my name is Aria, in game name is AriaNekogirl. I'm a dork a nerd and a gamer girl all rolled into one! I love animals shooter games and anime (yeah yeah yeah Weeb lul haha) if you have any questions just feel free to ask me! I'm an open book!
Welcome to Banzore!
Be part of something great, join today!
HI, Name's Aria
- Thread starter Ecchi Kitten
- Start date
-bZ-BigMilfyFuta
-bZ- Member
Yes I have a question. Why does nobody consider "we are just very small and space is very big" a viable answer to the Fermi Paradox? Every solution is asymptotic this and special life that. How are all the world's smart people not considering "yeah, space just big; physics just limiting"? WHY?
Another question. Consider the following: Choose any positive integer and
Another question. Consider the following: Choose any positive integer and
- If the number is even, divide it by two.
- If the number is odd, triple it and add one
Last edited:
Aria, welcome aboard!
To answer your first question: why not consider that the aliens are already here? Surely you've dug deep enough to at least entertain this possibility. Hell, they're one explanation for the pre-Cambrian explosion.
No one has proven your second question yet, and many have tried - Paul Conway being a famous one if I recall correctly. If you solve it, some organization somewhere will pay you a million dollars.
Okay, my turn: why though?
-bZ-BigMilfyFuta
-bZ- Member
Why not?
to answer the 1st question, space is an ever expanding domain isnt it? while we ie the earth remains the same, if thats the case then why arent smart people considering that? because if they do then they remain small and insignificant and the second question....why math uhhh sure! why not
thank you! <3
no i was not, sorry to disappoint
-bZ-PizzaPanda
-bZ- Member
If you have 3 ducks and 1 is wearing a summer dress, how will 1 of the 2 other ducks respond if either if not both packed the very same dress in their luggage the night before the wedding? Is the answer that the duck that is wearing the dress right now is a better mother than the rest and the others can’t actually swim that well or rather the “other” duck had purchased the dress on sale at Target and as a result, is a far superior and thrifty duck than the others.
My answer is that each of them bought the sundress as a charity event sponsoring something important to one of them, regardless of how they all feel, this one thing is important to all of them, so they put the weird thing about clothes aside to stand for something bigger than themselves
-bZ-BigMilfyFuta
-bZ- Member
You're talking about the dark energy conundrum. This is why we say "observable universe", because the expansion of space/time is relatively faster the further away from observer, so there are parts of the universe we can never see because space/time is expanding faster than light. Some models predict that in about a hundred trillion years there will be a significant reduction in the number of stars visible in the sky (were the earth still around) due partially to stellar material exhaustion but also because these expansion of space/time will have been going on for so long that the "space" between galaxies has reached an expansion rate that exceeds light speed. This is also known as the Big Freeze or Heat Death.
This could explain why we aren't finding an ETs but it would only explain the lack of contact beyond that universal horizon. The number of galaxies alone still within our observable universe is so staggering that even if there were only one intelligent species per galaxy there would still be trillions of them. The answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple. Space is massive and there are some rules in physics that simply can't be circumnavigated regardless of what our best sci-fi writers think up.
We just won't ever be able to fuck sexy blue space babes.
outlinedlizard
-bZ- Member
Welcome aboard.
What did I just read.
What did I just read.
it is a shame not seeing/fucking sexy blue space babes, yes. :c
thanks!, and you're reading me regretting saying ask me anything.
Check that assumption about an expanding universe...
James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…
Webb was expected to merely confirm the Standard Model of the universe but its images are “surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.”
mindmatters.ai
-bZ-BigMilfyFuta
-bZ- Member
Eric Lerner is a kook in the realm of astrophysics. Probably not as well known but he is literally the Jenny McCarthy of that field of science. He's been a Big Bang denier for decades and cherry picks/alters context of data from other scientists to sell some dumb as rocks book from the 90s.Check that assumption about an expanding universe...
James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…
Webb was expected to merely confirm the Standard Model of the universe but its images are “surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.”
The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings
I dislike all of you. Welcome to Banzore!
Seems you and the author of the article have confused the definition of science from "a method of asking questions and seeking answers" to "a body of irrefutable facts to be memorized for the sake of passing exams at university". That was possibly the most embarrassingly unscientific article I've ever read, and it is also quite clear that neither of you understand how the scientific journal industry actually operates.Eric Lerner is a kook in the realm of astrophysics. Probably not as well known but he is literally the Jenny McCarthy of that field of science. He's been a Big Bang denier for decades and cherry picks/alters context of data from other scientists to sell some dumb as rocks book from the 90s.
The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findingswww.space.com
"...from other scientists..." yeah that's how the entire citation process works.
Here's one for ya: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." - Richard Feynman
Big Bang has some circumstantial evidence but has yet to be proven by experiment despite all the efforts at CERN and other colliders.
The scientific method is not perfect. It has weaknesses. The key fallacy therein is that everything that exists can be observed, measured, or detected by humans. Such hubris. Shameful, really. It's funny - good scientists are able to say "we don't know, but this explanation fits". Most people are unable to say this, because it's never been a question on an exam in a building full of 18-to-20-year olds who dont know anything yet. Here, give this a read: https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...xperiment, it's wrong.,be willing to be wrong.
It's a shame that people have come to believe that science means to parrot rather than to think - to be able to shout I'M RIGHT rather than to sit alone somewhere quietly and think maybe we're wrong.
-bZ-BigMilfyFuta
-bZ- Member
lmao space.com isn't a scientific journal you goon; its a news site for relevant topics. This article is just pointing out that Lerner is misquoting Kirkpatrick to suit his own narrative. He's been doing it for decades, and citation is only citation when you don't intentionally warp and skew the data being cited otherwise its just douchebaggery.
Oh and you may want to check yourself. You're right when you say good science involves reflecting on your hypothesis when it doesn't match the experiment, but this isn't that. It's one scientist claiming a QUOTE from another scientist points to immediately debunking Standard Model, and the rest of the scientific body saying "yea this is weird but there is a whole host of other shit going on that could impact the results". Science is not about being wrong. Its about being able to admit when your hypothesis is wrong. And the overwhelming majority of the scientific body agrees that the recent JWST results do not immediately contradict Standard Model.
Lower the suspension on that horse of yours. There's not as much oxygen that high up.
Oh and you may want to check yourself. You're right when you say good science involves reflecting on your hypothesis when it doesn't match the experiment, but this isn't that. It's one scientist claiming a QUOTE from another scientist points to immediately debunking Standard Model, and the rest of the scientific body saying "yea this is weird but there is a whole host of other shit going on that could impact the results". Science is not about being wrong. Its about being able to admit when your hypothesis is wrong. And the overwhelming majority of the scientific body agrees that the recent JWST results do not immediately contradict Standard Model.
Lower the suspension on that horse of yours. There's not as much oxygen that high up.
Last edited: