Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "Science Time" channel.

  1. Brian Cox + Fermi Paradox = instant click!
    82
  2. I used to think the great filter might be AI, but if it was wouldn't we see intelligent AI all over the cosmos? You would think the AI would much more easily evolve itself as well as have more capability to spread itself through the galaxy because time and distance wouldn't matter to something that isn't mortal like a biological being. Yes, of course as mentioned in the video it could hide itself or be so advanced it is undetectable. It is possible also that as AI advances far enough it can become indistinguishable from nature. But it would still have to power itself somehow and that should be noticable. Any highly intelligent, self replicating AI should easily be able to completely dominate a galaxy within a few million years. Which would then beg the question of why then would we even be allowed to exist unless we are indeed some galactic zoo experiment.
    55
  3. It is impossible to comprehend infinity or eternity, because everything in our lives has a beginning and an end, and is finite.
    17
  4. Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? Because by our very existence, and the existence of all other matter, there must be. Nothing can't create something. Nothing can't begin or end, or change state in any way, because it's nothing, and any action by the nothing would require something. Because there is something, it is therefore impossible for there to be nothing, or for there to have ever been nothing, because if there was ever complete nothingness, it would have remained that way for infinity.
    13
  5. Not sure why they wouldn't make any highly advanced AI with Asimov's 3 laws hard coded into them, that could save an awful lot of trouble. "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
    9
  6. It's all about thinking outside the box. If there are indeed certain limitations and unbreakable laws of physics that prevent us from travel away from earth of any significant distance, then ways to "bend" the rules need to be discovered. The Alcubierre drive is an example of this, though of course it is purely theoretical. This is a very simplistic example when compared to space travel, but relevant in terms of making the impossible, possible through bending the rules. A Volkswagen beetle simply is not going to beat a Porsche GT3 in a quarter mile drag race, it is impossible assuming of course there are no modifications allowed, both vehicles are driven by skilled drivers, and both vehicles function properly and do not break down or crash. However, this was achieved when the rules were bent and the playing field was changed from 2 dimensions to 3. A beetle when dropped a quarter mile in the air from a helicopter will cover a quarter mile of vertical space quicker than a Porsche GT3 can cover a quarter mile of horizontal space under its own power. This was done by our friends at Top Gear. Again very simple, but completely changed the result when an extra dimension was added to the equation. Could the same be true in space if and/or when a higher dimension were to be discovered and possibly manipulated? A rocket powered ship is only going to go so fast, but if there were to be a "way around" through a higher spacial dimension could this be exploited? What's impossible in one dimension is not only possible, but practical in a higher one. On a 2D plane you can only go back and forth and side to side...up and down is not only impossible, but can't even be conceptualized by an entity living within that 2D plane. What impossible movements might we discover in a 4th spacial dimension, or higher? Traveling to another star system might be like walking from your living room to your kitchen. We would never know if higher dimensions are not unlocked. The problem is unlocking them, can it be done, and do they even exist? Some scientists think so, but again it is purely theoretical.
    9
  7. Let's put it all in prospective. It would take us about 30 years to get to Pluto in the fastest possible vessel using current technology. Our solar system, which reaches well beyond Pluto (roughly one light year in diameter), in comparison to the Milky Way galaxy, to scale would roughly be like comparing a DVD to the earth. Milky Way galaxy has billions of stars, and is one galaxy of estimated trillions in the observable universe. And we don't even know how much more there is beyond the observable universe, it could be trillions of times more. So I think it is a pretty safe bet to think there are probably countless other civilizations.
    8
  8. Lol, "nearly" impossible would have probably been a better choice of words
    8
  9. Nah, just pro non-dictatorships
    6
  10. One thing you must take into account when estimating the time it would take to reach distant star systems is acceleration/deceleration of the vessel. For example proxima centauri is roughly 4 light years away, but you wouldn't get there in 20 years going 20% the speed of light, it would take longer because you have to take into account the time it takes to reach maximum velocity and to slow back down, which is not instantaneous. It would likely, even with very advanced propulsion systems, take a fair amount of time to reach the top speed and an equal amount of time to slow down (there are no brakes in space so you have to fire the thrust backwards). This would add considerable time to the journey.
    6
  11. ​ @thuggeegaming659 The professor has spoken again. Don't argue with him, he got his doctorate out of a cracker jack box 😂
    6
  12. From what I have noticed, people seem to be ok with authoritarianism as long as it fits their political views (left vs right), which as a libertarian I cannot understand. Tyranny, whether left wing or right wing is still tyranny, and tyrants of any political views will take a mile if given an inch, so nobody should ever accept even the slightest amount of sacrifice of freedom because it can and will turn into something much worse.
    6
  13. I still would think that by the scope and distance the radio signals have traveled it would be much more likely to be detected through them than through one little space probe that would be not even a needle in a haystack, but more like a molecule in a needle in a haystack the size of Beetlegeuse.
    5
  14. ​ @Zurround Agreed, it would not go well. I think likely within only a few generations all order would break down as the last occupants knew their fate was to live and die inside a tin can hurling through space. The only way it could possibly be done, outside some yet undiscovered loophole being discovered that would massively cut the travel time, would be if we someday can perfect cryonics or some other sort of hibernation that preserves the occupants in some sort of stasis until they reach their destination. Then the problem becomes what if the destination is not as hospitable as predicted and you are marooned light years away from home with no habitable planets to land on?
    5
  15. As far as I know, China has an agreement with the DPRK to extradite all escapees. Not safe to escape to China unless you can get to an embassy of a sympathetic country.
    5
  16. The best candidates for life would be planets around G-type stars (like our sun) as well as K-type stars, which might even be better because they last twice as long as G-types, but are hot enough that the habitable zone wouldn't be so close as to tidally lock the planets within it. Red dwarves are not very promising for finding life because if tidal locking as well as their tendency to have violent flaring.
    5
  17. So in other words, will time dilate if such a method is used? It is believed that no, it would not, because by using such a method of travel (warping the plane of space, wormholes, etc) there would be no effect on time because you are not reaching relativistic speeds, you are simply taking a "shortcut" at slower speeds. Time is only effected when high speeds come into play, or you get into close proximity to a large gravitational force (e.g. a black hole). A wormhole or other "bend" in space is essentially like folding a piece of paper and coming out the other side instantaneously, you don't necessarily need to go fast to get there, you just drastically shorten the distance of the journey. It is theorized that we can produce man made wormholes, but the technology needed is well beyond our current capabilities.
    4
  18. But then where did that universe come from, and the one that one came from, and so on? There has to be an origin somewhere down the line or else it is just turtles all the way down. There are basically two ways to avoid infinite regression, and that's something in an eternal state at the highest level, or, some sort of infinite repeating loop.
    4
  19. Agreed, however they might just want our planet to colonize if habitable worlds are rare. Although on the other hand, one might argue if they are advanced enough they could teraform whatever they want, but then again, a planet that is already in move in condition is also appealing.
    3
  20. In theory, time should not be effected by traversing a wormhole. In concept, you are not reaching relativistic speeds as you would need to do to travel from a point in space to another point many light years away in a human lifetime, rather, you taking a cosmic "shortcut". Real scientists, unlike our friend here above us in the comments, conceptualize this as being like at a point at the end of a sheet of paper, and to get to the other side you fold it in half and punch through the paper instantaneously rather than traversing the entire sheet. There are many good videos on the subject from leading astrophysicists, all of whom know just a little bit more than Mr. Cracker Jack up there 😂
    3
  21. I believe the work around used by Roddenberry and the producers of the series was that the occupants of the star ships were not actually themselves traveling at FTL speeds, rather they were standing still and moving space around them, therefore not messing with the time dilation that relativistic speeds create. Of course this is just fiction, but is a plausible theory if such technology were to be possible.
