4 ms·
The time travel argument I've always found to be far more compelling than the extra terrestrial argument. For example, similarity of physical form (with exagge
by kromem 8y ago
The time travel argument I've always found to be far more compelling than the extra terrestrial argument.
For example, similarity of physical form (with exaggerated evolutionary aspects relating to modern society, such as bigger eyes/brains, and diminished aspects that would be obsolete, such as weakened physical strength).
And in a universe where different systems could be billions of years different in age, the UFOs have always seemed closer to a few thousands of years off from current technology at best.
And yet there's zero evidence of even life, let alone advanced life, in our near proximity. Wouldn't it make more sense that the advanced species that's in near physical proximity to ourselves (i.e. humans) would be responsible for flying objects very similar to our own flying objects and supposedly operated by bipeds looking very similar to ourselves?
And the physical rules bring broken to enable time travel are roughly the same rules that would need to be broken for faster than light travel, so the scientific likelihood for time traveling UFOs is roughly the same as for extra-terrestrial UFOs, but the former makes a lot more sense in other regards than the latter.
- a1369209993 8y ago> And in a universe where different systems could be billions of years different in age, the UFOs have always seemed closer to a few thousands of years off from current technology at best. I think this is something that doesn't get enough attention; in a universe like our's, almost all first contact events will consist of relativisticly expanding spheres of von Neumann machines impacting planets populated solely by nonsapient life. (Say three billion years before humans evolved versus a generous million years of human 'civilization' gives a three thousand to one ratio.) We should not expect to see anything remotely near our point in the developmental timeline. (If "relativisticly expanding spheres of von Neumann machines" sounds unlikely, let me remind you that every star in the sky is a massive pile of valuable raw materials that has unfortunately caught fire and needs to be extinguished as soon as possible.)
- yesenadam 8y ago"in a universe like ours, almost all first contact events will consist of relativistically expanding spheres of von Neumann machines impacting planets populated solely by nonsapient life." You talk as if that's a certain fact. (Even estimating a probability) I'm no expert in the area, but why? Is that justified? What's that based on? (Not to mention the last sentence 'reminding me' of another odd 'fact'.)
- hderms 8y agoI think it's like a big-o type argument about rates of growth of approximately spherical areas in 3d space
- a1369209993 8y agoThat combined with the aforementioned thousands-to-one odds that a life form that hasn't yet developed into a relativistically expanding sphere also hasn't developed sapience. (I'm not using the mathematical definition of "almost all" of course.) There would (probably) also be a significant number of cases where two spheres run into each other, but it's debatable whether most of those count as first contact events (light speed lag versus "it's all the same civilization"). The main point was the enormous unlikelyhood of a nearby alien civilization being within a thousand years or so (out of multiple billion) of our developmental level. The Fermi paradox is more a question of "Why hasn't anything eaten every star in the sky yet?".
- yesenadam 8y agoI feel like I was given many more strange assumptions, without any of the things I was asking about being addressed. Your "of course", which I didn't understand, in a few different ways, makes me think I'm talking to experts. I understood almost nothing you wrote. But well, like I said, I don't buy all these assumptions. Reading this is like reading those unhelpful wikipedia pages that only make sense if you already understand what it's saying. And your way of talking as if it's all obviously true, (e.g. "let me remind you") raises my suspicions that it's not.
- eksemplar 8y agoCan you time travel without being able to alter your location in space? I mean, the earth is moving pretty fast, if you popped back a few hours, wouldn’t you land in empty space?
- wowtip 8y agoYes, you would need to adjust for that. Might be the explanation for why the guys from the future shows up in spaceships. I guess it would be dangerous calculating slightly wrong and instead end up inside earth or inside a building's wall. Better to appear some distance out into space and then fly the last few hundred miles to earth.
- ryacko 8y agoThe galaxy is rotating and moving through space. All estimated speeds are in relation to other objects.
- rocqua 8y agothat presumes something like 'time teleportation'. Time travel based on changing / reversing your 'speed of time' doesn't have that. Kind of like the difference between wormhole based FTL and warp drive based FTL. In one, you just teleport, in the other, you still travel in a continuous line.
- soylentcola 8y agoThis is how I've always imagined a fictional time machine working. You build the thing, it creates a field inside itself, and you can use it to move whoever/whatever is inside that field to other points in the timeline of the machine's existence.
- DennisP 8y agoI think relativity makes this impossible; you're essentially saying there's a particular trajectory that has an absolute velocity of zero. Relativity is founded on the idea that there's no such thing; any trajectory has an equal claim to be the zero velocity. Maybe time travel would stay in the same reference frame, so if you're on the Earth's surface you end up in the same position on the Earth. On the other hand if you're on an object that experiences non-gravitational directional changes in the span of your time travel, you might be in trouble.