere, all that'll need to be really tough to survive in space. Heat won't be such a concern because it'll be producing so much from the middle.(1/2)
>>44304273>lifeless rocks>implying it doesn't filter space for dust like a whale and shit out condensed rocks the size of earth, seeded with it's gut fauna>Worm eats several giant planets>coils around giant star to keep warm while it digests>After the star cools down too much (ie: to about our sun's level) it shits out a bunch of earth sized rocks>Covered in waste liquid and bacteria>Wake of it's leaving throws a few of the rocks into orbitWe all came from the belly of the beast.
>>44304423>DeathbreathWhen this thing opens its core sphincter, to allow the gravity of its inner core to suck in towards the planet, it'll allow all the electromagnetism that comes out of that to fly out. Instantly, all the planet's electric tech will probably go dead, or at least the close stuff. The crushing gravity will screw up tide patterns, throw the planet out of orbit, and generally mess up your day. The sudden appearance of so much heat and light will quickly become unbearable, and the ice caps will melt while the water goes to shit and all the ecosystems stop working.> Flaws and ways to kill itWell, the permanent nuke inside it is a bit of an issue, so if you can get near to the inside and punch a hole in the lattice big enough to collapse it, the whole thing will swing sideways, and it'll go nova and destroy everything nearby.Also, iron and above. It can burn that stuff, but that won't release much energy for it. It relies mostly on very low-density matter. It'd rather have your oceans than your planet's core, and it really doesn't have much use for spaceships.If you just leave it alone for long enough, it runs out of fuel and goes nova.It can't reproduce without first creating a fusion reaction somehow, which is hard, so it must have been created by some mighty pissed space gods.It's constantly fighting with the sun inside it to make sure it moves slow enough for the sun not to crash into a wall, but fast enough for it not to crash into the opposite wall. It takes ages for it to turn. So, if you can mount an opposition, or stop it quickly, it's screwed.
>>44304423>>44304570I'd love to see an artist's impression of this.I'm kind of imagining it like a moving dyson sphere. Could it use the photons emitted from the sun inside of it as propulsion? Perhaps its internal lattice can open slots in the direction it does not want to move, so the photons impact more on the internal wall and propel it forwards.Or am I imagining solar sails incorrectly?
>>44304645That actually sounds like a really good system. I have a niggling feeling that it'll have the same problem as standing on a skateboard and pushing it from on top, because space is a vast void, but I'm not sure.
>>44304437Maybe this is how it reproduces. the way I'm looking at is like this.The 'skeleton' is basically several conglomerates of mineralized Pelagic Cnidarians, linked to the 'brain' which is a gigantic Sillicoform at its core with several smaller ones embedded into the other parts of the 'skeleton' as well as lines of Silicon acting as the nerve cables. the rest of this creatures body is made of bacteria and a soup of chemicals. this mass is basically all of the creatures vital organs rolled into one, along with its primary feeding apparatus and energy supply for the brain. The feeding system is actually rather efficient first the creature sends several tendrils of the bacterial mass down to the surface of the planet, to strip away the biomass and render it down, this rendered down biomass is then consumed by the Cnidarians and used to make more of the chemical soup. this process generates a lot of energy most of which is distributed to the sillicoforms and absorbed, finally the crust of the planet is broken into manageable chunks and then stored in solution. These creatures actually don't lay a singular egg, they instead produce a number of planetoids to facilitate the growth of the requisite life forms and fire them off at carefully controlled angles calculated by the brains around a prospective star such that they will form into another creature when the planets collide.
>>44303342It can be long, but at the same time thin and flimsy, like some deep sea abomination.Speaking of terrible things in the cold void of the sea, what if it's less like a monster and more like a space amoebae hitching a ride on an asteroid or a planetoid with no direct means of controlling it. Or it grows a rocky surface on it with squichy bits inside and consumer what ever particles of gas and dust comes along. Sometimes crashing onto planets and just fucking the place up before ejecting its spores into space to start growing into new living meteors/planets.Problem is how does it get enough escape velocity to not only break from orbit but also the solar system?
>>44304386Seems spooky, but reality is that even a planet the size of earth would pass trough to quickly and with such a large gap nearly every time that it's more likely that space lightning or just pure heatdeath of a close star would kill us.Which you know, is smaller than finding alien life.
>>44303492Being able to use it's own gravitational force to aid in creating super pressurized chambers would be cool.If it's biology had a way to microwave particles as if it were a super advanced scaled up electric eel that would open up possibilities too.Also might allow for some possibly dangerously radioactive areas on it's surface where a pore or node would be.Also I like all the ideas for planet sized creature. Think of human being scared of a bug, or a virus. Something that propagates fast enough to really fuck shit up. Imagine a swarm of these things forcefully creating black holes by collectively balling up together like a ball python breeding ball.
>>44304914Seems like if >Suddenly, Saturn!was a thing, we'd have significantly bigger things to worry about than a trip through it's rings.
>>44304914Dunno if that webm is related to it, but there's this crazy religious-alt-science hybrid thing that tries to make the case that Saturn used to be a star, and that we used to orbit it, or... Something. And there's some illuminati conspiracy to revive the worship of Saturnus as a result... or... something...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPDWy7HaPLgI'm sure /x/ has the details - but it might make for a good campaign concept - for WoD or... something.
>Space opera game>Players having jolly adventures across the solar system>Offhand comment about a star being out of alignment from a chart>Game carries on>An important star blinks out>All the stars start gradually disappearing>Gravity anomalies start sweeping in from outside the solar system>It dawns on everyone the stars aren't going out>It's something huge obscuring them>The anomalies are the thing's bow wake>It's heading this way>Party's face when
>>44305654Well at least this gave me a chuckle so I'm not scared shitless by this thread anymore.I'm notI promise I'm not
>The big bang wasn't just the birth of our universe...>... it was also the birth of something elseCOMING THIS SUMMERSTELEVIATHAN
>>44305964Featuring:Benedict Cumberbatch as SteleviathianEddie Redmayne as Steven 'The Hawk' HawkingDaisy Ridley as Steleviathian's Gaping MawI'd watch it.
>>44300957Not really, but its still cool. Star Trek had a few episodes with giant space monsters that fed on the ship's energy output. Have it come out of hibernation to devour a system every million years or something.
>>44301158The concept of Nibiru must scare the living shit out of you then.
>>44306049>The cosmic horror speaks to the obligatory astronauts in a refined British accent.>"Oh dear, dreadfully sorry about this; I try to make it a point to not eat planets with sentient life, in any case, if you could not bother with whatever weapons and defenses you have that would be great; they give me dreadful indigestion.
>>44306138The Steleviathan does this by hacking their communications equipment with it's brain. The voice it uses is the one it has discovered to be least likely to cause distress.
>>44306182It turns out to be the one that causes the least amount of distress among all species that have an aural sense, for some reason.
>>44306214This is rather impressive for a blob of silicon, cnidarians and gunk.
>>44306138oh fuck you reddit, why do you have to shoehorn "le posh british gentleman" into everything?
>>44306396We've made it work you dongus.
>>44306477no you faggot
>>44306541>>44306577>look, I'm using silly quirky insults! I'm the Zooey Deschanel of /tg/, aren't I cute, uguu? *holds up spork*
>>44306396>>44306613Fuck off you double mon'kike
>>44301121>>44301181It would have to manipulate gravity to not be a sphere.
>>44306613Who is Zooey Deschanel and what do sporks have to do with anything you bespawler?
>>44306636We are /tg/, lets go medieval on his arse.
>>44301645>Indeed, there's a running theory that the Earth almost became one at some point.
>>44306636>Mon'kikeThis is my favorite combination of fictional and real racial slurs.
>>44306741Holy shit this is really reddit!>>44306670a tasteless cunt who believes that quirks and vintage accessories make her endearing and funnyjust like redditjust like you
>>44301292You misunderstand. If it was affected by gravity, it would already be a black hole.
>>44306789>a-am I cool yet guys?The village called, they want their retarded nigger faggot back.
>>44306913What if, and just hear me out here, but what IF the black hole WAS the leviathan? The gaping maw of a mighty space leviathan devouring everything.
>>44306973>black holes are actually the mouths of extradimensional beasts>a star collapsing into a black hole isn't natural, the beast is just extruding it's maw into our reality to consume it>they only eat stars which have iron in them because those are the most ripe>the stars that go supernova are the ones which went rotten before the beasts could get to them.
Leviathan was created by some long forgotten precursor race.Its reason for being?Collect civilizations and cultivate them on its skin/shell. Then get out of the universe before it ends.
>>44307034Aaaand I need to go change my underwear now. Thank you for that, Anon.
>>44307034>our universe is an orchard for extradimensional farmers>galaxies are trees>stars are the fruit>humans are just the bacterium on the nuts known as planets
>>44307064>Hawking radiation doesn't actually exist, it's just the beast withdrawing it's maw as it senses there are fewer and fewer crumbs around it.
>>44303108I guess the point is that if newton had known about this fucker he would he would have added a caveat to his law. It's existence is a violation of out understanding, which is the most basic root of its horror
>>44304386thanks for that mate, now i´m fucking dead.
>>44307072>>44307128I now feel insignificant as well as terrified. And sadly, I could see this as being all absolutely true.
>>44307072Yggdrasil was true.
>>44307072>>humans are just the bacterium on the nuts known as planetsNot exactly. Life, once it gets advanced enough anyway, is a parasite.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting
>>44300957If realism, then it won't work, ever.If not realism, why ask? You can literally make up anything and it won't make any difference.
>>44304877What the fuck creature is that
>>44308039pyura chilensisWhat is this, 1990? Use Google you chimp.
>>44308086>>44308079OoooohhhhDamn that's interesting
>>44308122The interesting thing to me is how such a bizzarre and unearthly-looking thing can be such a mundane organism that's even eaten as a local delicacy. A reminder that our world is crazier than we usually think.
>>44308151Most life on earth is bizarre. Something is not more bizarre just because it's abnormal.
I was thinking...You know the method of propulsion that is setting off thermonuclear explosions behind you? What if we did that, but with a space worm. I just love the idea of a planet sized space worm traversing the endless black by pooting out bombs
>>44308314Sure why not. Realism isn't a factor. Might as well say it just moves telekinetically.
>>44301645So, a green goo scenario? Awesome.Can you link stuff about this? Articles, papers, what have yoy. For research.