    3
  22. There have been countless science fiction pieces written on this concept and the psychological aspect is typically what the plot revolves around. There is also the concept that another comment mentions that as technology progresses and faster ships become available, each existing ship will become pointless and will be overtaken by newer, faster ships, making the older ones pointless. The only way I could possibly see this being feasible is if we were able to build a type of O'Neill cylinder capable of housing many thousands, maybe millions of people in a large earth like environment that could also travel at a significant percentage of light speed. Hard to conceptualize such a thing now, but someday maybe it would be possible.
    3
  23. I think the point Clarke was making was that on one hand, if we are it in all the universe, it's up to us not to screw it up and kill ourselves off leaving no sentient beings in all the cosmos. On the other hand, if intelligence persists throughout the universe, it may be terrifying to think there might be "bad guys" out there to come and destroy us someday. In saying either scenario is equally terrifying I think he is being a bit ironic but with a little truth to it at the same time.
    2
  24. It is theorized that the energy needed for such a task would require matter-antimatter annihilation which yeilds pure 100% energy with no waste or byproduct. So this of course would require us to firstly be able to create antimatter in enough quantity to achieve this, and secondly, a method to contain it. I believe at our current state of technology, we have created a few atoms of antimatter, so we have a long way to go, but certainly not impossible though extremely challenging and improbable.
    2
  25. ​​ @SJR_Media_Group yet* The only way this could be done is through harnessing enough antimatter. Could that be done? At our current level of technology, no, but in the future? It's at least plausible. We have been able to create a few atoms of antimatter, but we would have a very long way to go. Probably millions of years and reaching at least a Level II civilization (we aren't even at Level I currently).
    2
  26. Lol, not sure who's worse Trudeau or Kim
    2
  27. To me, the concept of an infinite universe isn't frightening, it is actually much more settling. The concept of absolute nothingness is much more frightening and unsettling to me, and an infinite universe would make absolute nothingness impossible.
    2
  28. The only solution is turtles all the way down 🌎 🐢 🐢 🐢 🐢 🐢 🐢 🐢 ♾️
    2
  29. Well exactly, these objects definitely exist but we just haven't been able to identify them. Similar to your assessment, I don't doubt their existence because there are too many professionals in very high positions, pilots, astronauts, etc, that wouldn't risk their reputation and career on nonsense. They definitely saw something.
    2
  30. Why is there anything instead of nothing? Because there is something, therefore it is impossible for there to be nothing. If something can exist, it will, and it does. Complete nothingness is impossible, therefore, the universe came from something else which itself is either infinite or came from an infinite source somewhere down the line, or the universe itself is infinite and the big bang was just the "reboot" phase in an infinite loop.
    2
  31. The chances of Voyager being detected by aliens is about as likely as dropping a grain of sand at a random location somewhere on earth and telling someone to find it. Much more likely we would be detected through our radio transmissions or biosignatures that the earth gives off, such as the oxygen atmosphere or other essential life elements that would be detectable in an advanced probing of our system. Even our much less advanced technology can predict what diatant planets may be composed of.
    2
  32. God forbid I said something about You Crane so my comment got deleted
    2
  33. You can most likely rule out planets orbiting red dwarves, because of tidal locking, it just does not seem plausible that intelligent life could develop on a small strip between the dark and light sides of the planet. This rules out roughly 90% of star systems in the galaxy.
    2
  34. ​ @nbartlett6538 🚨🚨 woo woo woo 🚨🚨 (I'm a fire engine) 😂
    1
  35. ​ @timhallas4275 to avoid infinite regression.
    1
  36. We can analyze it to death, but what it comes down to is time and distance. First of all, even to exist at the same time as another civilization is unlikely, and even if you did, they would likely be so far away you could not detect them, and even if you could, you would be detecting them long after they were gone.
