Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan's Canada Cannabis Legalization Logitech Giveaway

We're giving away Logitech hardware to lucky 420chan users to celebrate recreational legalization on October 17!
Round 1 Giveaway Entry     Discussion Thread
Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars by Otto Struve - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:12:35 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57290 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1528413155979.jpg -(198462B / 193.81KB, 945x945) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 198462

>Two landmark discoveries reveal organic carbon on the red planet, shaping the future hunt for life on Mars.

I'm scared guys. This could mean life is common in the universe, which means the Great Filter is ahead of us instead of behind us.


Then again, maybe this can show us the Great Filter is already behind us but when it comes to cosmic horror, I'm a half-empty kinda guy.
21 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
James Christy - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:15:43 EST ID:unNII3om No.57328 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>The number of extant species is a pretty much irrelevant fact to the rate of the evolution of intelligence
>Intelligence develops logarithmically, but that doesn't mean anything about it's process is 'accidental'; its driven by the necessity of the evolutionary arms race.

It is very relevant. Looking at the history of evolution, intelligence seems to not be driven by competition between species but rather competition within species.

Today we have a bunch of intelligent species, within birds, cetaceans and primates. And only primates have the manipulatory limbs to actually make something of that intelligence. That is still one in how many groups of animals?

Truth is that maintaining intelligence is expensive, using energy and resources that may well be better used elsewhere. All truly smart animals today are few in numbers. Even humans were very few at some point. There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.

>That's precisely the point of the Fermi paradox. I feel like you guys aren't even grasping the fundamental issue and are getting derailed by trivial aspects.

The point with the 'accident' thing is to show how much stochasticity rules our world. A species might be selected for intelligence for some time, but then be selected for something else due to changing biological competition or physical factors. Or the line may be erased completely during a mass extinction or climate change. Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fred Hoyle - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:08:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>> There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.
>>Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.
These ideas are mutually exclusive. If evolution can only select for what is beneficial now, not in the future, then the lower stages of intelligence must also have some utility or they indeed would not be selected for to even be able to reach the higher stages. You contradict yourself.

Moreover, all this, as well as your comments about stochastic processes, are all already conceived within the figures of the Drake equation. So pointing things we all already know out about how life came into being does nothing to address the actual question/problem.

>>Earth is predicted to be within the first 7% of all possible lifebearing worlds that will ever be.
I've seen that result, and I think it's totally spurious from the data of the study it came out of. It assumes a lot of things about the requirements for life (do we really need trace amounts of chromium for life to exist at all? Or was it just the case that there happened to be chromium on earth and life integrated it? Think critically about that...) I think a more reasonable estimate for the earliest entrance of life is about ~7 billion years post big-bang, when there was enough carbon (which may indeed be an essential element) but negligible amounts of all heavier elements. That's quibbling though; even if we are in the first 7%, where are the other 6%?

>>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.
Again, you should actually analyze the study rather than taking the pop-sci lead line as the truth. I've seen this cycle of articles and it's mostly hogwash (in terms of what the journos claim the scientists found -- the scientists themselves have a very even handed understanding of their study.)
So what that study did was assign uncertainty di…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Roger Penrose - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:07:26 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.

We'll all be Cthulhu all along.
We'll do the buttprobing and dreamraping.
William Lassell - Mon, 08 Oct 2018 21:26:14 EST ID:yD6mVrhM No.57463 Ignore Report Quick Reply

well said

Russel Hulse - Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:39:02 EST ID:unNII3om No.57465 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1539304742880.jpg -(109315B / 106.75KB, 1155x851) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Silly carbon based lifeform looking for 'life' like its only based on material element configurations.

Please thank me for not notifying the Elder Ones over this transgression. You are still young, like We used to be. I am sure even the plasma-based gestalts would get triggered over this so I'll keep quiet.

Though please tone down your radio transmissions, it scrambles any Aether-Mind whose stellar winds brings them close to your little star. Thank you.

Perseid meteor shower! by Johann Encke - Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:29:34 EST ID:evrPe8Vs No.51233 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1375284574338.jpg -(3913B / 3.82KB, 262x192) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3913
Anyone else gonna observe this beautiful event?

Incase you haven't heard from AUG 12th to the 13th between 10:30PM and 4:30 AM, The sky's gonna light up with massive fireballs brighter than Jupiter.
40 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Wilhelm Beer - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 00:15:44 EST ID:uuw9w7i5 No.57000 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I did not know this was annual

you failed me Sagan
William Lassell - Sat, 19 Aug 2017 22:02:46 EST ID:dG4sHLwu No.57004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I caught sight of seven or so. Too bad it was too cloudy most of the time. Really want to go out of the city for next year.
William Huggins - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 21:16:36 EST ID:ncMk3uyQ No.57421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1533950196710.jpg -(218967B / 213.83KB, 964x641) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anyone going to observe this year's Perseid meteor shower?

Hoping for a cloudless sky.
Christiaan Huygens - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:20:31 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Almost all meteor showers are annual or cyclical, dood. We aren't here to teach you astronomy, we're here to talk about it.
Roger Penrose - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:59:14 EST ID:U4u72hWB No.57464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if you don't ask they don't have time to tell.

Dark Matter and GR - struggling to understand by Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:15:14 EST ID:9RKOIT3O No.57458 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538313314587.jpg -(134701B / 131.54KB, 835x557) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 134701
Hey there fellow egghead stoners. Would you be able to guide me through this?

So, the whole concept of dark matter and energy. I find it a little dubious, I take it this hasn't been confirmed in any way - rather, like many theories in physics has been introduced as an attempted explanation of mismatch between empirical data and theoretical predictions.

But this is just an impression I've got from the superficial knowledge of modern physics I've got, so I'd rather first understand the basis for this hypothesis better before judging it dubious.

So the way I understand it is the concept was proposed in 30s to explain the observed movement of galaxies, in particular why some stay in clusters rather than be launched off due to the acquired speed.

So it is inferred that there must be enough gravity force to keep them together instead. This begs the first question: what is the expected mass calculation based on? As in, how'd they go about measuring that?

But all right, aside from that bit I'm missing, assume the mass predictions are sound. In Newtonian mechanics - so far so good. But now if we introduce GR we allow the concept of black holes which would escape our observations. Why does that not account for 'dark matter' effect? It fits the criteria of (1) great mass (2) inability to be observed

So the way this is taken into account, I understand, that all right - there may be black holes which we cannot observe, but we still have a rough prediction on their mass which we infer from gravitational lensing - and that is way not enough to account for 'dark matter', and hence the concept remains valid.

My questions to you anons:
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Johann Encke - Mon, 01 Oct 2018 01:21:26 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>> what is the expected mass calculation based on?
Light from main sequence stars. We look at a galaxy, look at it's luminosity to estimate the number of main sequence stars, and estimate mass from that. Almost all galaxies thus have a totally insufficient amount of normal matter to account for their mass (although we have found some galaxies without dark matter, or with hardly anything but dark matter, but this is quite rare) or rather, what their mass would have to be in order for them to maintain coherency.

>> there may be black holes which we cannot observe, but we still have a rough prediction on their mass which we infer from gravitational lensing
You would think we could do this, but in practice we can only use gravitational lensing and other gravitational effects to detect black holes in this way if there is a significant amount of parallax on the black hole (otherwise, unless we are just lucky enough to have a sufficiently bright star in line with it and us along its event horizon, we will simply miss it) for this reason we can use this method to kind of hunt randomly for black holes, we can't use it to estimate how many black holes there actually are -- we have no idea as to the answer to that question, from an empirical standpoint.
>>2) Any resources on the subject to recommend which would explain in bit more detail how the calculations made?
>>iii) therefore there must be mass
I think there are strong reasons to suspect this line of thinking might be flawed, especially since the only reason we describe dark matter as matter is simply because we can't think of anything else to describe it as. Relatively popular but unaccepted are theories that dark matter and energy represent the influence of alternate quantum realities upon our universe, or may otherwise be some sort of shadow of the m-brane. Unfortunately, a long running contender for non-DM/DE explanations, MOND, was recently disqualified due to new observations, although people are seeing if it can be saved with an update.