>>44300957>So, how would a space leviathan work?It's a leviathanBUT WAIT FOR.........IN SPACE
>>44306769One of the theoretical causes of the Permian–Triassicglobal global extinction event, is that a rapid and unchecked bloom of bacteria covered much of the planet, and nearly all of the ocean floor, as a result of a global temperature shift, that, in turn, released so much methane that it accelerated the effect.In this instance, this "Methanogenic burst" simply made life all but unsustainable for both itself and nearly everything else on the planet. In a slightly different environment, and one with less competitors, however, it could have just as easily gone the other way, and its growth may have remained unchecked nearly indefinitely. Since many bacteria covering large areas tend to form various functions in the process (from those that cover lakes, to those that form the plaque in your teeth), it is conceivable that this giant mass may have eventually become its own self sustaining ecosystem.
>>44300957That's a big beast...
>>44300957Physics doesn't work that way my friend, what you need is a few wizards.
>>44308831It's name is fehor'yahew
>>44302866Beast play with them and only some homeless survive
>>44308700reminds me of that time cyanobacteria started growing and poisoned almost all lifeforms on earth that didn't breath oxygen.
>>44308314Nahh, Project Orion is chump change. Look up Nuclear Salt Water Rockets for a real man's engine.
>>44300957Would have to be mostly hollow to avoid crushing itself by gravity.If it is then roughly laterally symmetric the massive opposing gravity creating masses on either side would have to be balanced out by the beast spinning and using the centrifugal force to stay hollow. Maybe this is how it "eats" giant masses like planets, by expanding and conflating, by spinning at different speeds. Thus openning its "mouth" by spinning quickly forcing its body apart, then closing its "mouth" by slowing itself down, when the doomed planet is inside.From there the planet would need to be crushed by some giant internal "molar" like organs, so that the smaller bits can fall into the gravity created by any side of its internal "belly" for "digestion" of useful elements.
>>44312044Orion would create less radioactive debris. Just because you read it on project rho doesn't make it practical. It's a guide to writing science fiction.
>>44314941...are you just shouting buzzwords now?
>>44315189No, I'm just REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC about directed nuclear energy cannons.
How about this:Stars are just leviathan caviar/shit.
>>44315828Sure nothing matters why not. Anything goes. Stars are just dogshit, and all elements are just aspects of poo.Why bother with realism when we can get such quality settings?
>>44315828>Caviar>"just"You do know what caviar is, right anon?
>>44316113Nobody on this board knows anything. Being a recluse does not give you much life experience.
>>44314884Why would a planet+ size space leviathan give a shit about radioactive material?
>>44308194>>44308122Get a load of the jaded teenager. Life is fucking amazing, deal with it, nerd.
>>44316586>>44316586Get a load of the arrogant jackass. Life is a struggle outside the ivory walls of the first world you spoiled idiot.
>>44316787And yet they probably aren't as miserable as you are :^)
>>44314884>>44316557It's also far more likely for a giant space monster to have a series of organs that refine uranium, mix it with water and piss it out as a continuous fission reaction then for it to shit out it's own shaped nuclear charges aimed at its springy ass plate.
A space leviathan would be a great unifier, with loads of different alien species forced to live on it when it ate their worlds. Think of it like a train ride you never get off.
Too much physics rape to ignore here.Too big, too biologically inviable. Spore clouds could be a thing though, bajjilions of little things.
There was this kids tv show about a cartoon guy catching space bugs in a Steven Irwin esq mannerThere was an ep about a space traversing bug that ate asteriods called a 'whale strider'in side of it sentient bugs use the abiotic matter to create farms which was used to feed the big whale bugMaybe an internal ecosystem processing rock, gas, dust and ice into biological compoenents for the creatures consumption could work
>>44319920Yeah i remember that, Dex Hamillton or something right?>>44319766Nah I think it'd be possible (not up to solar system scale though), but it'd just have to be some kind of superorganisim
>>44317604Mr Bones, what have you done?
>>44300957First off, it would have to be a non-organic creature. Like mostly crystalline in nature or perhaps a gas cloud. Anything that can handle large amounts of radiation, meteor storms, severe changes in gravity, capable of propulsion and it doesn't need to breathe anything to do all that.
>>44300957>The entire galaxy is just the nerve cells of a giant beastIts so large you'd never even notice it was there. You are in it. You are part of it.
>>44304437Gives a new meaning to "Your Waifu a shit"
The sun is about 1.4 million kilometres across.Our solar system is something like 15000 million kilometres across. (Or over twice that if we count magnetosphere instead of where the rocks are.)To something the size of our entire solar system, even a star is a pretty insignificant speck of dust. How much would you notice something that's 0.2 mm across?>>44301645So we get a layer of mould covering the planet's surface, infinitesimally thin compared to the size of the plenty itself, and then this layer suddenly and magically converts the planet inside into more of itself.It then feeds itself though a combination of photosynthesis and violating the laws of thermodynamics.>maybe able to propel themselves with gaseous excretionsIf we take the entire atmosphere (all 5 million billion tons of it), and send it off with a speed of 1km per second, that'd change the Earth's velocity by 1 millimetre per second.Add in all the water on the planet as well and we can manage a velocity change of almost a quarter of meter per second.By comparison, the Earth goes around the sun at a speed of 30 kilometres per second. Meeting Venus will require 640m/s of velocity change, to Mars is 1060m/s.I don't know who suggested all of this, but he was either tripping balls, insane, or both.>>44306657It would have to manipulate gravity to not be a black hole.For something that isn't a continuous fusion explosion about 3-4 solar masses is normally the limit before gravity becomes almighty.
>>44322158>So we get a layer of mould covering the planet's surface, infinitesimally thin compared to the size of the plenty itself, and then this layer suddenly and magically converts the planet inside into more of itself.Won't stay thin, so long as it can maintain its ecosystem, it just grows indefinitely.>It then feeds itself though a combination of photosynthesis and violating the laws of thermodynamics.Nothing about that violates the laws of thermodynamics, all sorts of creatures do this.>maybe able to propel themselves with gaseous excretionsThis only applies to smaller ones, as the large number of asteroids in ice rich goldilocked zone scenario implies. Though some other folks came up with some, interesting, ways it maybe achievable with a larger mass.>I don't know who suggested all of this, but he was either tripping balls, insane, or both.Edward Boyle, head of the National Academy of Sciences, at the time.
>>44322203>Won't stay thin, so long as it can maintain its ecosystem, it just grows indefinitely.Apparently it has an infinite supply of nutrients it can build biomass with. Normal ecosystems just reuse that shit, putting an upper limit on how much biomass you can get in it.>Nothing about that violates the laws of thermodynamics, all sorts of creatures do this.No creature lives off of its own waste heat (second law). Hell, no creature is a heat engine at all. And this one seems to generate that heat out of nothing (first law) while it's at it, or possibly through anaerobic combustion (ehm, yeah, that's where we go from fucking the laws of thermodynamics to just plain insane rambling) of its own tissue, which then somehow supplies enough energy both to make more tissue and for everyday living.
>>44316851A drunk is often happier than a sober person, yes.
>>44320226The less you know about the universe, the more things are possible.That's why the EM drive is /tg/'s mascot.
>>44322158In order for electron degenerate core collapse to occur it would need to be a solid ball of iron about the size of the earth.Black holes are not as easily formed irl as they are in children's science fiction cartoons.I'm sure you can find a schwarzschild radius calculator somewhere. Now you know the correct term.
>>44322338>No creature lives off of its own waste heat (second law).Uh, what do you think endothermic means, dipshit? Our waste heat is what propels our metabolism./tg/ - Terminally Ignorant.
The CoC supplement jovian nightmares has something like this. In it Jupiter is a prison for a monstrous creature.
>>44322540The fact that we generate a good amount of waste heat is in itself proof that the majority of our metabolism is exothermic, not endothermic.
>>44322599The anime Diebuster has the same sort of thing trapped on Titan. Variable Black Hole Space Monster.
>>44322614Lizards are exothermic. That means they get their heat from the outside. We are endothermic, we get our heat from the inside.You are a moron who cannot even grasp basic biological concepts because you think you're a genius for reading a few pages of project rho.
>>44322614>>44322670https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EctothermFucking year one of biology.
These days i really cannot if /x/ has worse science discussion than /tg/.Either way, this is embarrassing.
>>44300957Could be a machine. No real size limits. Had a traveller game once where the planet we were on was the GM's old character, who'd become a ship, and just grew, and grew. The species living on the planet would occasionally trade with it for knowledge, this advancing the TL of the surface. Interior TL of the planet was 16 or some crazy shit. Everything besides time travel. The planet went around eating suns and absorbing resources to grow. Course, when it grew, it got warm, so species were only viable living on land when it was cooling down after eating a star. In long journeys between systems, the species' would migrate underground to keep warm.
>>44322769Sounds like your gm has no sense of scale.
>>44322785The planet character grew beyond playable, so became an entity in the universe, and we played on the surface of it. This all happened before I joined his game. My character was one of a sentient tree race we invented, and basically a doctor/scientist. The race doesn't seed, they plant their young in dead bodies. Whenever there's a war, the species blooms. Their primary purpose is to collect and process information over generations, like a giant living neural network.
>>44322856None of that disputes what i said.
>>44322873Wasn't disputing, I actually agree with you. Though, if you could be more specific as to what your issue was, maybe I could give some more info. Right now I'm just spreading stories of fun games we've had.
>>44322614From a chemical reaction standpoint, you are correct. Our metabolic processes are largely exothermic in that the net energy change results in energy being released into the environment (in this case that would be our bodies.)>>44322683Quoting from the first link provided here, >An endotherm (Greek: endon = "within", thermē = "heat") is an organism that maintains its body at a metabolically favorable temperature, largely by the use of heat set free by its internal bodily functions instead of relying almost purely on ambient heat.Biologically, humans are endothermic.
>>44322910Eating suns for materials to sustain a planet is a bit silly at best.>>44322927We know /tg/ hates science because science says no more often than not, and reality saying no all the time is why so many people refuge in escapism.
