Comments by "" (@12q8) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. Oh, ok. Figured. Lol
    11
  2. I think we would need some breakthroughs in energy production before getting a good jump to type I.
    7
  3. Is it because aluminium is cheaper? I guess that would have been a better choice when rockets were disposable.
    6
  4.  @fn0rd-f5o  About 200 light years, give or take. If we were to discover those ways, we would probably need different models for physics that covers what we know and more, and test them. Relativity isn't fact, it is the best we have to describe what we see. The distinction is crucial. Relativity doesn't prove Newton wrong, rather is just a better descriptor. Perhaps the universe works in more mysterious ways than we relativity says.
    2
  5. What if among all the "noise" we hear is actually encrypted communications between alien space ships? Would we be able to tell the difference?
    2
  6. Could it be a secret military satellite?
    1
  7. I think it's a great idea to transmit. Even if we assume the worse, and annihilation happens, there will be no one to mourn our departure. If we assume invations and exploitation, then it gives us a chance to fight back when we gain the knowledge or power. A worse scenario would be a sufficiently advanced civilization that is aware of our capabilities, and genetically modifies us for their servatitude, sort of similar to what we've done with dogs, but within a single generation. However, we would still exist in bliss due to how humans would be genetically modified to. Overall, I think broadcasting messages is rather a great idea. However long it would take for our messages to reach some civilization, it would be enough time for us to either reach a higher level of technological advancement or just evolve backwards to hunter gatherers, and really all the aliens can do is say "there was once a starter civilization here" The risks don't outweigh the costs for broadcasting.
    1
  8. What id between us and that star is a cloud of matter that absorbs other colors except for green?
    1
  9. There is so much hope that perhaps the model is wrong and that there is a better complete model if we work from the ground up to allow FTL.
    1
  10. It is more realistic to consider cummaltive supplies since 2012, because I am almost certain a lot of the already produce lithium is lost. Destroyed and probably as hard to extract from dirt as it is to extract it from the oceans. Landfills could be more feasible, but if I destroy my battery, then probably huge chunks of it will be lost from disposal processing. Think something like being stuck on machines that are routinely cleaned.
    1
  11. Build a receiver in outer space and connect to it via some space elevator.
    1
  12. I think our sun's instability is the cause or perhaps hastened intelligent life to emerge.
    1
  13. Aren't all those conditions for rare earth inherently not related to the question of life emergence? The Stanley-Miller Experiment showed the ingredients needed for the building blocks of life. Those conditions do not require jupiter or anything. It might as well occure on an asteroid. Iterations of the Stanley-Miller Experiment with differing inputs or conditions could help a lot in answering this question. This would be closer, in my opinion, to answering whether non-Earth planets can harbor life, because the question of life isn't about finding another earth, it is what it says it is, finding life.
    1
  14. What is the medium or what is the entanglement made of? Can we exploit that for FTL?
    1
  15. What if we use greek letters? Alpha-moon, for a moon. Beta-moon, for a submoon. Gamma, delta, and so on.
    1
  16. Is there a chance that within the time frame until CO2 is exhausted, life would adapt and evolve to live in such a climate?
    1