1

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 21/01/2023 00:11:08 »

I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old )

It looks like the death star:

"That's no moon. Oh wait, it's a moon"

I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the Mimas

Close enough. I get 30% of the diameter, or about 10% of the circumference, which makes it cover maybe 3% of the surface, a slight reduction of my prior estimate.

... as seen from Saturn.

Although most images including the one I posted are not from Saturn. Most are as seen from Earth, as evidenced by the fact that we see most of the daylight side.

Probably much smaller than the diameter of the impact crater of our dinosaur killing asteroid ...?

The Mimas crater is about 130 km across, whereas the Chicxulub crater (Yucatan) is about 150 km across, larger, but not much larger. It's the second largest crater on Earth, with Vredefort being a bit bigger, in South Africa.

There's no trace of the Theia impact structure since that was a melt-the-whole-thing-and-start-over sort of deal. It would not be meaningful to say 'here's the spot where it hit'.

But how come the Search Information says Confirmed vs Provisional?

The provisional ones have not had their sightings or orbits yet confirmed. They might just be a passing object and not in orbit at all.

So WE still aren't Sure how many exact Moons they have?

No, they're really far away and it's awful dark out there, and some of these things are pretty tiny. There must be a threshold of what constitutes a moon vs just a small pebble that happens to be in orbit about something.

Juno & Voyager did take a closer look, Right?

Yes, and they found/confirmed a bunch, but the didn't linger long enough to do a thorough scan of the area. Juno didn't make it to Saturn either.

Thanx Hal for setting me straight...Again!

OK, so setting you even more straight, I'm Halc (rhymes with 'false'). There is another user (occasional poster) on this site whose ID is Hal. I'm not him.

Roger Penrose imagined a Cyclical Universe, isn't it?  So why'd he do dat?

Try something different? Hard to say what he suggests, but it seems like it is playing with conformal time. The view requires infinite time to pass as measured by one bang before the next one happens, and it is unclear if it allows the bang to have any energy associated with it. The bangs still happen everywhere, which is the same as nowhere given infinite time and spacetime becomes singular in a way.

2

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/01/2023 03:24:22 »

I don't have the knowledge or background to qualify me to solve the kinds of problems that the scientific community is dealing with.

I'm not talking about the problems of the scientific community. I'm talking about the problems with bangs happening here and there. You seem to evade them, as does say a theist when confronted with contradictory evidence. Their goals are not scientific ones so they don't mind contradictions.

"the Herschel crater" covers nearly a quarter of Mimas' surface

5% at best, about a 20th. Still dang impressive.

Mimas orbits Saturn, not Jupiter.

I wonder if that kind of impact, from a different angle, could throw the small moon out of orbit and into a collision path with Earth?

It would need to be accelerated anywhere from 6 to 35 km/sec (depending on direction of acceleration) to leave orbit. Anything that hit hard enough to accelerate it that much would shatter it into gravel. Much would fall into Saturn, but some of the fragments would find their way to the orbits of the other planets.

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/01/2023 22:19:41 »

Can the Above Image, thru Wild Speculative Imagination, depict a Cyclical or Splitting Universe/s?

It's a bifurcation diagram, which comes from chaos theory, showing modes of stability, chaos, and strange attractors. Among other things, it's a nice fractal. And yea, it's not what Zero might wildly speculate it to be.

The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.

I consider the "here and there" idea as a hypothetical assertion associated with the multiple Big Bang premise. That premise, as I imagine it, has only one infinite space, so multiple big bangs all occur in that one space, in different places in that space, from time to time.

Yes, you've repeated that a great many times, but you edited out the important part of my post: "Have you given thought as to resolving the problems instead of ignoring them?"

I'm looking at an old copy of Astronomy magazine and the lead story is "Our trillion-galaxy universe".

Another loose usage of the term 'universe', typical of a pop publication. Doubtless they mean the visible universe. There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies in this volume, depending heavily on which ones get counted and when.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the exact cause of the time dilation of the twin?

« on: 15/01/2023 16:19:16 »

It's not a function of acceleration, so I cannot say from just that.

Then would you say that Sabine in the video is wrong?

I am actually going to go so far as to say exactly that. I caution against taking a simple comment out of context, and I'm not much on clicking videos and actually watching them (21 minutes to wade through), and it's Sabine, so I presumed the content is accurate. Well it isn't, which is a shame.

At 0:40 she complains about trying to learn relativity from pop-science sources and failing or finding them incorrect. Many are. Here she is creating her own pop-science tutorial and she does the same thing: get it wrong.

At 1:45 she gets into the length of the path between two sets of coordinates, correctly pointing out that different paths are different lengths despite the beginning and end of the paths being the same, as it is in the twins scenario.

At 6:50 she shows how the calculation of the temporal length of an arbitrary path can be done by breaking the path into pieces and integrating over the length of the path. This is what Eternal Student has done in post 16:

Do you know any math formulas to see how acceleration and time dilation are related?

the elapsed time for the travelling twin (who goes to Andromeda) is given by:

Δτ =   

[Eqn 2]

The computation above is completely scalar. Note the complete lack of acceleration reference in the formula. I see time and speed (v) and that's it. It isn't a function of acceleration, as I said above. The formula above is from special relativity, so it only applies to the special case where gravity is not involved. Hossenfelder's video is entitled "Special Relativity: This Is Why You Misunderstand It", which means the content should stay away from gravity, or the video is mistitled.

And what's with Andromeda? Sure, with enough acceleration, Bob can get there and back before he dies, but Alice (and the whole human race for that matter) isn't going to be there upon his return. Sabine should pick a closer target.

Back to the video:
At 11:00 we get into the twins thing and she correctly says that at least one of the twins needs to accelerate to turn around. That's a biased way of putting it, but true. More correctly, at least one of them needs to accelerate in order for their paths to diverge but meet up a second time. Without acceleration, any relative velocity will just have them meet once at best and forever diverge after that. But it isn't the acceleration that causes the dilation, it is the relative temporal lengths of the paths they take, as computed by the above formula.

11:25 She says acceleration is absolute. She means proper acceleration (the kind you feel with an accelerometer) is absolute. Coordinate acceleration is relative to some coordinate system and is thus not absolute. So sitting at your computer reading this, your coordinate acceleration (relative to your house maybe) is stationary, but your proper acceleration is 1g upward because that's how hard the chair under you is accelerating you.

12:52 She correctly points out that the twins scenario has nothing to do with gravity.

13:39 She correctly points out that the twins starting and ending with the same velocity is not necessary (except to explain that they're twins and presumably had reasonably identical velocity at birth. They merely have to meet twice.

15:30 We start getting into gravity, which is out of scope for a video entitled "Special relativity". She starts with pointing out that under Einstein, gravity is not a force. It is in fact spacetime which has a geometery other than flat Minkowskian spacetime. So anything not accelerating (has no force acting on it) follows a geodesic along the local spacetime.

16:55 She first says acceleration causes time dilation. This is blatantly wrong. Contradictions follow.
17:50 Things really start falling apart. The time runs slower at sea level than on a mountain due to greater acceleration at sea level. This is completely wrong. If true, clocks would run fastest at the center of Earth where acceleration would be zero, but they in fact run slowest there than anywhere else on Earth. The acceleration on the surface of Mercury is under 40% of that on Earth, but time on Mercury runs slower, directly contradicting what Sabine is saying.

19:25 She asks if her video was any better than those incomprehensible books from way back? Well it would be if she hadn't mucked it up.

Back to Special relativity, since I want to disassemble her treatment of that as well and not just her botching the gravity bit. A couple examples contradicting her assertions:

Example 1) Alice, Bob and Chuck are triplets and age 20. Alice stays home. Bob and Check set out on a trip and accelerate identically (10g say) for a month and then coast, riding side by side for a while.  After a year on his own clock, Bob accelerates towards Earth at 10g for 2 months, going back towards home at the same speed he went out. He coasts for another year and takes a month to stop. He's aged 2 years coasting and 4 months acceleration and is age 22y4m now and finds Alice at age 23y2m, or 10 months older. They wait together for Chuck to come back.
Chuck coasts twice as long and turns back. So he ages 4 years coasting and the 4 months accelerating and comes home at age 24y4m finding Alice to be 25y5.7m and Bob to be 24y7.7m.
This contradicts what Hossenfelder says since both Bob and Chuck have experienced identical accelerations, just at different times. They should be aged identically per Hossenfelder's words, but they're not. This is one trouble with doing physics in the language of laymen instead of the language of physcs. Time dilation is not a function of acceleration and there's no mathematical formula expressing it in terms of acceleration.

Example 2)
I have a pair of wheels or gears. One wheel is 1000 times the radius of the other, and they meet at one point and move at the same velocity there. I put a clock on each wheel at the point at which they meet. The wheels get turned with the small  one going around at 1000 times the RPM and hence 1000 times the centripetal acceleration. Both clocks are moving at the same speed relative to the inertial frame of the setup. The two clocks will stay in sync indefinitely despite the one acceleration being a thousand times the other. This also contradicts what Hossenfelder says in the video, but is entirely consistent with the formula that ES provided.

5

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Snakes vision of heat to them is in shades of blue and yellow?

« on: 09/01/2023 18:20:23 »

I have heard that animals like dogs and cats see light in shades of blue and yellow.

Many mammals have cones in their eyes sensitive to these colors, yes. Two is common. I've heard of as many as 16 colors (giving 256 primary colors), but not in a mammal species.

I have heard snakes see infra red light, but in shades of blue and yellow or yellow and red...?

Most snakes are sensitive to green and blue, but some use IR (yes, through the pits) to detect prey.  Mosquitoes and vampire bats have decent IR vision. It's a good thing for a blood sucking species to have. Mosquito's best sense is probably that of CO₂.

What goes on in their retinas and brains?

The retinas are just like any other, but with cones sensitive to different wavelengths than others. As for the brain, one can't say how any of these colors are perceived. Some creature (maybe even another person) might be sensitive to the same colors as you, but perceive them completely differently.

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 05/01/2023 00:38:31 »

On the other hand, fitness of the higher orders, like modern humans, is at a level where survival of the fittest includes competition for scarce resources in the wild

Humans don't do particularly well 'in the wild'. Our forte, as well as our downfall, is the cooperation among large groups (civilization). Take that away and it will be surprising if we can keep our population as high as a thousandth of what it is now. The holocene extinction event is in full swing right now, expecting to eliminate something like 75% of all species. Will humans be part of the 25% that survives? It's questionable, and that makes us not so 'high order'.

one of a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang events, occurring now and then, here and there, across time and space.

That's just a premise, and one that leads to contradictions that have been identified. Have you given thought as to resolving the problems instead of ignoring them?  The 'here and there' part is particularly problematic.

7

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Quantum Manifestation Code Review

« on: 30/12/2022 17:27:53 »

I wanted to ask the same question but couldn't find the requisite motivation.

And you shall not be receiving an answer. This poster was just advertising his site and posting the same stuff on several other forums and social media sites.
It's not billed as a new theory and not phrased as a question, so it violates 3-4 rules already.

8

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 27/12/2022 03:16:17 »

When the survival of the fittest is achieved,

Survival of the fittest is a means to a process, not a goal that is 'achieved'.
Intelligence seems to not be a very fit trait, similar to a disease that is so effective that it kills all its potential hosts. Point is, most planets with life will likely not be found with intelligent beings on it at any given time since their duration is an incredibly short interval.

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/12/2022 20:56:49 »

even a planet killer asteroid would be unlikely to destroy all life.

The biggest hit Earth has ever taken (the Theia event) may or may not have happened before there was life, but it if was already there, it was not wiped out by it. I agree, an asteroid is probably not up to the job, but the coming warming (in a billion years or so) will boil away all water and make the planet uninhabitable for multicellular life. Life will survive this in simple form for several more billion years until the sun grows enough to possibly swallow Earth if it doesn't move far enough away in that time.

I could see a huge chunk of Earth having enough gravity to be planet like, and to host some form of life to start the process over again as it finds a new star or planet out there to orbit around.

It doesn't take a large chunk or gravity at all. Any rock big enough to not be completely destroyed by falling on another host planet can transport dormant life to it. There's a reasonable probability that life originated on some other planet and only got here via such a calamity to the original world. Something lived inside a rock for aeons in space and was deep enough to not be burnt to a crisp on entry into our atmosphere. Then only a few centuries of erosion lets the life out of the rock and bingo, we have life here that originated elsewhere. How it subsequently evolved into the life we know is definitely still a product of Earth's environment which is very likely completely different than the world from which that rock was ejected.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How dense is neutronium and how many stars are in the Milky Way?

« on: 20/12/2022 20:38:17 »

I take it from what you are saying that the strong force is repulsive at very short ranges?

It is, and it is quite attractive at the normal separation between protons (only way to keep them together), so the packing in neutronium is going to be tighter to a point. I don't know the percentage density difference of each of the layers.

I had assumed( naively ) that a neutron star was one big "macro" neutron. Also, if there is a lot of proton matter at the centre there must be a collection of electron somewhere.

There's been a bunch of newer models that show different stuff at different layers, starting with hydrogen/helium/carbon atoms in the 'atmosphere'. Yes, the low-mass free electrons remain with some still-atomic nuclei ions in the outer crust of the otherwise heavily positively charged star. This is followed by inner crust of neutron superfluid where most of the neutrons are (and some electrons), and which insulates the negative particles above from the positive ones below. The outer core is superconducting protons and a sort of neutron-rich quantum liquid, and the inner core is still kind of a mystery exotic substance, perhaps a degenerate quark soup of some kind. The amazing part is how they've measured it all enough to know this stuff.
If the electrons could get to the protons, they'd likely be turned into neutrons as had occurred to most of the proton/electron matter, but the picture below has electrons quite deep where the protons are, so go figure.



Google says density varies from a billion kg/m³ (1e9) at the surface to perhaps 700 million times that at the core (7e17)
Mind you, the former figure (at the crust) is waaay below the density of an atomic nucleus, which is about 2.3e17. So most of the neutron star is less dense than any ordinary atomic nucleus, but near the middle it gets about thrice the density.
The picture above shows inner density at only 4e14 g/cm³ which is 4e17 kg/m³, which is a bit lower than the one google gives me..

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How dense is neutronium and how many stars are in the Milky Way?

« on: 20/12/2022 13:48:46 »

I take it that the number of the stars in the cosmos is infinite?

Given an infinite space model, yes. The number of stars in the visible universe is some finite number like 10²³ or so.

2) Is neutronium so heavy and dense that there is virtually no space between subparticles (in its atoms or molecules?)?

There are neither atoms nor molecules in neutronium. The substance is more dense (but not a lot more dense) than the nucleus of any ordinary atom. It weighs a lot more only because it is only found in extreme gravitational fields under which it is stable. There is space between the particles, held at distance by the nuclear strong force which is strong enough to resist the pressure due to the gravity. The EM force is not strong enough. The center of neutron stars actually have a lot of protons, so perhaps that substance (something other than neutronium) is even more dense that it finds its way to the center. The neutronium is more at medium depths, and there's some actual atoms at the surface of such stars.

Saying there is no space between the particles requires a definition of space 'taken' by the particle. But no fundamental particle has a meaningful volume, so there is in theory no limit to how far it can be compressed given enough pressure.

12

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/12/2022 03:30:12 »

Our earthly situation, to our knowledge, exemplifies the height of knowledge and intelligence, but there is some room to suppose that there have been, or are, more advanced civilizations than ours

This statement almost looks like a suggestion that there's not much more to learn. Such statements have been made in the past, notably in the 19th century.

We may well find irrefutable evidence of other intelligent life out there during our generation or the next generation, and when we do, there will be an awakening to the possibility that life has always existed across space and time

That makes no sense. It would imply that we found life that was always there, that didn't evolve from some sort of start. Also, "when we do"? You mean 'if', and a really big 'if' it is too. Millions of generations, and you thing one or two more will be enough. You should play the lottery if you think those are good odds.

and that realization will open our thinking to far reaching possibilities for the future of Mankind, and for the future of life itself.

Yay! We can be something's dinner!

hopefully by the time a planet killer astroid with Earth's name on it crosses our path and wipes us out, we will have made our break out from Earth.

It is coming inevitably, but it is the least of our problems. Besides, cleaning the slate once in a while is good for things, as evidenced by all the prior ones.

13

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/12/2022 18:31:13 »

I don't think it is possible to imagine a lifeless universe

I can imagine that with little problem.
Much harder is to imagine the universe objectively, since we only know a subjective view.

... you have to be alive to imagine ...

There is no such requirement, except given a biased definition of the word, but that would merely be a language restriction, not a restriction of the ability of something not alive. It would be like saying that no man can be a waitress. It isn't that he can't do it, it's just that a different word would apply to a man doing it.

it is not a deterministic universe.

Unless you can falsify all the deterministic interpretations of physics, you don't know this. Don't confuse deterministic with unpredictable.

It may take a finite time and space for the underlying randomness to appear

It actually seems to appear immediately, but over time averages out to predictability. So flip one coin (black or white side) and you cannot predict the outcome, but flip a million coins, and the result will be grey quite predictably.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time have more than one direction?

« on: 12/12/2022 02:44:20 »

But I thought that there can only be one time axis.

I guess for now I have to figure out how it is logically possible for one dimension to have multiple axis.

There can be only one time axis, just like there's just one x axis. But which way you decide to point it is arbitrary, again just like the x axis. The simple picture ES drew shows more than one way to orient it, but each frame defines only one time axis. There cannot be a second time axis in any given coordinate system.

I thought that we would not be able to do that because the time dimension t is indeed different than the spatial dimension x.  In that sense saying that something is only moving along the time axis or not would seem to actually make an objective difference.

The two are different since it is possible for a rock's worldline to correspond to the time axis if it is stationary in some coordinate system, and it is also at the origin of that coordinate system. The rock's worldline however cannot correspond to the x axis because that would require it to be at multiple locations simultaneously.

Newton is generally credited as the first to use the term "spacetime".

The term, yes, but 4D block universe (eternalism) is older than Galileo. The rotations back then were not Lorentzian (and not even Euclidean), but it was spacetime, if not by that name.

How long did you take to come up with that?

Quite some time ago, when first asked how to point in the 4th direction.

You have a reference for that?

I occasionally listen to Sean Carrol's Mindscape podcast, and he uses a line something like this in his monthly "Ask Me Anything" (AMA) episodes when people ask about the wave function of the universe, or whether the universe is infinite or finite. Such questions have popped up several times.
- As I understand it, in QM, the state space of wave functions exist in Hilbert Space
- Hilbert space may have an infinite or finite number of dimensions.
- Nobody knows whether the universe is infinite or finite, but Hilbert space can represent both
- The extremely large number that I vaguely recall for a finite dimensional Hilbert Space might represent the number of states in our observable universe (making no claims about the number of states in the non-observable universe).

Thanks for this. Funny that I came across a link for me on google news that mentions this, from physicist Sankar Das Sarma, who is speaking here of the landscape problem in string theory:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2349359-why-the-laws-of-physics-dont-actually-exist/
It mentions the 10⁵⁰⁰ thing.

[String theory] also has a rather thorny stumbling block known as the landscape problem, where literally zillions of universes (around 10⁵⁰⁰, the number is so large that it seems obscene) are acceptable solutions of the theory. If string theory is correct one can declare victory as one of those zillions of universes must be our universe, and all one needs to do is to somehow find that particular solution to figure out what the laws of physics are for us. Of course, this is an impossible task because of the exceptionally large number of possible universes existing in the landscape, and all with their own distinct laws.

This scenario is often called the multiverse. All possible laws, conceivable and inconceivable, are allowed in some possible universe, and laws of physics are no longer meaningful or unique from a fundamental sense, since they depend entirely on where in the multiverse landscape one is looking. It is ironic that the theory of everything turned out to imply an everything which is exponentially larger than any everything anybody could have imagined before.

My comment here is about that multiverse reference in the 2nd paragraph. Under MWI , the other worlds all have the same laws of physics, just different outcomes of quantum measurements. This is talking of a different sort of multiverse (I can think of at least six kinds) where there's this huge number of possible sets of 'laws', which is more like the level II multiverse (Tegmark's classification) of eternal expansion bubbles and not the level III multiverse of MWI. Hence my balking at the seemingly low finite number, even if it looks kind of big.