    1
  37. The little wang
    1
  38. If climate change is actually anywhere near as big an issue as some believe (I don't believe this but that's beside the point), and whether or not it is man made or natural, I do not think it will completely wipe out all of humanity. Even large swings in global temperatures, as this is not unprecedented and other species have adapted and survived it, and we will as well. Yes, many will perish, be displaced, have a much tougher go of things, but it will not cause complete annihilation. If it is a direct cause of human activity, the very changes themselves will quell the activities causing the changes, therefore unlikely reaching a "runaway" scenario. We aren't going to see earth turn into Venus from human activity, such a scale would require large scale natural events. As for the notion of being buried under our own waste, I actually used to ponder this idea myself. However, any kind of long lasting dangerous waste, such as radioactive waste with half lives in the millions or billions of years, is but a small drop, current estimates are that all nuclear waste ever produced in all facilities in the world would basically only fill a football pitch a few inches deep. It would take many millions of years for this to become a serious problem, which hopefully in that time we will come up with more efficient methods of energy production. As for other long term wastes like plastics and such, yes this is a big problem currently but again if we are to continue on as a species I believe we must and will find better alternatives and eliminate this problem before it gets out of hand. While I don't doubt there are many problems we face that are potential species-enders, I don't believe any of them at this time are insurmountable issues. Even when this planet faced an ice age, a small number of humans survived and kept the species going, a very small number like 6,000, but enough to avoid extinction.
    1
  39. ​ @space1commander Get a life.
    1
  40. Nobody knows for sure, but there have been many different theories...that it is eternal and without end, that it will end in a big crunch (contraction, mostly now discredited), that it is a repeating loop, and the most common that it will expand until everything does off and it turns to nothingness. Absolute nothingness is a difficult concept to grasp, as is eternity.
    1
  41. Time is basically just the measurement of entropy. Time appears to move forward as things change. If entropy didn't exist, then time would be irrelevant.
    1
  42. ​ @thuggeegaming659 Could you tell me where you received this magic "education" that apparently gives you greater knowledge than the top astrophysicists? It's strange, even they consider FTL to be at best extremely difficult and requiring exotic materials we currently do not posses, but not impossible. But you have deemed it impossible, because you know more than they do? Interesting. And on the subject of causality, if there were changes and discrepancies in causality you wouldn't even know it. History could be changing right under our noses and you wouldn't even know it, so you cannot with any degree of certainty deem it impossible. You could wake up tomorrow with a completely different history of the world than what it is now, and to you the observer, it would have always been that way. You would have zero knowledge of the other timeline. These changes in causality would simply create new timelines, not paradoxes because paradox by its very nature is impossible.
    1
  43. ​ @LeoDragon34 Plot twist : Maybe if there is God/heaven/hell/eternity/afterlife/etc, what you just described would be your hell if you went there! Mine would be sitting in a dentists chair getting my teeth drilled for infinity 😂
    1
  44. Although I do have to rebutt my own original statement...there is something infinite that we use in our everyday lives...numbers!
    1
  45. In space, nobody can hear you scream 😂
    1
  46. What's strange though is how the far side of the moon is much more smooth surfaced and free of craters. This is more strange to me than that the side facing us is full of craters. It was fully expected by scientists before we could actually view pictures of the far side that it would look very similar to the earth facing side, but it didn't and it was a huge surprise.
    1
  47. China extradites escapees back to the DPRK.
    1
  48.  @tomgunnz007  If this were the case, and not saying it's impossible because just about anything is possible, then their physical characteristics would be vastly different from ours. Imagine a tiny Earth, it would have very little gravity and life there would either have to live underground or have a large mass in ratio to their size in order to not drift away. On the other hand, a massive earth would have huge gravity force and life would have to be very stout and strong in order to move about.
    1
  49. ​ @asoka7752 Hopefully if we ever reach a level of technology where we can do these things, petty social problems like racial politics will be long a thing of the past and we will just send the most qualified individuals regardless of what they look like.
    1
  50. I think so. The only intelligence that likely could travel any kind of significant distance, colonize, and self replicate, would almost certainly be AI. Organic beings are too fragile and short lived. Even if you have a species that's members live several thousand years, that's still a drop in the bucket in comparison to traversing interstellar space, assuming C is a speed that cannot be broken and there is no loopholes (e.g. warp drive, stable wormholes).
    1