Moontanman

Thank you for making the use of this forum safer and easier for us all!

Why is causality violation such a deal breaker? Let's set up a real world example: Assume we have a "phone" that allows for communication with the past but only between the point in time that the "phone" is created and the present. An asteroid strikes the ocean off the east coast of North America resulting in a wave that wipes out much of the east coast from the Appalachian Mountains to the sea coast. Millions of lives are lost and property destruction is off the charts in cost. A simple "phone" call allows for the evacuation of the affected area and no lives are lost. Does this break causality? Does the universe "break"? Or is this no different than from warning people of an approaching hurricane and taking measures to avoid loss of human lives?

Groan!!! But still witty!

I know what you mean, I watched it a couple times and I couldn't quite figure out what she was saying, I looked for a link but no joy. As far as I could tell no, the only thing I didn't quite get was something she called the "co-moving frame" or something similar, it was about the average rest state of the local universe. To be honest I thought I did accompany the video with enough text to set the tone for discussion. If it has been any source other than Sabine I would not have posted their video. She is one of a handful of youtubers that meet the criteria of real science done right. In other words she really is the scientist she claims to be. (she sings as well) She says something about this being connected to quantum gravity. The disconnect I am having a problem with starts at 16:00 and ends at 21:54. BTW does this rule also apply to written reports that do not rely on videos or pictures?

I thought I had a pretty good grip on why FTL was impossible. I was knowledgeable enough to at least think I understood why FTL was impossible even in the face of things like warp drive and worm holes. I was pretty confident that the time travel aspects would prohibit FTL even if the infinite energy requirements didn't. Now I see one of my most respected scientific sources seemingly asserting that all I've been taught was solid as a rock is in fact on shaky ground at best, Sabine Hossenfelder has blown my mind by suggesting all I know might not be as solid as I was led to believe. Is anyone willing to watch this video and assure me that Sabine has slipped a cog so I can let go of the nearest pine tree and return to the idea of solid ground being solid ground?

Is there any chance we can discuss this report from Minot air base? This is not a video and The paper lists the many ways the sighting was documented and is very interesting to say the least. I am thinking of you @swansonT, your input would be greatly appreciated.

Why would outer space be a better place to preserve/store body parts?

Is the Vaquita doomed? With their small size (about one meter) and an economic incentive to continue fishing methods that kill them as by catch can we save them? It is thought that only 10 individuals remain of the population. This short video goes into detail about them.

If the paper doesn't tell it I have no idea.

That is true, but it indicates that a magnetic field can be used in ways that allow for a better coverage from several small magnets rather than one huge one. I think the devil will be in the engineering with this one. Even planetary size mag fields have been proposed.

There seems to be some effort on that front. https://phys.org/news/2022-05-magnetic-astronauts-dangerous-space.html

You assume the radiators would have to be near or in contact with the ice? Ok, lets use silicate debris in stead. Even Kuiper belt objects wouldn't be made of exclusively ice nor would all asteroids be made exclusively of silicates. I am sure there are or will be engineering work arounds for these heat radiation problems. This does direct back to my original premise of detecting aliens via their heat signatures or do we assume they have Clark tech that negates the issue? Heat radiation is a well known problem for space craft and many designs of nuclear powered craft do indeed take this into account.

You would have to have radiators no matter what it was made of wouldn't you?

This thread has moved away from detecting an alien space habitat by it's IR emissions. Currently it is discussing the viability of such habitats pertaining to protecting the inhabitants from space radiation coming in from outside the habitat. Preventing IR radiation from escaping is not relevant and such escape would occur no matter what the habitat was made of. In fact getting rid of waste heat might very well be a problem in the vacuum of space hence my idea of detecting such objects via their IR emissions which is not what we are currently talking about. Yes, we are talking sourcing materials locally in the kuiper belt or asteroid belt. Also boron suffers from being rare in the universe at large as well.

Having the protection spinning causes some problems. its mass for one and it's strength or lack thereof. Ice isn't exactly a strong material for structural use and using using it stationary precludes having to stick the chunks together. Not much more strength than a rubble pile possibly held loosely in place by a light structure of some common metal like aluminum? The habitat itself would be made principally of carbon instead of metals. Much stronger and lighter, and possibly more available in kuiper belt objects than metals although this might not apply if the habitat was made of asteroidal material and in that case even the waste material would be rock instead of ice. If I remember correctly there is also the problem of countering the rotation of the of the habitat. In some of the versions this is countered by having twin cylinders rotating opposite each other. I'm not sure how important this would be. Wouldn't this material be limited due to borons rarity?