The OP did not ask about entropy, either.

But he asked about the arrow of time (which way is positive along a given axis), and entropy is critical to that.

But I do know that those diagrams are not a proper geometric model of what is actually happening in the Minkowski space.

Those diagrams are an exact model actually, just as much as a map of Paris is a valid (not wrong) representation of actual Paris.

15

Just Chat! / Re: Is "new theories" getting worse?

« on: 09/12/2022 21:25:10 »

I feel an obligation to try to enlighten those who are mired in absolute nonsense but it is rarely productive.

Trust me, DarkKnight wasn't in any way seeking enlightenment. Some do, and you can usually tell those that are trying.
On a positive side, DaveLev has found another site to troll, one that deals with them differently.

16

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/12/2022 23:16:17 »

Agreed they won't be humans, even far from post humans.

We should excercise our Rights to create something way better than Us.

Creating something better than us would be that AGI which you mentioned. Nothing says an AGI needs to be non-biological. OK, I don't think there's any kind of measurement where one can say that species X is better than species Y, but I suppose its continued existence for tens of millions of years would be a start. Sharks are far better than us for instance by this measure. We've been around less than 1% of that time.
The improvements (or redesign from scratch) you suggested would seem to produce something that in no way is related to a human. Neither would have intelligence to speak of, which requires more of a burn-the-candle-at-both-ends sort of design.

I do have Very High Hopes from AGI.
But cracking the nut of " What is Consciousness " seems far fetched at this point in time.

That's only a philosophical problem. The AGI engineers need not concern themselves with it.

I've been Guilty of dragging this OP in nooks & corners where it was unintended to go, hence i shall give my blabbering a rest now.

I suspect Bogey likes the traffic to his topic, regardless of where that traffic takes it. I don't think he resents your input, as evidenced by all the thanked posts you see.

17

Just Chat! / Re: How to access the symbols when correcting?

« on: 08/12/2022 21:03:45 »

Yes, action->modify gets you into a thing with the symbols.
Also, highlighting a subset of a post and then clicking 'quote selected' puts you in quick-reply, as does just typing in the box at the bottom of the page. Quick-reply doesn't have symbols, but if you click 'preview' button below your post, you end up in the not-so-quick editor with the symbols.

18

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 02/12/2022 16:30:14 »

What If...
WE Genetically modify our own Species for better Endurance & Survival rates?

Our endurance and survival rate is not the problem.

What If...
WE successfully create A.G.I. which could swarm & colonize the Whole Galaxy?

That would possibly be something that would last, something that isn't taken out by the filter, at least not the filter that takes us out. It is a real possibility for any technological race that they design their own successor before they get 'filtered' themself. It is probable that some of the races do this. It makes one wonder why we don't see evidence of such a presence in the galaxy. Do the AGIs have a different filter that none survive?

19

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/12/2022 00:17:13 »

I'm the one failing to make the point clear, that both the hospitable environment and the advanced intelligence exist here today, so we have "beat the odds" so to speak.

I can't see even mildly complex life, let alone and advanced intelligence, arising in an environment not suited for it, so I don't see odds to beat. It's not like intelligent life fails to beat the odds by being introduced to a place like the moon and his has a moment to say, "Well this sucks" before it promptly dies.

As for intelligence, humans are, as Zero points out, hardly an advanced one since it seems our only action is to destroy that hospitable environment about as fast as we can. We're not only incapable of doing otherwise, but we seem even incapable of imagining a better course of action. OK, so we'll be eliminated by the great filter like all the others. Maybe we'll even get lucky and not go extinct right away, but the technological part will likely be lost soon and permanently. We'll just be another animal trying to survive the Holocene extinction event then.

Trick is to find some Alien race that didn't take this path. Maybe that's about as impossible for them as it is for us, so we never have time to find each other.

20

Just Chat! / Re: Need Assignment writing help

« on: 29/11/2022 21:12:02 »

I do use this kind of service all the time, without them I`d have wasted so much time

Using your own brain is a waste of time?

It's pretty much a case of paying thousands to get a higher education, and then paying somebody else to actually get that education instead of yourself.