>>44322683https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic_processYour metabolism is overall an exothermic process.The processes in our body need a certain temperature range to work properly, which is maintained by balancing cooling and waste heat generation. Outside of this range they will be too fats, too slow, or other reactions will take over.This is something entirely different from using that heat as an energy source. You don't live off of it any mroe than you live off of any of the vital substances your body produces. You live off of the food and oxygen you eat and inhale. It's form that you get your energy, including that which ends up as waste heat. The various processes in your body that require a certain temperature range aren't generally driven by the surrounding temperature, that's not where they get the necessary energy, that role is played by chemical energy or light.When the surface of your bacteria colony lives off of photosynthesis, that's its energy source. Waste heat on the other hand is not used as an energy source by any living creature. So your middle and lower layers can't sustain themselves in whole or in part on that. It's also highly questionable from a thermodynamic standpoint, since you're unlikely to ever have a temperature gradient steep enough to drive day reaction worth mentioning. Ambient temperature can't be tapped of energy, that's the second law, you need a temperature difference, and that difference across any of your little critters will be ridiculously small.
>>44322985Fair enough, my GM is a bit silly. All in good fun though. Though at TL16+ physics is basically magic, and can be explained with 'this universe has malleable physics'
>>44323049Just stop, idiot.
>>44322338Leaving alone the rest of the replies, lots of creatures live in part on heat generated by the sheer mass of the Earth. Doesn't much matter if that sheer mass is rock, or millions of years worth of their dead brethren. Lots of bacteria form layers in this way, where the lowest layer can no longer receive nutrients, feeding the layers above, the dead merely sinking to the lower layers, increasing the size of the overall mass indefinitely. In the middle layers, it's also not uncommon for them to form symbiotic relationships with the upper layers, by creating enzymes the upper layers require, the upper layers have access to different energy sources, pass nutrients down in turn. You see this in various sorts of large, long standing bacterial blooms, covering lake beds, and see similar behavior, in tooth plaque.Neither law of thermal dynamics apply, as it isn't an entirely closed system.It's true, it'll run out of energy eventually, barring a new source, but planets take a long time to cool, in addition to often being found orbiting rather abundant energy sources.
>>44323277>lots of creatures live in part on heat generated by the sheer mass of the EarthOh my god you are causing me physical pain with your bullshit.
>>44323302>what is thermal vent coral>what is spinoloricus cinziaThey tend to be very simple sea critters, but a large part of the ecology revolves around simply trapping volcanic heat, sulfur, and silica, to make calcium and cellulose, in some cases, with no oxygen processing involved, and little to no organic input nor sunlight.It's simple enough to imagine repetition extending that into an ecosystem that incorporates both surface light and organics, by perpetuating that process through layers of different functions, which, in a sense, on the grand scale, is how most seabed life already works.
>>44301781>>44301954>>44301921makes me think of the Tyranids.>>44303103not if there's a relative pressure diference.even a fraction of a PSI or a couple of pascals would keep the thing inflated.>>44303103have you ever read the web-novel called Worm?because you described a thing from that universe...>>44303303>Humanity is surfing the Leviathan, devourer of worlds.yeah...I'd read that.>>44303377>That being said, a large enough creature might use it's own gravity to syphon off some cooler plasma from a distance, assuming it can get close enough without melting.this is an idea I can steal and fully intend to for a Dungeons the Dragoning encounter.>It could swallow a planet whole, and it's digestion would strip the crust of the planet off, and then it poops out a smaller planet.covered with the seed to make a new Leviathan, photosynthetic and able eventually, to move on it's own.>>44303497yes but for people with an education in physics or people who read certain types of fiction it becomes impossible for us to have that much whimsy...just bear with us, it's still a devastating monster.>>44304015reminds me of the scene from Guardians of the Galaxy the space station inside an old skull.>>44304030so, a Discworld troll.>>44304174whose to say it isn't fun already?>>44304437>the great beast moves>>44305654stealing this idea.>>44306182>>44306138eh, I'd believe it.
>>44323277>lots of creatures live in part on heat generated by the sheer mass of the EarthNo, they do not.And the sheer mass of the Earth isn't generating any heat. Radioactive decay does.>where the lowest layer can no longer receive nutrientsThey eat the corpses that come sinking down, volcanic sulphur, or those that do. That's where they get their energy, not ambient heat.>or millions of years worth of their dead brethrenSo instead of having a huge ball of rock with a ridiculously thin layer of mould on it, we now have a huge rock of bacteria-derived rock (ok, so most of it will have been re-molten and thus we can't even tell any mroe that it was made of living creature remains) with a ridiculously thin layer of mould on it. That's not a planet sized leviathan, that's a planet with a biosphere.> Lots of bacteria form layers in this way, where the lowest layer can no longer receive nutrients, feeding the layers above, the dead merely sinking to the lower layers, increasing the size of the overall mass indefinitelyIn this case the whole thing lives off of photosynthesis in the upper layers, or the corpses of those that did. And the whole thing must be supplied with nutrients from somewhere (photosynthesis alone isn't enough, that provides energy, you need actual mass form somewhere) if it's to keep growing. But when you're looking to convert an entire planet, you run into the problem that most of the planet isn't suitable as nutrients.>as it isn't an entirely closed system.Our planet sized variant will be.Of course, you must keep the energy needs and matter needs separate here. Your bacterial lake wouldn't die out as a closed system, because it doesn't try using ambient heat as an energy source. It would stop growing though, because it could no longer get all the various elements it needs from anywhere but itself.
>>44323450So when you eat a hamburger, you think it's the actual temperature of it that feeds you?>trapping volcanic heat, sulfur, and silica, to make calcium and celluloseImpressive, they take sulphur, silicon and oxygen, and with that they make calcium and carbon.How hot exactly did you say those volcanoes got?
>>44322158>I don't know who suggested all of this, but he was either tripping balls, insane, or both.but this is how the BEST ideas are had...>>44322785three words>Total Perspective Vortex>if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.let us have this dude, we-re just trying to have some lighthearted escapism here and you're being all negative and shit...
>>44302866>i roll on seduce
>>44323677Somewhere between hot, and pretty damned hot, depending on proximity, I assume. Clearly choral works on magic - you've single handedly explained the critical flaw and unraveled the secrets of the universe. Life is, in fact, scientifically impossible.
>>44323450That heat is from the earth's internal dynamo, not the pressure of the earth's upper layers. There are plenty of similar sized bodies with no geological activity because they don't have an internal dynamo at their core.>>44323703There is more than enough nonsense out there to be sated for several lifetimes. Do not act as if you are not already in the majority.
>>44323703Always eat the cupcake.
>>44323128And if your GM can't afford to have some silliness, you're the one with the rod of lordly might stuck mightily up where the sun doesn't shine. Rule of cool and all that jazz
>>44324561but what if I want a pancake instead?
>>44324561I'm sure that can be arranged... Ahem. JEEVES! GET THIS AWKWARD FUCKER A PANCAKE!
>>44324600Why do you have to be such a cunt about everything?Just post stuff, don't get caught up in petty arguments.
>>44300957What if it's just a biological Dyson sphere? Like it's huge and hollow, set itself up around a star to feed off its energy and moves on when it's done, that would still be really bad fro anything living inside or out of the sphere yeah?
>>44324223Most of the rocky planets generate heat to one degree or another, as do some of the larger asteroids (such as Sirius), but true, the Earth generates more than most, not only due to fluid dynamics, but also due to radioactive elements. Though there's still a lot of debate about dynamo theory and how much each factor contributes.The Earth still doesn't generate as much heat as say Jupiter, let alone Saturn, and there are plenty of moons in the system that generate far more heat through geological activity than does the Earth, and most all large masses, in any given solar system, generate heat for quite some time after their initial formation.
>>44300957Something that big actually can't exist because its own gravity would cause it to implode into a fusion explosion and transition into a supermassive blackhole.
>>44324980Jupiter and saturn do generate heat from their gravitational pressure via the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism.A rotating core seems to be one of the most important things for life, as it provides vulcanism and a magnetosphere.
>>44325006That's not true in the slightest. Look up schwarzschild radius if you wish to be accurate.
>>44325031Meh, magnetospheres are overrated, it's amazing how well some rock, or even a layer or ice or water, can block radiation and trap gasses.Jupiter's just a few American asses shy of fusion though. Saturn, for some damned reason, generates even more heat than Jupiter, despite being a fraction of the mass, and even gives off some light, though it's been so long since I looked into that I canna remember why.Saturn is just freaking weird though.
>>44325047A biomass the size of the solar system? I think that'd be big enough to at least collapse into a star. It's not like I have numbers to plug in, but that's gotta be more than 50 solar masses.
>>44325123Stop making claims you haven't investigated. Jupiter would need to be 12 times as massive to even have a hope of fusion occurring at its core.
>>44325152You know there are stars bigger than the solar system by quite a wide margin?
>>44325123That hexagon is perfectly normal. It's just a simple result of fluid dynamics.
>>44325154Meh, I keep hearing crazily different numbers for that. Some say 20% more, some say 75x more. Some say it may have actually been a brown dwarf at some point (however that works). Never could get a straight answer - damned internets.Granted now there's this electric universe crap floating around out there just muddying the info waters to boot,
>>44325171Yes, but nothing bigger than our sun that hasn't also collapsed into a star.I mean, even if you had a cloud of hydrogen that large, if it had any meaningful density, it'd eventually collapse into a star - and a solid biomass is a hell of a lot heavier than a hydrogen cloud.
>>44325195Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it ain't freaking weird.
>>44316787>Life is a struggle outside the ivory walls of the first world you spoiled idiot.Said the anon on his personal computer at his mom's house.
>>44325223>biomass the size of the solar systemI didn't realize we left sense so far behind.It could be a distributed organism, like a tyranid hive fleet.>>44325198Although Jupiter would need to be about 75 times as massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star, the smallest red dwarf is only about 30 percent larger in radius than Jupiter. Despite this, Jupiter still radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun; the amount of heat produced inside it is similar to the total solar radiation it receives. This additional heat is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through contraction. This process causes Jupiter to shrink by about 2 cm each year. When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter.so yeah, i should have checked first as well but i was on my phone. 75 times larger for fusion, 30% larger to be the smallest red dwarf we've ever seen.The universe only allows fusion in the most exotic of physical conditions.
>>44325242Weird is subjective. It's not weird to me.
>>44325320I ran goth clubs that regularly had live meat puppets covering the stage, for eight years, and I find Saturn weird.You've clearly seen some shit, man.
Here's a relatively hard SF treatment of the subjectTL;DR might work if the leviathan is mostly empty space.
>>44325302Google around a little more and you'll find numbers varying radically from that, in addition to claims that it was at some point a star, but yeah, going by the average among the article - I maybe slightly exaggerating the mass of American asses. Plus you're just as apt to find claims that Saturn was a star, and the Earth was orbiting it - and it's being covered up by some illuminati plot - cuz, fuck the internet, man. (But hey, it's good /tg/ material.)
>>44324776Nono a cute. A CUTE.
>>44325406>Google around a little more and you'll find numbers varying radically from that, in addition to claims that it was at some point a star, but yeah, going by the average among the article - I maybe slightly exaggerating the mass of American asses. >Plus you're just as apt to find claims that Saturn was a star, and the Earth was orbiting it - and it's being covered up by some illuminati plot - cuz, fuck the internet, man. (But hey, it's good /tg/ material.)Why would you go anywhere besides real websites like wikipedia? Of course straying from there leads you to crazytown or the EM drive.
>>44325438Hey now, Wikipedia's article on the EM drive makes a pretty positive case for it.
>>44325353There's a tribe in south america that has a rite of passage where boys must collect the semen of adult males in order to be considered adults.I've seen people gleefully recount their tales of garroting people to death.I once put out a car fire with a dr. pepper.Nothing phases me anymore.
>>44325171https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_known_stars1700 solar radii is a bit under 8 AU. 2775 solar radii is just under 13 AU.Neptune sits around 30 AU away form the sun. Pluto goes just past 49 at the furthest. The Kuiper belt keeps going strong to about 50, and has some stuff floating around at least out to 65. And the heliopause is around 120.
>>44325481I visited /b/ once.**shiver**
>>44325458Cut through the bullshit and untested claims and you'll find:>The design of such thrusters, whether they work as claimed, and theories attempting to explain how they might work, are all matters of controversy. There is little consensus among those designing such drives about which theories are most plausible, and several theories are criticized as violations of conservation of momentum.>The idea did not receive much attention when first proposed in the early 2000s, and experiments to test it have been limited in scope. Publicity about such thrusters has been maintained by inventors of specific designs promoting their own work.>Inventors have been unable to reliably demonstrate thrust from one of their own theoretical designs and few scientists take the claims about these designs seriously. Critics assert that positive results are misinterpretations of spurious effects mixed with experimental errors. Research teams that have seen tentatively positive results are continuing their work to remove potential sources of error, and to ascertain whether they can explain the observed thrust using traditional physics models.Nobody in physics gives a single damn. It's all media hype and kooks being kooks.Call me when they find a rabbit in precambrian strata.
>>44325493This image reminds me. How much truth is there to the fact that Earth is very rare for getting eclipses, and that we'll actually eventually lose eclipses entirely at some future point; is that even valid? I mean, I guess it seems like it wouldn't be FREQUENT but you'd never be able to actually not have an eclipse as long as the goddamn moon and sun keep revolving.
>>44325535Moon is steadily moving away from the Earth.Earth is steadily slowing rotation.That'd about do it.
>>44308086>Vanadium bloodThe fuck?
>>44325547The moon is currently tidally locked, because of friction from the tides in the lunar bedrock caused by the earth's gravity. The same is happening on earth and soon the moon will always occupy the same location in the sky.Soon as in quite a few million years from now.
>>44325560Vanadium is a necessary part of your diet.
>>44325535space nerd here! While we will eventually lose eclipses, I cannot comment on whether it has anything to do with the earth being special. Due to the nature of gravity and the moon's position, gravitational forces pull at its sides unevenly. Eventually (read: a really really long time from now) the moon will be pulled apart and becomes chunks or even break up into planetary rings.
>>44325535When they say we won't get eclipses they probably mean we won't get the kind we have today, with the sun itself obscured but the corona well visible. As the moon distances itself form us we'll start seeing the sun itself around the edges.How rare it is on other planets is hard to say. It's unique amongst the eight planets of the solar system at least, and it does take some fine matching of the size and distance of the moon and the sun. Since we're only just being able to spot planets around other stars, and so far haven't found any moons at all, I don't think we have much to go on in order to say with any certainty how rare it is in the universe at large.
>>44325613The earth is special in a myriad of ways.
>>44307034Stars don't go supernova or black hole, they go supernova first, and then neutron star or black hole.Hopefully you'll figure out somethign nice based on that to replace your last line.
>>44325584As I understand it, the moon used to be a lot closer, and has been moving away ever since, but I canna be bothered to Google at the moment.But yes, you're looking a, I suspect, hundreds of millions of years. On the rotation end, we lose a second about... Every million years, was it?Though I find it more interesting that in a some billions years, we won't be able to see the other galaxies (save for Andromeda, which we will have merged with) or the universal background radiation anymore. Thus, any intelligent species evolving during that time, will have no evidence of the big bang or that anything outside the galaxy exists. (Lest we're still around with some really well kept records, or some shit.)
>>44325630>earth is the special snowflake mary sue of her solar system party, and we humans gotta catch the flak for it
>>44325522>Nobody in physics gives a single damn.But then nobody in physics believed in germs or in the nonexistence of the Aether until the XXth century.We should be cautious, but not overly so. Feynman once said that the only way for some theories to gain traction was when the old guard died, because those are the people who waged their entire lives on something being impossible.Optimistic caution is the way of life in science. Nothing was ever found without a good dose of optimistic caution.
>>44325661If life has ever attained sentience up to spaceflight, we'd have seen evidence of it by now.
>>44325517I once saw a flayed human leg.Still attached to its conscious and screaming owner.
>>44325353>>44325481>>44325517>>44325733Lol that's nothing you fags.I once saw someone compliment Matt Ward's writing.
>>44325705>But then nobody in physics believed in germs or in the nonexistence of the Aether until the XXth century.That is the worst possible example you could ever give.There is skepticism, and then there is ignoring reality. At this point in history, doubting the conservation of momentum is tantamount to doubting thermodynamics or evolution or even the existence of electromagnetism. Nobody takes it seriously. Nobody took superluminal neutrinos seriously either.To take it seriously would imply that science can never be used to understand the universe. Since you are reading this electronically transmitted message, that possibility is zero. But there will always be people willing to discard science in lieu of their pet theory of the universe.To quote Sir Stanley Eddington:"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."And to Quote Albert Einstein: "A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts."We stand on the shoulders of giants. We do not disprove old theories anymore. It is one of the rarest things in modern science.
>>44325792Too far man. I call total bullshit.
>>44325707Not if FTL ain't a thing, and not if it's very rare (ie. only popping up in other galaxies). ...or if there's some step beyond that we've not really imagined yet. ...or if it's common for even a space faring race to find some way to wipe itself out.Plus, there's some theories to suggest that we maybe among the earliest life forms... Which would suck in some ways, but not in others. We get to call dibs on everything, at least.But the universe is old, and civilizations, for various reasons, maybe short lived. The odds of two of us existing within perceptual range of one another in the same galaxy, and both wanting to be found, are next to none, even without all that.Plus our perception is really, really limited at the moment. There could be a small civilization in our own solar system, and we could conceivably miss it.Aside from SETI, which is point to point, we've all but quit broadcasting discernable radio waves since we started about 150 years ago, since we've switched almost entirely to digital. Some more forward thinking civilization may never broadcast any at all. Even if parallel civilization development is a thing, that means there's only about a 200 year window, and radius, for there to be any chance of detection, in a 14 billion year old galaxy, capable of supporting life as we know it for maybe 6 billion of those years.Universe be big.
>>44325904It's such a sad, sad, sad conclusion. The universe is just unfathomably huge and vast, and it is bound to be TEEMING with life at all stages, but it's so fucking huge we will very likely never, ever, ever, in all the history of our race and all the spare time after, meet another living being. Nevermind civilization.Like being in a full room and you can't talk to a single other person.
>>44325904Going at STL speeds a von neumann probe system could colonize every single star in any given galaxy in under a million years. There has been 13,000 million years in the universe's history.So if anything in the last few billion years evolved near us to have STL capacity and whatever tech is needed for such a ship, (aka the basics of the mythological singularity) then the entire local group would have been colonized several times over.SETI is largely pointless as any and all radio transmissions attenuate to indecipherable background noise before they ever get as far out as alpha centauri.Life also takes billions of years of stability to form. If earth had a different amount of extinction events, technological civilization could have occurred millions of years ago or from now. We have practically zero chance of ever finding anything on even a remotely similar timescale as our own civilization.So two things are possible: We are alone in the local group, or space colonization is simply impossible.Pick which one bothers you least.
>>44325984Meh, cheer up. We've only even had the concept of alien life for maybe two centuries now, and we're finding planets all the time, and finding a lot of evidence to suggest that life, may, be common as fuck, and increasingly finding evidence there may at least be simple life even within our own solar system. (God knows there's enough RNA just floating around up there.)While it's possible that intelligent life is rare, it maybe just as possible, that it's common as fuck, because the only sort of life that would we'd actually be able to detect, outside our own solar system at this point, would either have to be very close, and actively trying to signal us, or building Dyson sphere's and other unimaginable shit large enough for us to actually see.Science is in its infancy, and we ain't seen nothing yet.
>>44326091>Science is in its infancy, and we ain't seen nothing yet.The most depressing thing is that the opposite is true. There are only four fundamental forces. there are only so many ways chemistry can combine elements, there are only so many processes to create elements, there are only so many ways to do anything.It only took us a century to mine most of the useful knowledge in the universe. That's why we haven't discovered anything groundbreaking in the last 60 years or so, and why the last new source of energy was photovoltaics.I have faith that men of science will be respectful in their replies.
>>44326091That image is out of date. Half of those turned out to be instrumental error.http://www.iastro.pt/news/news.html?ID=29
>>44326194>>44326169My conclusion is that we don't know what the fuck, but there's SOMETHING happening, so keep doing.
>>44326039Why would you colonize every star in a galaxy? Do you realize what an epic project that'd be, and how pointless it'd be? Especially if you're a civilization that's learned to live within its means before it worked out space travel, and thus avoided destroying itself before it went among the stars.Plus the universe hasn't been carbon life sustaining for 13 billion years. Less than half that.And we can't see nothing from where we are under our current technology. As it is, we can barely make out Jupiter sized worlds less than ten thousand light years away, usually less than a few hundred light years away, and even then, we can only detect them by the effect they have on the stars they orbit - we certainly can't see what's going on their surface or around them. Damn galaxy is 100,000 light years across.So as Asimov would say, "There's still insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
>>44326226We do know. It's instrumental error. You might as well point to some perpetual motion machine on youtube and assert that we need to reconsider thermodynamics. The issue is that this subject is irreducibly complex, so laypersons have a difficult time grasping why that is so.Allow me to use an analogy. If you told an alien "My aunt nellie is in the hospital because she broke her hip" How much context would you have to explain for that perfectly mundane scenario?The problem with modern science journalism is that it just parrots buzzwords and click-bait, not real science.
>>44326281I was joking about how the tone whiplashing from HAVE HOPE to SO DEPRESSING to NONE OF THOSE READINGS EVEN WORKED HERE'S THE UPDATE
>>44326243>Why would you colonize every star in a galaxy?Why would you colonize any?>Do you realize what an epic project that'd be, and how pointless it'd be?If the singularity has any veracity (which i doubt) then it would only take one very complex ship that doubles itself at each star. It's an exponential spread, that's why it can happen so fast.>Plus the universe hasn't been carbon life sustaining for 13 billion years. Less than half that.No argument here. It just tightens the noose on there being any life as complex as us in the past or present.>And we can't see nothing from where we are under our current technology. As it is, we can barely make out Jupiter sized worlds less than ten thousand light years away, usually less than a few hundred light years away, and even then, we can only detect them by the effect they have on the stars they orbit - we certainly can't see what's going on their surface or around them. Damn galaxy is 100,000 light years across.Our being able to detect worlds doesn't bear any weight on their existence or profusion in galaxies.>So as Asimov would say, "There's still insufficient data for a meaningful answer."No he wouldn't, that was just a short story. The question "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" is an impossible one because it violates the third law of thermodynamics.
>>44326169Dude, we have turned the standard physics model of the universe on its head four times in the past hundred years alone. We abandoned the theory of Aether less than a hundred years ago. Our current observations and theories say that maybe 75% of the universe is made up of something with properties unlike anything we've ever seen or been able to detect. Almost all of our major physics theories break down on one scale or another. To think that anyone, in this day in age, would make the claim that we're anywhere near knowing everything, is just insanity.If there's anything that science, which has only existed, as we've come to know it, for maybe 3 centuries, out of a maybe a 10 thousand year history, for a species that's been around maybe 10 million years, has proven, it's that we know nothing, and nearly everything we do know, will one day be proven a misinterpretation, if not flat out wrong.
>>44326312If the universe is depressing, then that is a failure of our expectations, not a failure of our science.
>>44326365That logic requires you to doubt thermodynamics. It requires you to doubt heliocentrism. It requires you to doubt F=MA, maxwell's theories, everything that makes your computer work right now, fucking everything. I find that equivalent with solipsism and i discard it on principle alone.You are merely superimposing your expectations of technology against what is deemed possible, and you find it lacking. I suggest not starting from such a biased position.The universe is what it is. We can't change that.
>>44326169That kind of feels like you're saying "We know that 1+1=2, so why bother thinking about math anymore?"Even if we know how the whole universe works, it doesn't mean we've thought up all the possible ways to fuck with it to our benefit.
>>44325707Oh man, this is a whole other (intensely interesting) can of worms. I subscribe to the Great Filter school of thought on this myself, and if I had to make a poorly educated guess, I would say that it's just stupidly hard for conventional terrestrial-style life to develop into multi-cellular organisms. While it's unlikely that we wouldn't have missed anybody with near-FTL capabilities in our own galaxy thus far, it's entirely likely that we just havn't been able to detect slimeball worlds, which should be much more common, but might be harder to find (algae doesn't communicate it's existence very well on a cosmic scale.) I think it's just that we really don't have any currently active observable life within rage at the moment. It could be something even crazier, like a council of ayys that are purposely and entirely concealing the existence of all extraterrestrial life from us (Zoo Theory,) or maybe reality is some sort of pocket construct intended specifically for us alone to exist within, or maybe civilizations DO exist, it's just that the limits of physics prevent things like near FTL travel, or they live beyond the boundaries of the observable universe from us and we are causally unable to interact with them.
>>44326452Are you saying that you're right because it's impossible to prove you're wrong?I'm merely saying "hey, let's not get a big head because we found oil and it gave us a modern world we take for granted as just a spurt of human creativity"
>>44326428>The universe is what it is. We can't change that.Not with that attitude anyway.
>>44326476I think the great filter is the impossibility of bridging the gap between star systems. Even if it is within the laws of physics to do, economic systems won't permit it. I doubt that any evolved species could willingly make the necessary sacrifices.
>>44324776>>44324794What's the source on these?
>>44326500Surely you jest.
Let us not forgetRadio has no future, X-Rays are a hoax and heavier than air flying machines are impossible
>>44326521A very weeby anime called Diebuster, sequel to Gunbuster from the 90's.It's not terrible, it's just immensely weeby. Basically super robots powered by psychics, but the japanese had to ruin the concept by calling them "Topless" and there's a couple of times where the girls go topless as fan service.
>>44326562Why are you taking this personally?
>>44326516>I doubt that any evolved species could willingly make the necessary sacrificesSometimes I wonder if my own personal willingness to sacrifice energy enough equivalent to the observable universe just to be able to leave the horizon and see whats on the other side is an indication that I'm unstable somehow. Sometimes I also wonder that my indifference the the answer to that question doesn't bother me either. Hmn.
>>44326480I'm just not sure what's got you so bummed out. Are you sad that there's never going to be a big, oil or electromagnetism-tier discovery that propels us from carriages to Ferraris? We may never have something that drastic again, since we've (probably) discovered the blueprints to most of the universe's relevant functions, but we'll certainly advance in some really interesting ways before the meteor hits.
>>44326597I'm not.This is the first time I have posted in this thread since yesterday.I just find the "we know almost everything there is to know" thing funny. They said exactly that 200 years ago.I have no horse in this race, I just come here for the big space fish.
>>44326428No, not it doesn't, but at the same time, there's no reason not to doubt it, as we've been wrong about far more fundamental systems of the universe, and been just as certain of them, dozens of times before, and are constantly adjusting all our theories at macro level to boot, in addition to spawning new, reality warping ones, all the time, which occasionally, turn out to be right, for all the neigh sayers and all the counter-intuitiveness they seem to entail.
>>44326565>WeebyEhhhh, I wouldn't call it that. It's goofy and has huge nonsense scales to it's conflict, but it doesn't reference japanese culture, doesn't do anything specifically to appeal to NEET otaku crowds, and it even has a relatively weak association to it's source material. It's just weird.
>>44300957>rape of physics?if it can produce antigravity field then... Yes, sure. Just add add artifical gravity organs all inside of it and it won't collaps in a balck hole
>>44326621You forgot to click who you were responding to. Allow me >>44326362
>>44326655>I have no horse in this race, I just come here for the big space fish.This is becoming more and more like the Tokyo Grand National the more I look at it.
>>44326702Yes, noticed that... Gotta wait a bit to delete and repost, but I hate cluttering an already bustling thread.
>>44326695>Negative pressure>not physics-rapingIt's borderline for sure
>>44326644We'd have gotten strong hints of it by now. Fusion and Antimatter are all that's left after Petrochemicals and Fission.The key to the modern world springing up was the EROEI of our energy sources. The Energy Return on Energy Invested. When we first found oil, it was around 1:100, so for every 1 "generic unit of energy" we spent, we'd gain 100 units of energy. Now it's 1:20, and nuclear is at best 1:10, with all other sources being much lower. I'd be surprised if Fusion could ever be more than 10:1 due to the extreme requirements of such a thing.Physics is like a carpet. If you pull on a single thread you can see a myriad of effects. We've pulled on so many threads that the current thread puller, the LHC, has conditions that are not found anywhere in the natural universe, even in the accretion disks of black holes.It's weird to me that everyone can envision a world where we break all the laws of physics without a sweat, but not one where we learned all the laws of physics without a sweat.>>44326637Suffering does come from desire.
>>44326695If we don't want to go the anit gravity field way and stick to basic phyiscs...Then we still can.Gravity attracts, right? While same electric charges repels. So our leviathat is slightly charged so it balances the gravitational force.it have small bubbles of electron all around its body.Not sure you can have any form you want or just a ball, but it is already a step one.
>>44326747>It's weird to me that everyone can envision a world where we break all the laws of physics without a sweat, but not one where we learned all the laws of physics without a sweat.I think this is where people are getting confused and pissed when they read your comments. People forget the difference between understanding and application. We have a pretty fucking good idea of how we could theoretically make a literal warp drive, for example, but we can't really just DO it. People forget that.
>>44326362>Why would you colonize any?Cuz planets die. But they don't die so often that there'd be any reason to colonize every damned planet in the galaxy. Assuming you've solved your growing population problem (if you ever had one) before you set out among the stars, and have achieved sufficient biological technology or cybernetic/transference for virtual immortality to boot (and odds are you have, if you're colonizing stars with non-FTL), then you don't have any reason to colonize more than a handful. After that, the only thing you can do is start looking into other galaxies, if you've confirmed a quasar might be birthed in your own, and make it tough to live in, and thus have a reason to do so.By the time you have that level of technology, you can probably project near anything that might happen within your galaxy, and exploration for the sake of discovery becomes almost moot. (Though I suppose, if you got this far, you may just have a thirst for said, however pointless it maybe.)>Our being able to detect worlds doesn't bear any weight on their existence or profusion in galaxies.It has a very direct bearing on our ability to notice them. Right now, they could be just about everywhere, and unless they were very actively, and very cleverly, trying to be found, or just building shit on unimaginably epic scales that may not be physically possible, odds are, we wouldn't know it.Besides, we have animals on our own planet who can, with training, describe their concepts of God to us, and we don't generally consider them sentient beings... So I sometimes doubt that we'll ever be able to recognize anything truly alien as sentient, or even alive. It'd have to be something very like us, and that just narrows the odds even further.Regardless of the context, the thing is, we have no data to speak of. We can't detect anything in the galaxy on that scale of resolution, and we've not fully explored our own system's worlds, let alone left it.We're John Snow here.
>>44326655i must ask what you're basing your timeline on. Can science ever understand the universe? Will a big bell go off when we do? Or will everything look just as it does now?>>44326683If you're using the argument that science was wrong in the past to justify science being wrong now, then that means you are open to questioning everything that science has closed the book on. That's akin to solipsism in my book.Why question the conservation of momentum but not thermodynamics? If one is capable of being wrong, then it's all capable of being wrong. I very much doubt that they are wrong.>>44326621>We can't detect anything in the galaxy on that scale of resolutionBut we can detect stars and planets and galaxies and supernovae, and we've never found anything that doesn't fit into our observational and experimental models.So either there's nothing out there, or nothing has ever reached The Culture in terms of stellar engineering. All sorts of goofs were flipping out about seeing some dyson sphere a few weeks ago. If it's possible at all, such things should be rather common. Even tribes in the jungle know that planes exist, to painfully stretch an analogy.
>>44325807Good thing Eddington and Einstein and maxwell and all those folks were omniscient infallible gods then, right?It's not like plenty of their theories are now shown to be incomplete or only locally applicable, no sirre and if you disagree you must be a backwards luddist hippie conspiracist.
>>44326899>Good thing Eddington and Einstein and maxwell and all those folks were omniscient infallible gods then, right?Woah there buddy, since when is that a requirement to understand anything? I think you've taken this a bit too personally and need to take a step back. Nobody is your enemy here.
>>44326428I can prove any theory you want if you let me fudge the numbers by 2000%
>>44300957Why does the leviathan need to be so stupidly fuckhuge? Is a giant sun-leech the size of our moon or so vacuuming up solar wind and light and crap over a couple million years not scary in itself? maybe it needs liquid water to metabolize sun-juice, and instead of just spending energy to melt a fuckload of comet ice, it spots our little blue world and stops by for a drink before headed back to suck on the sun some more? If something is the size of a solar system, we probably wouldn't even be able to see it properly, and that defeats the whole "OH SHIT ITS NOT SOME CLOUD OR WHATEVER ITS A GIANT BUG" spookyfactor.
>>44326959Then i leave you to your debates about "redness"
>>44301158>>has it's own atmosphereSuddenly I don't hate it.
>>44326888>we've never found anything that doesn't fit into our observational and experimental models.There's tons of shit that doesn't fit our theoretical models. Hell, we don't even fully understand how it is our sun is putting out light, much less where all the anti-matter went, why galaxies are rotating the way they do, why one theory works on one scale and not another, literally millions of unexplained astronomical phenomena, biological phenomena, geological phenomena... There's so many mysteries we've yet to solve, so many of which suggest we've misinterpreted some fundamental aspect we've accepted as fact for so long, as has so many times has turned out to be the case before, it's a wonder we have confidence in anything we do at all.And nothing in our current theories suggest we should be able to detect anything on that scale. We know, with certainty, that we are currently unable to detect anything on that scale at that distance, so it's not even a mystery, it's a known limitation of our current abilities. The fantasy is in thinking that we somehow know stuff that we're incapable of detecting, and can barely infer the existence of.
>>44326500That's a lot of white men with mustaches.
>>44326888>If you're using the argument that science was wrong in the past to justify science being wrong now, then that means you are open to questioning everything that science has closed the book on. That's akin to solipsism in my book.>Why question the conservation of momentum but not thermodynamics? If one is capable of being wrong, then it's all capable of being wrong. I very much doubt that they are wrong.Science never closes the book on anything. Anything and everything is open to reexamination and can be overturned or reinterpreted. It's only that the more tried and tested laws require more evidence to be so revised. Such fundamentals get revised often enough though, and has happened, in most our lifetimes.
>>44327010>how it is our sun is putting out lightWhat? D-D fusion emits a photon.>much less where all the anti-matter wentI read something about that a while ago. I'll see if i can find it. Something to do with a natural asymmetry at the time of the big bang.>why galaxies are rotating the way they doMost rotate along with their core supermassive black holes.>why one theory works on one scale and not anotherBecause scale matters.>There's so many mysteries we've yet to solve, so many of which suggest we've misinterpreted some fundamental aspect we've accepted as fact for so long, as has so many times has turned out to be the case before, it's a wonder we have confidence in anything we do at all.I do not think there is any real basis for that statement. Can you expound upon it in greater detail?>And nothing in our current theories suggest we should be able to detect anything on that scale. We know, with certainty, that we are currently unable to detect anything on that scale at that distance, so it's not even a mystery, it's a known limitation of our current abilities. The fantasy is in thinking that we somehow know stuff that we're incapable of detecting, and can barely infer the existence of.The bigger a civilization is, the more energy it uses. We should be able to see a source of energy that doesn't match known phenomena even at galactic distances, because that's basically how we learned about GRB's and Supernovae. If we see no unnatural sources getting up to that level, it means nothing has ever gotten to that level, or that it's not possible to get to that level. Both are disquieting possibilities.The universe will never tell us that we've learned everything, and there's no reason other than expectations to say that we haven't learned everything, until the day we actually do learn something brand new and unpredicted. It's been a while. For as long as i've lived "What's new in physics?" has been a punchline, not a serious question.
>>44327098So why isn't NASA testing every single perpetual motion machine on youtube?Because they closed the book on that ever being a possibility. Yes we can only ever be 99% certain, but seriously doubting 99% certainties is certainly akin to solipsism. You might as well just assume i'm a figment of your imperfect senses at that point.
>Perhaps it evolved from bacterial membranes orbiting a small black hole, sustained by space debris until eventually enveloping and manipulating it. Said black hole could be used as a drive engine, and a source of grav-based abilities like grabbing a single tiger and making it go into escape velocity at once, or crush a few planetary crusts like biscuits.>A bit weirder, it could be a dark matter-based organism, interacting with the universe only through gravity, atracted to gravity wells, where it finds the necessary baryonic matter to digest into more dark matter tissue.>>44324806Pic related, the Silk God.>>44317155A biological based orion nuclear drive extrapolated from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor? Which is also its planet crust-breaking weapon?I LOVE IT.
>>44327098So you think it's possible that the earth is flat and the center of the solar system as much as you think something like the EM drive is possible?There is such a thing as being too open minded. It leads to becoming a cryptozoologist.
>>44327240Metal Gear Solid 5 has engineered bacteria that naturally separates U-238 from U-235 and stores it in subcritical amounts.Likely bullshit, but a good plot hook nonetheless.
>>44327188Well, that's not NASA's job, but they are testing the EM drive.It's up to other people to prove their perpetual motion machines well enough to make it through the patent office. People, do, none the less, look over the more interesting of those things, regardless of the inherent absurdity, if only to thoroughly explain why they don't work.Not that we don't regularly find flaws in our fundamental laws, not related to youtube videos, that cause some jimmies to rustle. We don't simply ignore such observations. If we did, we'd still be pushing shit through Aether, and wondering why our satellites can't keep their time synced with ground control....Not that we don't have plenty of other similar problems and scientific mysteries and challenges, that may be sourced in similar, yet to be properly challenged assumptions, but as they mount up, we start asking questions, and every dozen years or so, we wind up revising something we assumed was right for a near century before.
>>44327315Then in your opinion, science is only ever right temporarily, and even things such as heliocentrism could be wrong?I vehemently disagree. That is solipsism.
>>44327315You seem fond to point out mistakes made 100 years ago.What can you list from 50 or 25 years ago?
>>44327351Science always assumes fundamentals might be wrong if there's conflicting observational evidence, or it isn't science.The more tested and inherently self-evident something is, the more counter-intuitive the alternative solution is, the less likely it is to be challenged, I'll give you that.But while I doubt something like heliocentrism, itself, will ever face serious challenge, the reasons behind it may be, and in a way, currently are.
>>44327290I still prefer it ocurring naturally like Oklo's, and the bacteria simply evolving towards using this new source of energy. Later they become capable of engineering the process on a macro level.I also clearly remember some sci-fi book about bacteria surviving on radioactive decay at the Kuiper Belt... I only can't remember its name. It had a mytochondria equivalent which enclosed radioactive particles and used its heat.
>>44326521>never seen Diebuster, the sequel to Gunbuster which is one of the best anime OVAs of all time and was the work by Gainax that preceeded NGESo fucking casual.
>>44327424The more tested and inherently self-evident something is, the more counter-intuitive the alternative solution is, the less likely it is to be challenged, I'll give you that.As far as I know, conservation of momentum meets those criteria.Let's wait to throw the baby out with the bathwater until we can get an em drive into orbit to see if it can change its apoapsis.
>>44323450>Thermal Vents!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemosynthesisIt's the abundant source of organic minerals being vomited up from the vent, not the heat, that is the source of energy down there.Also, the spinoloricus cinzia you mentioned don't use oxygen or sunlight, therefore it uses heat? A cursory google search claims that they generate ATP via "the chemical actions of pyruvate:ferredoxin oxido-reductase, hydrogenase, acetate:succinate CoA transferase and succinate thiokinase"I don't understand how you're connecting these unrelated things to the concept of heat as energy source.
>>44327380How about the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, something almost unthinkable save to a handful of misfit scientists, up until about 15 years ago.That the universe is a flat, not open or closed, and the debate between the big crunch and the big rip is all but dead, similarly, 15 years ago.Or fucking dark matter and dark energy being the dominant force in the universe. Nothing no longer being nothing, all within the last fifty years.That the entire universe maybe part of a false vacuum ready to rip itself apart without notice, and maybe, already has, only the resulting change in the laws of physics hasn't reached us yet.Those are just a few of the damned fundamental changes of our picture of physics, made in just our lifetimes. And we're very apt to see a whole lot more, in our lifetimes, let alone the unimaginable changes that lay beyond.
>>44327424Different anon here, just want to clarify that science assumes that the fundamentals are FALSIFIABLE. Essentially, the fundamentals can be wrong, it's not that they might be wrong. If you bring likelihood into the equation, things are not going to skew in your favor here.
>>44327508What laws did those rewrite? Was that not the crux of your argument?Or are you making a god of the gaps argument that all the supertech is hiding in some yet unswept corner of the universe? Can't you always make that claim from now until heat death, without any evidence to back it up?
I always loved the idea of big space whales surfing the space and tanning near stars.Old, friendly and very neutral.Probably a kilometer long.
>>44327598I'd assume they have entire ecosystems of parasitic life growing on them.
>>44327598Let me tip my-WHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUM
>>44327547That's what I said, only with different words.Nonetheless, shit gets falsified, at an alarming rate, in the grand scheme of things, and it's happening increasingly often, as research accelerates and reveals more and more anomalies, and spawns more and more radical theories to compensate for them.To assume that, in all the span of history, we've learned everything there is to know in the past few hundred years, is just insanity.Though, I suppose, it's less that we know nothing. When you let go of the ball, you know it will fall. It's more that the details of the reasons behind our observations are largely in flux. Fundamental changes in those theories are not automatic nor quick coming, but they happen often enough that, certainty, should be the one thing we should be the most skeptical of.
>>44327623and a bar or two.
>>44304030I really liked the idea of Nova kids from StarBound (the only thing good in that game, and it was made by fans).Thos are organism from a star. THey are mostly plasma but strong electromagnetic fields isnide keep the plasma in a human form and make it function as various organs.As they age similary to a star they turn red.
>>44327645>Nonetheless, shit gets falsified, at an alarming rateWhat has been falsified in the last 50 years?>To assume that, in all the span of history, we've learned everything there is to know in the past few hundred years, is just insanity.Based on an unknowable quantity of knowable things in the universe? You can never make that claim. There is no way to know. Science fiction is not a book from the future that lays out all that is possible and shows us where we are along the "tech tree"
>>44327674>As they age similarly to a star they turn red.Stars do that because they expand and cool.So, like us, they get fat as they age? That's comforting.
>>44327589>Or are you making a god of the gaps argument that all the supertech is hiding in some yet unswept corner of the universe?Wut?Not sure what you think I'm suggesting here. But we've not swept any of the universe to speak of, let alone corners. Barring truly epic super-structures, that we have reason to believe may not even be physically possible to create (let alone any idea what the motivation to build them would be), we simply don't currently have the tech, to detect much of any tech in the universe.
>>44327647And I can assume that when a specific ship, carrying a specific human knocks one of this Tavern Whales onto a collision course with a star, the bartender will prolly have this as his last thought.>"Oh for gods sake, really?"
>>44327714>Not sure what you think I'm suggesting here. But we've not swept any of the universe to speak of, let alone corners. Barring truly epic super-structures, that we have reason to believe may not even be physically possible to create (let alone any idea what the motivation to build them would be), we simply don't currently have the tech, to detect much of any tech in the universe.If we can see stars at the ass-end of the universe, we can see any civilization that is Type II or above. So either there are no Type II's, or nothing has ever gotten that far.I would not be surprised if there were countless civs stuck forever at Type I simply because of physical limits and economic restrictions. But that does damn us to always be pre-star trek, certainly pre-culture. It potentially sets a bar for how high we can reach, and it's not that far above our heads.
>>44327683>What has been falsified in the last 50 years?>>44327424>Based on an unknowable quantity of knowable things in the universe?Based on the recent history of science, and the rate of new discoveries, and the rate of which we're having to re-adjust theories as they fall apart with new observations, and the fact that we have conflicting theories, that work perfectly well within their scopes, but break down at one scale or another... And the fact that there's still so much shit going on that we are at a loss to explain.We may not know everything, but our track record is pretty well documented, and it's been a very windy path we've taken. We've not been doing this for very long, but there's no reason to assume, nor any evidence, that it's going to be a straight road from here on out, and every reason to assume that the ground may get snatched right out from under our feet.
>>44327714>we've not swept any of the universeGotta disagree with that. Just because we haven't found science fiction stuff doesn't mean we're ignorant.If that's your bar, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
>>44327813>What has been falsified in the last 50 years?I'd like a concrete example or two. Not a axiomatic assertion that while i generally agree with, has become less common in practice over the last 50 years.>Based on the recent history of science, and the rate of new discoveries, and the rate of which we're having to re-adjust theories as they fall apart with new observations, and the fact that we have conflicting theories, that work perfectly well within their scopes, but break down at one scale or another... And the fact that there's still so much shit going on that we are at a loss to explain.Okay, so tell me how this works. How exactly do you know the ends of technology from these examples? How many years into the future did learning the percentage of dark matter in the universe set our technological potential? What system are you using to derive timescales from any random discovery?>and every reason to assume that the ground may get snatched right out from under our feet.Ya know what'd really make the ground drop out from under you? The possibility that This Is It.
This thread has really taken a turn away from awesome, terrifying, logic and rules of science breaking leviathans. Ya'll bicker. I'm gonna go hide under my covers from the eldritch horror tier, solar system devouring space worm thing.
>>44327781We've never established a reason one would need to build super structures so large that we could see them - and, as you point out, even if they are truly physically possible to create. And, if life out there is as anywhere near as competitive as life here, there'd be every reason not to build them, and if someone did, their existence maybe short lived.There's no reason to assume anyone would build anything large enough for us to detect, or make an effort to be detected, or be close enough to be detected by us, even if they were making that effort, and really, evolutionarily speaking, there's every reason not to make that effort. The fact that we do is a sort of strange logical paradox of our own biological drives, in and of itself, and even our best efforts are pitiful and unlikely to be detected.We can't detect anything smaller than our largest planet at mere light years away, and we can only infer the existence of those objects - we can't observe them directly. We can't see the surface of any planet beyond our solar system. Even what few images we have of the surfaces of planets in our own backyard, our own solar system, is embarrassingly incomplete.We're deaf and blind, if not dumb. Only having thought of the existence of life in space within the past handful of generations. It might be rare as fuck, it might be everywhere, but we don't know enough, and can't see enough, to have any idea. Yet.
>>44327947This has been one of the least bitchy threads on science in months on /tg/.
>>44326965I think not being able to see it properly is part of the point, really puts it in horror territory.
>>44327963>We've never established a reason one would need to build super structures so large that we could see them - and, as you point out, even if they are truly physically possible to create. And, if life out there is as anywhere near as competitive as life here, there'd be every reason not to build them, and if someone did, their existence maybe short lived.>There's no reason to assume anyone would build anything large enough for us to detect, or make an effort to be detected, or be close enough to be detected by us, even if they were making that effort, and really, evolutionarily speaking, there's every reason not to make that effort. The fact that we do is a sort of strange logical paradox of our own biological drives, in and of itself, and even our best efforts are pitiful and unlikely to be detected.So in your opinion, it is unreasonable to think that a Type II civilization can exist? Does that not set quite the cap on technology? If economic growth of any civilization were to continue unabated by physics or economics, then any civilization would eventually emit as much energy as a star, and we'd notice it once the light got to us, and quickly deduce that it was not natural because we'd find all sorts of weird elements in the spectra that we would not find in any stars. Spectroscopy is all we need. Again, either Type II civs exist and that level of tech is possible, or they do not exist and that level of tech is not possible. We should have seen something by now, considering how fucking many stars and novae and supernovae we've discovered. If it's out there and we haven't seen it yet, it's fucking rare. Maybe 1 Type 2 per Supercluster or even Universe.We're not even a fraction as ignorant as you make us out to be.
>>44327871Yes, we can see every gigantic thing in the observable universe, as it was however many billions of years ago it is in light years away... We can even make rough guesses as to the mass of the entire universe. Neet....Come back to me when we can detect a city on a planet. We can *barely* detect planets, and really, we can't even do that, we only infer their existence based on the effects on their stars, for the most part, and even then, usually, only very large ones, and with a high error rate at that. We can't see the surface of any planet outside the solar system, let alone detect a civilization, unless it's built something so large that it might not even be theoretically possible to create.
>>44328075Spectroscopy. We've looked at kepler planets, observed the light, and determined that there is no oxygen or industrial byproducts on the surface.Spectroscopy is how we know a shitload about places we've never been to and probably never will go to. Look it up, it's neat stuff.
>>44328053>If economic growth of any civilization were to continue unabated by physics or economics, then any civilization would eventually emit as much energy as a starWhy?Any civilization so quick to use up resources as that would never expand to the degree where it *could* do that. It would die long before it ever managed go much beyond its surface.If they are anything like us, becoming a space faring civilization entails reaching an equilibrium with your local biosphere first. This means they would not have an infinitely expanding population, they wouldn't be using energy beyond necessity. Any civilization that fails to achieve that equilibrium, will likely die before it reaches the stars. If they are also reaching beyond the stars at sunlight speeds, they've also likely acquired near immortality of one sort or another, which absolutely precludes an infinitely expanding population.Thus, once among the stars, they would likely not leave anymore of a footprint than they did on their home world (much less, actually). Alien super-structures are lovely sci-fi, but when it comes down to it, no sane civilization needs that degree of energy, and an insane civilization, isn't going to reach the technological heights required to build them.And if it turns out they are common, then conflicts likely occur, and are likely often fatal. Should the survivors learn from such a history, they will either be very hard to find indeed, or wiping out everything they do find. The fact that we are here suggests either the former, or that they don't exist.Type II'esque civilizations may exist, but likely not in the spectacular form that we ascribe to them, and it's very likely, in addition to all the above, that it's simply not possible to build structures such as the one sci-fi has imagined.
>>44328245>Why?>Any civilization so quick to use up resources as that would never expand to the degree where it *could* do that. It would die long before it ever managed go much beyond its surface.That says a lot about our prospects, doesn't it? I'm not advocating that such a thing IS possible, just that if it were, we could detect it with current tech, and that we haven't detected it, again, says a lot.
>>44328128We've found a lot of planets with oxygen, actually. But we can only make out those very near to us. No planet of any significant distance from us can be made out from its parent star. We only infer their existence from the star's wobble. Thus, for the majority of planets we've "discovered" spectroscopy is moot.
>>44328245You don't need superstructures to output as much energy as a star. A whole solar system is just a tiny dot from a few light-years away. We would look at that dot, analyze the spectra and the energy levels based on the visible and thermal photon emissions, and calculate very precisely how much energy is being used and a general picture of what is making it, again, all from spectra and thermal emission readings alone.
>>44328263We've so little ability to detect anything that it doesn't say much of anything one way or the other, especially given the lack of necessity for superstructures, and the fact that they are very likely only fantasy.But yeah, given our current trajectory, and the fact that no one's really gone into space in forty years, the prospects of us becoming a a space fairing civilization, before some cosmological event wipes us out, or we do it to ourselves, is unlikely.Especially since, given what we've observed and discovered, the closest thing we have to evidence of divine providence, is that there's only been five global extinction events on this planet, and not five million.