In short, absolutely it could be something else. DM/DE really is just a placeholder. But that begs the question: what…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fred Hoyle - Sat, 06 Oct 2018 19:23:55 EST ID:8/fKg+Ea No.57462 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Hopefully the James Webb space telescope will be launching under it's most recent date in 2021 and provide us some new insights.

That FTL means time travel meme by Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:22:45 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513480965587.gif -(117244B / 114.50KB, 323x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117244
I have a question regarding this:
If you look at this gif it shows you "backwards" travel:
The first "jump" after the first acceleration points into the direction that corresponds to the lower left quadrant of the previous reference frame leading to backwards time travel.
However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legal which would imply forward time travel. This would imply that direction you are moving in space would dictate the direction of the "time travel" which seems entirely non-sensical to me.
I guess this is also the point but I still get the feeling I'm missing something here.
18 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Russel Hulse - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:46:18 EST ID:unNII3om No.57454 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>'You' could make it if 'you' are defined as the singular positions and velocity of your molecules at a given point in time.

Which is not what I view as 'you'. We do agree on that consciousness is something else than the matter that give rise to it, but I think we have different perspectives on what truly is 'you'. And I don't think we should ignore the super-structured of matter, neural nets, which is the reason why personality and memories are so long lived.

I am well aware of the Ship of Theseus as a philosphical paradox, so let me clarify my position.
I see consciousness as primarily a process of interactions happening in time, in the form of interactions between structures of matter. It is a matter of causality, not the constituent atoms. As long as the super-structures and processes of those structures remains intact, 'you' are alive. The matter making up your brain can be constantly replaced, as long as the process itself is unbroken the fact that the wood of your ship today is not the wood when your ship was made does not matter.

Now perhaps I misunderstand quantum teleportation, and if I do please tell me. But as I see it, once that process is broken for even a planck-length of time, you're no more.
The information of you is transmitted, but the process that is you is obliterated.
Harlow Shapley - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:20:40 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57455 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>> But as I see it, once that process is broken for even a planck-length of time, you're no more.
The idea would be that it would occur simultaneously, with no break in operation.
Consider it this way -- people have been resuscitated from an utterly dead state, because their bodies were so cold that molecular motion slowed down so significantly that no advanced brain deterioration could occur. We assume that the person reanimated was the same person, and not some sort of psychic clone; because why would it be?
So if, prior to teleportation, your global body temperature reached absolute zero and stayed that way, it wouldn't matter if teleportation took a second or a thousand years, as long as every molecule was kept at absolute zero (ignoring the problem of ice crystal formation for now -- lets assume we're talking about a sentient robot, or perhaps a tardigrade like lifeform.)

>> as long as the process itself is unbroken
But that was the point of my previous post. I attempted to illustrate how the process that generates your consciousness has nothing to do with the particular atoms and everything to do with the pattern (process) in which they are arranged. So, in our hypothetical teleporter, all structures and structural processes remain intact. There is no lapsed period of operation -- at the smallest physical scale, both in space and time, there is no difference between the start and end configuration. By the fundamental definition of 'process' from a physics standpoint, nothing could be broken.

Which means we are left with two alternatives; either what you consider to be your consciousness is indeed the result of the pattern of configuration of your brain, which means that if that pattern of configuration is replicated exactly, the same phenomena arises -- like causes leading to like results, the foundation of empiricism. Alternatively, if consciousness did not persist through this transition, we would have to speculate as to why -- the most clear implication being that there is some 'hidden variable' beyond the physical configuration that enables the persistence of consciousness. Since, from a physicists standpoint, we believe that the physi…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:55:44 EST ID:3nlPOKZc No.57456 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:42:04 EST ID:9RKOIT3O No.57459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legal
Equally illegal? ;)

>This would imply that direction you are moving in space would dictate the direction of the "time travel" which seems entirely non-sensical to me.
These diagrams are entirely symmetrical in terms of all dimensions, as in choice of 'left' and 'right' just as 'up' and 'down' is arbitrary

I feel there is an ambiguity in what constitutes time travel. As in, the intuition we typically may have about this being '2018-09-30' -> '2008-09-30' same place.

But in terms of general relativity, any travel with speed >c is time travel. This is called moving in a 'timelike curve' in 4D spacetime - as opposed to 'spacelike curves' which we (and all we know) typically move on. On the GIF all curves within yellow area are spacelike and blue area timelike.

So for example if you 'teleported' a light year away from your current whereabouts, that'd be considered time travel. Because if you send a light signal to earth, and teleport back - you will not see it for another year. So you influenced the future without exactly 'changing' the date on your calendar

Mind you if you simply travel half a year back/forward keeping your position fixed, you'd arrive in some different place because likely the earth, sun and entire galaxy would've moved away.
Bart Bok - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:55:02 EST ID:9RKOIT3O No.57460 Ignore Report Quick Reply
or maybe better example:
  1. you travel a year back in time from now to 2017
  2. you end up a light year away from initial position
  3. 2017 you wants to send stock market results to 2018 you
  4. at best 2017 you will be able to send them with speed of light
  5. light takes a year to arrive to 2018
  6. in that case, the information you're sending arrives in 2018 and you haven't actually managed to send it back in time, because it still has to make up for the distance before it reaches you

if you change space distance from 1 light year away to 0.5 light year away however, you will be able to send information to 'past you' (with speed of light) so it arrives mid-2017 (and either you're filthy rich or paradoxically disappear hehehe)

Interchan Warning System by Maximilian Wolf - Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:48:46 EST ID:9ugkcJUP No.57457 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538110126824.jpg -(74637B / 72.89KB, 548x550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74637


***End of message***

fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
42 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tadashi Nakajima - Sat, 01 Sep 2018 20:14:21 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1535847261430.png -(8440B / 8.24KB, 226x223) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> the universe changing from having mostly 3-dimension of space into having 4-dimension of space
Woah what? Who thinks that? The only work in cosmology I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.)
Charles Bolton - Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:08:29 EST ID:JZaPhwDK No.57443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I love this kind of stuff, do you have any resources you can link to support your statements?
Charles Messier - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:45:13 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57444 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'll help Lemaitre out by saying the first two statements are uncontroversial possibilities thoroughly discussed ITT. The first is the Big Freeze, Heat Death, leading to a Big Rip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
The second is the Big Crunch, which is now thought to be impossible under current observations but was popular in the 20th C.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

As for the third I have no idea what he's alluding to and I'm really interested also.
Johannes Kepler - Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:46:39 EST ID:kahFeNFq No.57452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Woah what? Who thinks that?
people trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single theory

do you try to quantize gravity or do you try to gravitize quanta?
do you treat quantum entanglement as tiny wormhole?
do you treat blackhole as the entropy surface?
could geometry of space be determined by level of entanglement in quantum foam in a region of space?
could dimensionality of space be an emergent property of quantum mechanics?

>I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.)

try incorporate probabilities into dimensions of space

does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?
Chushiro Hayashi - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:01:29 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57453 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?
Perhaps, it is more like the image suggests; it's a suggestion about the topology of spacetime and whether causality or space could be consistent with that number of dimensions. However, it's equally likely that all those other possible coordinates could also have universes like ours, in which the mathematics equally suggest that only their dimensional composition is possible and all others impossible.