You might notice the ice layer I suggested had nothing to do with stopping interior heat from escaping. If we used ice to protect the inner rotating structure from radiation w wouldn't need the magnetic field.

??? I was speaking about how to protect the inhabitants from radiation in space. How is using scraps material to but a shell around the habitat a cost of a lot of energy? I wouldn't expect it to, I was speaking about the problem of particle radiation in space.

As far as I know no potential dyson Swarms have been detected but if controlled fusion is possible th eneed for a dyson swarm evaporates. An artificial biosphere might require the occasional "topping up" of volities and trace elements. The problems really present when you are trying to maintain a biosphere over very long time frames. Radiation can be controlled by placing your habitat inside a shell constructed of the waste materials left over after constructing your habitat, a thick non rotating ice shell should do quite well and we can generate quite powerful magnetic fields as well.

Unregulated, unchained, Capitalism.

The first three are scientifically accurate portrayals of what is possible with our current technology. The others were indeed fictional but I did point that out. The fictional habitats were inspired by the possible reality of the others. We, as a species, need to dream, need inspiration, the fictional habitats may not be possible, the Niven Ring is definitely not possible but is a concept taken to its absolute limit. A simple can shaped object a few kilometers across and rotating for artificial gravity on its inside surface is well within the realms of possibility and is the only practical way to generate artificial gravity we know of. I think there are many reasons planets would not be in demand and possibly ignored completely except as raw materials. Artificial habitats make much more sense. Millions of times the surface area of the Earth could be created using artificial habitats like O'Neill Cylinders , Stanford Torus , McKendree Cylinders or just can shaped shaped habitats lighted from the inside rotated for artificial gravity and even have natural esque type habitats on the inner surface of these objects. These or other artificial habitats could be manipulated to the heart's content of who ever creates them and only have familiar life forms on board. Problems would be encountered on real planets. Planets would have problems ranging from viri to bacteria to fungus but more likely the possibility of environmental poisons like trace elements, too much of some minor gas in the atmosphere or too much environmental toxins like mercury or arsenic or some other poison that would affect them we don't know of. Life is amazingly well evolved to fit its habitat and colonising a strange hut natural world would be fraught by hazards an artificial habitat would not have to worry about. Is this better?

I think there are many reasons planets would not be in demand and possibly ignored completely except as raw materials. Artificial habitats make much more sense. Millions of times the surface area of the Earth could be created using artificial habitats like O'Neill Cylinders , Stanford Torus , McKendree Cylinders or just can shaped shaped habitats lighted from the inside rotated for artificial gravity and even have natural esque type habitats on the inner surface of these objects. These or other artificial habitats could be manipulated to the heart's content of who ever creates them and only have familiar life forms on board. "There are fictional habitats that are beyond our capabilities but more advanced. Banks Orbitals , Bishop Ring, or if you really want to step outside reality a Niven Ring. None of these are possible with our own limited science and are probably not possible at all." Banks Orbital Bishop Ring Niven Ring Lot of fun to speculate about but real problems would be encountered on real planets. Planets would have problems ranging from viri to bacteria to fungus but more likely the possibility of environmental poisons like trace elements, too much of some minor gas in the atmosphere or too much environmental toxins like mercury or arsenic or some other poison that would affect them we don't know of. Life is amazingly well evolved to fit its habitat and colonising a strange hut natural world would be fraught by hazards an artificial habitat would not have to worry about.

This is so funny and it never gets old!

Are you expecting them to colonise planets? There could be thousands of artificial colonies orbiting our sun and we would be unaware of them. Interesting, I'll have to check that out. I am aware of Jacques Vallee and his work with J. Allen Hynek I wasn't aware of this book. Really? Denigrating a comment instead of giving some data to suggest it is wrong in some way is how we should be rolling here?

Arsenic has been suggested as a replacement but much like carbon other possibilities suffer from problems due to simply being similar doesn't mean able to replace.