>>44328270We've looked at every rocky planet we've discovered. Our methods are good enough now to pick up more than just hot jupiters.What is your bar? What falsifiable statement will you set as your evidence requirement? Or will it not matter to you until we've observed every single planet in the universe?
>>44328325Superstructure or not, there's no theoretical reason to require that much energy, much less emit it and put up a big sign saying "aliens here, please come fuck our shit up".
>>44328325It doesn't even need to be as much energy as a star, because space is so cold we can see brown and red dwarfs from across the cosmos.
>>44328356There's no "reason" that we use 20 terawatts on earth. We do it because we can't stop ourselves, really. It's what we evolved to do. When will we make the conscious choice to end economic growth?
>>44328270>We've found a lot of planets with oxygen, actuallyWe have? That's new to me. Link to source?
>>44328350Only within a few hundred light years. Galaxy is over a 100,000 light years across. The fact that they are common enough for us to find them at all is a good sign, but we can't see well enough to say much of anything about them. ...and those are among the few where we have detected "Earth like" planets via spectroscopy, but any civilization living within its means, isn't going to detect as anything beyond that. Even after three hundred years of putting stuff into our atmosphere with no care as to what it might do, seeing our own planet from just as far away, there'd be no evidence that we were here. We can't see the surface of the planets, and in most cases, we can't distinguish them from their stars enough to even determine their makeup.If we get out there, get some probes back to a few dozen systems around us, then maybe we can start making guesses, but as it is, there could be hundreds if not thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of such civilizations in our own galaxy, and we'd be very unlikely to spot any of them as we are now. ...and, barring some sudden unforeseen leap in technology (or them coming to us), we're not going to know for hundreds of years yet.
>>44328480If a civilization was above us in tech level to the point that people who believe in the singularity assert is possible, they would stand out without us needing to see the planet first. We would see an abnormal amount of energy coming out of the system and we would scrutinize the fuck out of it. That applies from here to across the universe.We don't need to go places to learn almost everything about them. That ended with the age of sail, really.
>>44328400We use more energy than we need because we are on a trajectory of self destruction, at the moment, and even with the energy we use, we'd never be able to detect our civilization, or even a dozen civilizations on a dozen planets, just like ours, even they were orbiting alpha centauriA civilization that has reached an equilibrium with its biosphere, space faring or not, would be completely undetectable by current means, unless it was in our own solar system - and even then, we could conceivably miss it.
>>44328523>>44328480Basically we'd see a star, look at the spectra and determine what kind of star it is, then look at the thermal emissions coming from the system and see a discrepancy, and then a dozen or so people would write their PH.D thesis on how the fuck is this system outputting more energy than its star is physically capable of, and bam, aliens or some really unexpected new phenomena.
>>44328587Ah, but is such a civilization even possible with evolution? Or does natural selection always drive us to be expansionist and competitive? Wimps don't become top dogs.But yeah, otherwise i agree with you. You're starting to see why i think fancytech like those predicted by the singularity is unlikely.
>>44328523Still no reason to put out that kind of energy signature. You're assuming that energy needs increase and efficiency does not. Any such civilization living on that trajectory is going to be very short lived, and not likely to go much beyond its biosphere. They might exist for a time, but the odds of our civilization and theirs existing in the same moment, within detectable range of one another, are next to none.For a civilization to have existed for so long that its existence is likely to overlap our own, it'd likely have a very low energy signature, and maintain a modest, but virtually immortal population (assuming population as we understand it is even a thing for a civilization that old and that stable).
>>44328671>Still no reason to put out that kind of energy signature. You're assuming that energy needs increase and efficiency does notEnergy has to increase with economic growth, since new stores and factories need more electricity than before they were built. Efficiency has a very low ceiling because no machine is permitted to be more than 100% efficient, and in practice, even 90% efficient is pushing it. So unless a civilization goes full buddhist and somehow halts its economic growth, we're bound to see them eventually. I'm sure buddhist civs do exist, but by the nature of nature being red in tooth and claw, they must be a rarity.>Any such civilization living on that trajectory is going to be very short lived, and not likely to go much beyond its biosphere. They might exist for a time, but the odds of our civilization and theirs existing in the same moment, within detectable range of one another, are next to none.So then what does that say about mankind's prospects outside of the earth? A lot of people will fly into a rage when someone doubts that future. I personally agree that the chances of us doing anything large outside of earth, or continuing economic development are slim to none, but damn is it rare that i get people to see eye to eye with me because of how depressing the implications are, or i just suck at getting my point across, probably both.
>>44328620Yeah, but like the old silly drake equation says, it maybe most don't make it beyond that step in their evolution. In which case, they'd be rare, and we may not be counted among them. Given what a short period that is (it's been, what, 300 years since the industrial revolution?), again, almost no chance we'd overlap and see one another.On the other hand, we're aware enough to *know* we're fucking up. It seems, just as likely, another, more unified and forward thinking civilization, might not only be aware, but able to act on it, and you could imagine how little you'd have to tweak our biology to make that sort of culture more likely, had the Darwinian dice rolled a slightly different way. Maybe if we lived just a little longer, or our tribal instinct we just a little broader, or if our collective memory was just a little stronger, it'd make a huge degree of difference to human history.
>>44328848>Yeah, but like the old silly drake equation says, it maybe most don't make it beyond that step in their evolution. In which case, they'd be rare, and we may not be counted among them. Given what a short period that is (it's been, what, 300 years since the industrial revolution?), again, almost no chance we'd overlap and see one another.I agree, but the distances between stars can alleviate some of the time problems. They may not exist anymore, but their light still will.>Maybe if we lived just a little longer, or our tribal instinct we just a little broader, or if our collective memory was just a little stronger, it'd make a huge degree of difference to human history.Yeah. It would last longer...I really wish it didn't have to be this way.
>>44328770>Energy has to increase with economic growthWell, if we're talking Romulans or Ferengi maybe.But if we're talking actual aliens, rather than anthropomorphic manifestations of our own culture, that isn't necessarily a thing at all. Once you put a cap on your population, or have a motivation beyond simple individual competition, that's the end of that problem. We're culturally precluded from doing that, usually, but a civilization that's at all likely to make it to the stars, is much less likely to be so....and yeah, as I said elsewhere, our prospects aren't good, given our current social structure... But shit happens, so you never know. Some minor cosmological accident, and a little bio-engineering, and maybe we'll be good to go. Even if we'd hardly recognize ourselves, we may make it yet.
>>44328905>I agree, but the distances between stars can alleviate some of the time problems. They may not exist anymore, but their light still will.Eh, hate to tell you, but that light's only going to last as long as they do, and the stream will only be as long as its existence. So, that doesn't really help the odds of detecting them any. Or, if we're really lucky, we will spot them on the tail end of it, only to go over there and be depressed when we find them all dead.
>>44328966>But if we're talking actual aliens, rather than anthropomorphic manifestations of our own culture, that isn't necessarily a thing at all. The closest thing i'm doing to anthropomorphizing is assuming that the life on other worlds will evolve via natural selection of adaptive traits and that stellar nucleosynthesis and planet formation results in uneven distribution of planetary resources, leading to competition between species for those resources and the great complexity and biodiversity like we find on earth. I have a really hard time imagining how else, other than intelligent involvement, any life could evolve the complexity needed for tech. How could a species survive if it was self-sacrificing like that? It'd never make it to the industrial era. Like i said, they could exist, but they're not likely in the grand scheme of things.>>44328966Still, depending on the distance we could have a billion years of their history beamed to us one day at a time.>only to go over there and be depressed when we find them all dead.Sound familiar?
>>44326169Errrrdudem8YOU FUCKING WOT?Hell,i am a biochemist, so physics isnt my speciality, but even i know what you are saying is utter fucking tripe Holy shit, we barely understand ANYTHING about the 4 fundamental forces, the last 60 years has brought us>decent nuclear power>colour TV>The fucking internet>space flight>so much medical shit, i dont even want to try to list themnext up is fusion,self driving cars and quantum computing.Stop being a fucking reactionary cynic, read a fucking book and actually learn about science,before you go spouting off shit like this.
>>44329159Read the 4th paragraph in the image. >>44329053The conversation is over. We had a pleasant discussion and all contentions were addressed.Good thread, people.
>>44329235but now what do i do with all this undirected rage?
>>44329053>The closest thing i'm doing to anthropomorphizing is assumingNo, you're assuming they have a run away economy bent on infinite expansion like we do - which we know, is suicidal.Yes, that might happen, but we know it can't be maintained very long (even if we keep right on doing it). If we're going to be around long enough to be detected by anyone else, that'll have to change.>Still, depending on the distance we could have a billion years of their history beamed to us one day at a time.Their energy-overloaded civilization would have to last for billions of years for that to happen. You can't last long enough to build the tech to do that, if infinite expansion is the philosophy you're living under. For a high tech civilization to last billions of years, it'll have to reach equilibrium with its biosphere well before it reaches that level of technology, and then, when they finally do, they won't have a use for it, and thus will never build it. (Plus, again, might also be wise enough to know that putting up a galaxy wide beacon might be a bad idea.)Even if a civilization somehow, someway, becomes detectable in such an unsustainable fashion, reaches that status and keeps doing it for a thousand years, it won't broadcast its existence for a billion years, it'll broadcast it for a thousand. There'd be a thousand year long stream of evidence of its existence, exactly that long, and the odds of such a stream intersecting us, while we're able to detect it, would be statistically null, given the ~6 billion years we're talking about, and the fact we've only been looking for maybe fifty years thus far.That's sort of the built-in tempering the universe has, I suppose. If you wanna live forever, first, you gotta get your house in order.
>>44329053<3 All Tomorrows.Kinda suggests we 'ascended' or something though, rather than died out, after getting our butts smeared across the galaxy. Reached magi-tech levels well before the end of that story.
>>44326428Maybe he has a point.Let's think about what people thought they knew 500 years ago.What of our current creations (not theory, actual physical things they can touch and use) would seem fuckign impossible to them?We have faster no horse carriages and some bird carriages. And we have a very fast letter delivering system.
>>44329507It may also be we left the galaxy for some reason the Attenburrow alien doesn't know. Maybe some pending disaster, it isn't made clear....In which case, man is he fucked.
>>44326500fuck. without the caption I don't recognize anyone besides Einstein.