Fermi Paradox... why? by Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 May 2014 00:54:34 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53812 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1400734474447.png -(111524B / 108.91KB, 400x325) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111524
Another thread made me start thinking about this. The Fermi Paradox states (thanks, Wikipedia):

>The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
>Some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
>Presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
>At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

If that's the case, why haven't we been colonized already, or at least seen evidence of intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy?

My take: either A) Life takes a long time to develop, and somehow, improbably, we're the first planet to develop an intelligent civilization in our galaxy, or at least one of the first. We don't see anyone else because there isn't anyone else to see... yet, or we're all still too far apart.

Or b) Given the size and composition constraints of a planet able to foster and sustain life (as far as we know, "habitable zone," big enough to have an atmosphere, small enough to still be rocky, etc.) and continue long enough for said life to begin to explore the galaxy, the home planet simply runs out of resources before meaningful headway can be made. I think this is more of a slow-death kind of thing where maybe we get to do some exploration within the solar system and maybe a bit beyond for a while, but overpopulation, war, disease, famine, and whatever else causes us to realign our priorities from space exploration to merely sustaining life on our own planet. A civilization that had the foresight to know something like that was happening could theoretically, if they had the goal of galactic expansion from the start, avoid this situation, but the problem is that NO civilization has that kind of 10,000 year plan from the get-go, and they all sputter out right before they could have pulled it off. There's not a textbook on "how to succeed as a species" that gets handed out to a life form when it develops self-awareness,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
310 posts and 74 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:08:47 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1513098527755.png -(5149B / 5.03KB, 584x33) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Karl Jansky - Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:10:38 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57278 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Too much thread to read all of. There are a number of posts saying that neither we nor aliens would have any reason to colonise other places, as the resources aren't really very useful, colonies would be potential rivals and technology means we can just dick about in cyberspace instead.

They're good points but they're not enough. Life likes to go forth and multiply; if it didn't, it wouldn't be life. It's hard wired into us that we'll want to fuck off somewhere else if we can, just because. Even from a more logical point of view, the more habitats we have, the harder it'll be for us to go extinct; either by accident or at the hands of malicious aliens. Someone already said it's hard to imagine humanity just jerking off on the internet until the sun explodes. Our species, or whatever it turns into, can survive the sun's extinction, if we just make sure we're on other planets too. Not just planets; planets are sitting ducks to relativistic weapons. Generation ships in deep space on unpredictable courses would be impossible to eradicate as they'd be impossible to pinpoint. Which is another possible problem with finding aliens, if they've taken that route.
William de Sitter - Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:27:28 EST ID:tPhrSit2 No.57447 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You just have to make sure the messages are either really simple or cover absolutely everything if they're taking that long
Giovanni Cassini - Sun, 16 Sep 2018 15:13:24 EST ID:fA4CdeQA No.57448 Ignore Report Quick Reply

We will never become a cyberspace species because I will not allow it. I will lead the Realist Liberation Front in which members will forcibly destroy all human/machine interfacing equipment, destroying the vile evil of a false reality. Godlessness will die.
Paul Goldsmith - Sun, 16 Sep 2018 17:40:42 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537134042772.gif -(1032340B / 1008.14KB, 364x243) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>they're taking that long
Tachyonic antitelephone, when?
So far the only kind of signal that can propagate FTL we know of is entanglement. Is there some way we could keep two photons entangled during the journey of one of them to a nearby star and use changes in the photon's spin to send data?

The cyborgs and machines will never allow this to happen. They will use a trillionth of their excess processing power to engineer a technical solution rendering your paramilitary powerless in the time it takes one of your dudes to blink after announcing the start of their campaign. They would probably be able to effortlessly sandbox you so that you think you are waging this futile war while harmlessly plugged in.

I mean, have you seen the Matrix my dude? Guys in power armor and with machine guns don't stand a chance against the might of the Machine.

