swansont

If you think rules are being violated, use the “report post” function. But please don’t conflate sincere disagreement with trolling.

“ I do not have access to external information or the ability to browse the internet” But it’s been “trained” so it has had access to internal information of some sort, so this sounds like some clever sleight-of-hand. Not with my current programming

I’ve seen a number of examples where the bot gets it wrong, so it still can be convincing-sounding nonsense. A Sokol-bot. But how can you tell, if it’s outside your area of expertise?

No, what you’ve shown is that A and D aren’t true at the same time. As you’ve demonstrated, it’’s possible to create contradictory logical premises (A, and not A) The fact that there is a contradiction only shows that one or more of the premises aren’t true. You can also conclude that D is false. You’re also playing fast and loose with “situation” Your later logic is similarly flawed.

The number of deaths is down, but the number of conflicts is up. One factor, I suspect, is economic. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace Armies are smaller, but the cost of deployment per combatant is much higher than it used to be. Another is advances in medicine, which reduces fatalities and also has an economic impact, if one’s society cares for its wounded soldiers. So it’s possible one contributing reason countries avoid escalation is because they can’t afford it. Interstellar war would have a really large economic impact.

! Moderator Note ChatGPT is not a scientific source and I think we’d provisionally consider this speculation since the credibility is not established

This time line assumes that we were discovered just recently. If one takes this scenario at face value, you destroy all alien life, not just advanced civilizations - you don’t give them the chance to become a threat. That expands the response time by hundreds or thousands of years. The time it took us to go from earth-bound to landing on the moon depends on when you started the clock. It could be millions of years, if you go from bipedal, tool-using creature. You could entertain the idea that the K-T extinction was an annihilation attempt ~65 million years ago.

Also from the link This doesn't mean that we haven't heard from other species because they have all been wiped out, the book argues. If even one species out there acts like this, it makes sense for all others to keep quiet, and not advertise their existence to others. However there is one factor that the book expands on, that though wiping out others before they can do the same to you is the most rational course of action, aliens may not do it for practical reasons. Say you send out a fleet of destroyers to another star system. By the time it gets there, your fleet will remain at the same technological level you sent it, while the people you are attacking will have advanced by centuries or even millenia. As such, it may be beneficial to most civilizations to simply sit out there like many other forms of benevolent lifeforms, all hiding themselves in the forest in fear.

! Moderator Note Which is irrelevant to my modnote. Shielding is off-topic (which is what I said) and arguing about it is off-topic.

My understanding of DF is the fear that one or more civilizations might want to wipe everyone out, not that all of them do. So it includes hiding from potential threats, and being hesitant to attack because the time (and therefore technology) lag. https://www.iflscience.com/the-dark-forest-hypothesis-an-unsettling-explanation-for-why-aliens-havent-made-contact--59407 None of that implies FTL travel.

Right now it’s you posting off-topic material.

That’s just an argument against alien invasion, not against the strategy of keeping silent. Also the solar systems don’t have to be 10,000 LY apart. The issue of sending an invasion fleet with technology that may be obsolete by the time it arrives at its destination probably has a much shorter horizon.

! Moderator Note The OP asked about structural integrity, not cosmic-ray shielding . Please stay on-topic

! Moderator Note The rules require that you post the material for discussion.

The light from the image is from the phosphor on the screen, not from bremsstrahlung Which does not contradict joigus’s statement that most particles don’t annihilate

No, I don’t have one. If you Googled it, you’d likely find dozens of hits in various forms, all probably unattributed.

Why do you think it would be?

That’s a “you” problem. Not understanding something does not make it a paradox. In this case it’s an issue of relativity - that the rate of the passage of time depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

I can assure you that particles can go more than 3 cm before annihilating, and looking at a blue sky is not the best way of detecting particles.

There a pithy saying - FTL, causality, relativity: Pick two. IOW if you want FTL you have to give up either causality or relativity. Whatever you end up with will not be how our universe behaves.

Is this a question about vision, or about physics?

Unless this is the summary of an existing (i.e. published) paper, or in a textbook somewhere, it’s your conjecture, which means speculations. So yes, that’s where it should have been posted, and where it now resides.

! Moderator Note You need to provide the science behind this proposal.

! Moderator Note We aren’t discussing your model. You posted this in a mainstream section, which means mainstream science. And a model means math; you have to have the ability to make specific predictions. If you have an actual model, it needs to go in its own thread in speculations, and no other threads.

If this is the Danube experiment, there was a classical channel. Your “radio signal” was not FTL. https://www.nature.com/articles/430849a The classical signal was free-space, and the teleported photon went via an optical fiber. “Because of the reduced velocity of light within the fibre-based quantum channel (two-thirds of that in vacuo), the classical signal arrives about 1.5 microseconds before the photon.”