How does a closed by jolinar - Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:31:55 EST ID:4+cG6NBX No.57348 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1531787515505.jpg -(85295B / 83.30KB, 1125x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85295
Timeline curve work? Could you be trapped in it forever ?
I have a writing prompt
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:04:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531800268505.png -(130973B / 127.90KB, 431x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Closed timelike curves are totally theoretical objects -- we have no real information about how they would work, or if they are even possible. Essentially, what is 'curved' in a CTC is the 'geodesic' of spacetime. What this means that, for example, if you had a geodesic curvature in space at a 45 degree angle and you fired a laser beam into that space, as it entered it the beam within it would appear to you (if you could see it reflected) as if it had bent at that same angle even though it encountered no object. In a 'closed' timelike curve, remembering that space and time are a continuum, if the curvature is so extreme that it forms a torus, i.e. loops back on itself, and one traversed the distortion in the (normally flat i.e. euclidean) curved spacetime, one could end up at the end of passing through the distortion at the same point in space, but an earlier point in time.

If you were stuck on it would depend on how you got into such an unusual object in the first place. If the geodesic torus could only be made so small, so that in order to traverse it one had to travel at relativistic speeds, the degree of time distortion could be amplified. Also, it's possible that actual matter (rather than energy) trapped within a CTC could become inertially unbound, so there might be no way to stop a spacecraft (for example) that was travelling through one, trapping its crew on an eternal voyage into the past (or future, depending on the 'direction' the geodesic is distorted in the fourth dimension.)

Anyway, a lot of people will not see any time travel story as 'hard sci-fi' so you probably have a lot of leeway. Hawking famously believed that a CTC would destroy itself in a cosmological version of the grandfather paradox, as heat from the torus' relative future would propagate backwards in time, eventually creating a thermal singularity that would destroy it.
Vesto Slipher - Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:52:54 EST ID:BJSneKKV No.57445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I’ve seen it trapped forever
Annie Cannon - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:46:07 EST ID:yzfSDg8q No.57446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Theoretically, you cease to exist in the timestream as soon as you get in the box, while your time-travelling double (who left the box at some point in the past) continues along the timestream as normal and never gets back in the box. In theory.

moon by Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:35:24 EST ID:HhkM3rED No.57285 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527777324976.jpg -(2143958B / 2.04MB, 2580x2452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2143958
Does the moon really have influence on behavior? Or is it a well loved myth?
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:12:22 EST ID:lfz4p1Et No.57345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Good post! I'd give you some internet points, if that were an option.
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:43:45 EST ID:a/BMXTZM No.57346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Tell me more tell me more. Or feel free to post on /spooky/ and link
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:22:10 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531801330505.jpg -(174176B / 170.09KB, 754x1070) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think I'll play it safe and leave it at that for here. Took the meta topic (of skeptical illuminism) to /spooky/ like you suggested, to expand it a bit beyond simply astrology. See ya there anyone who is still interested!
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:13:41 EST ID:qgHixtEA No.57436 Report Quick Reply
So, as a general skeptic of anything that can't be scientifically proven, I never actually believed in this.

Until I started working with people with developmental disabilities.

For whatever reason, the day after full moons, behaviors in clients would spike drastically. Most of the times that I was attacked, bitten, had my hair pulled, was the first day after a full moon. My personal belief was that this may simply be a function of the increased amount of light at night, with my reasoning being that it kept people up more at night, especially those who were sensory sensitive. As irritability is a common side effect of lack of sleep, this would lead to clients being more sensitive to stimuli that might upset them. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but I think it deserves to be said. I actually have data on attacks and behaviors from one client who required close recordkeeping, but have yet to compare this data to full moons. However, I do know that at least a few times, the night was completely overcast. Perhaps enough light filters through the clouds to support my theory of light interfering with sleep, but I really couldn't say without having actually measured the amount of moonlight on a nightly basis. And if it was solely a question of light, why didn't these behaviors occur in a smooth curve as the moon waxed and waned, instead of tending to occur all at once, the day after the full moon?

I really don't know. I wish I had answers, because it would have helped me out a lot in my last job.
Edmond Halley - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:08:12 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57437 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How could it really be the light though, since humans have been exposed to a huge amount of additional light thanks to artificial lighting and no one has gone crazy? There would have to be something special about light coming from the moon, which is even a more woo-woo direction to go in that assuming it has something to do with the tides or magnetism.

Lakes of liquid water found on Mars by Caroline Herschel - Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:44:03 EST ID:CZNpyEE2 No.57358 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1532634243590.jpg -(3262171B / 3.11MB, 5333x3333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3262171
Ground-penetrating radar images of the southern polar cap of Mars taken by ESA's Mars Express suggest the presence of liquid water 1.5 km beneath the surface. As pure liquid water probably cannot exist at such a shallow depth and low temperature, the research team posits that the water is a brine with salts and perchlorates that dramatically lower its freezing point. The largest discovered aquifer is 20 km wide, but its thickness cannot be accurately estimated. The water reservoirs would take the form of salty brine pools beneath the mile of layered ice and dust, or the water might be a component of thicker brine-dirt sludge, mixed with Martian regolith.


Astronomical data by James Randi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:36:57 EST ID:BPHCgbLm No.57327 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530293817601.jpg -(138469B / 135.22KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 138469
I had an idea to build a digital astronomical clock for fun in unity as a learning exercise. It would include solar system clock showing the "time" and such on various planets and a 3rd model of the solar system.
I'd like to try aim for a bit of realism and have the models of planets be in accurate locations to real life.
What would be the best source for finding out planet locations so that they don't all start in the 12 oclock position when I start my program?
Like if I added Mars, how do I find how far into its solar year (month?) It currently is on Mars?

I'm new to coding in general, I already have the data for earth but that's done simply by telling the program to check the system clock and moves the model of earth to right orientation.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:18:07 EST ID:IRQpyxVi No.57336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
fuck, i cut out parts of the post i didnt mean to and left a part i didn't want left in because i was gonna make a suggestion for doing something and realized id rather leave it out since it didnt seem to go with what you had in mind.

what i was trying to let you know is, though, that finding out what time it is on other planets is that you're going to have to look up how the time of day was initially decided on being determined for each respective time-zone on Earth. Along with that, since the boundaries for time-zones are mostly arbitrary, but aren't entirely, you're going to have to look up the criteria that was used for ultimately deciding where a boundary would be placed by those that established GMT. Then you're going to have to do a little of analysis and decide how to best place those boundaries on each individual planet with respect to its size, its distance from the sun, the shape of its orbit and how variable its distance from the sun potentially is during a given time of year in its orbit, the rate it makes a full revolution in its planetary spin, etc.

It's gong to require some serious effort even without including the programming. Hope things turn out well for you, just don't mistake that it'll be a lot of time and work.
James Randi - Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:55:01 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well I geuss I'd have to give each planet its own calender's then.
fun project.
James Randi - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:46:11 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
any links to some sort of table would be helpful too
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:39:49 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57355 Ignore Report Quick Reply
they mention:
digging a little there is also this:
which leads to this
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:51:43 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Digging a little lets me realize that using that python api would be massive overkill
The table you want is here:
or to precise in this pdf document:

images by Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:49:29 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57323 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530287369168.jpg -(3086272B / 2.94MB, 7680x4320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3086272
Since this is an imageboard, let's post space related images.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:51:10 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287470168.jpg -(1757861B / 1.68MB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:52:42 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287562168.jpg -(247670B / 241.87KB, 1000x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:56:12 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287772168.jpg -(136960B / 133.75KB, 1680x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Vera Rubiin - Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:30:41 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531002641478.gif -(2398469B / 2.29MB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.