Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. If I understand this correctly it means you can only go between places that you've already visited.
    23
  2. Yeah, as a German child I always thought it was about the sphere being like a black shield.
    8
  3. ​ @erwinlommer197 It's more like a quadrillion steam engines set up around a source of infinite coal VS letting the coal go to waste.
    7
  4. And the radar data is available or what? The evidence that actually exists is the video and the video clearly shows the gimbal camera rotating.
    6
  5. No, if it's an engineering issue that means it's possible. Honestly I don't see how something can be physically possible and yet impossible in some other way for a civilization.
    6
  6.  @jimjimmy3131  You're naturally as strong as you need to be. Getting jacked is awesome, but it's awesome precisely, because it's totally unnecessary. Especially if you're an academic and not a professional athlete.
    6
  7. The camera lost track as you can see in the hud of the camera.
    5
  8. We already observe the absence of "technosignatures" not only in our galaxies, but in all that we have checked.
    4
  9. ​ @tomperone9338 Yes, the argument that intelligent beings aren't interested in less intelligent things is total bullshit. By that line of reasoning, hamsters should be more industrious entemologists than humans.
    4
  10. You can build a short O Neil cylinder and gradually make it longer.
    4
  11. Well, the faster you go, the more shielding you need. And the more you benefit from making your ship thin and long. As for FTL, it depends on the kind of FTL proposed. If you're just slipping through some parallel dimension or something that might not be a problem at all.
    4
  12. That's totally wrong. There's more excellent channels just on Astronomy and Astrophysics and Space Travel than I can possibly keep up with. Some off the top of my head: Curious Droid, Isaac Arthur, PBS Space Time, Event Horizon, It's Just Astronomical, Launchpad Astronomy, Fraser Cain, Paul Sutter, ...
    4
  13.  @Kitties-of-Doom  All of the videos are explained. You just shifted the goalpost to explaining the behavior of pilots, which really isn't remarkable at all.
    3
  14. Simple life could still be common. We don't have strong evidence against that.
    3
  15. You should ask yourself why everything extraordinary only appears in the "context", you can't verify. Shouldn't that ring a few alarm bells?
    3
  16. All the time, actually . Yesterday I guided a butterfly out of the house. And insects communicate with us. Aliens would be even better at communicating with us than that. That argument is just horrible in many,many ways.
    3
  17.  @2760ade  You can live in the firest all your life and not recognize an owl. You have massive hindsight bias having the appearances on the camera explained to you. And being "highly trained" doesn't mean you can't be confused.
    3
  18. No, it would not be easier to rewrite the fundamental laws of the cosmos than it would be to build a shell around the sun, lol.
    3
  19. Nah, Liu gave it the name "Dark Forest", but the argument has been around at least til the 80ies.
    3
  20. Bcs it's easier to build, takes less damage, always faces the sun, no one is living there currently or using the space... I really don't understand why you think what you wrote made any sense whatsoever.
    3
  21.  @petedavis7970  You're just gonna turn your brain off and base your opinion on authority alone? Fighter pilots can't judge the distance, size and speed of an object they don't know just by looking at it. And their judgement of one of those things will influence the others.
    3
  22. >The idea of a God, by it's very nature, is supernatural. No, it isn't. And I don't see how an idea can be supernatural. Nor is claiming something to be "supernatural" anything but a cop-out not to give evidence or reasoning. > Well, that's because the universe is not supernatural. Why?
    3
  23. The entire idea of the laser sail is that the craft itself can be very light, because the lasers are not on the craft.
    2
  24. ​@tomperone9338 But we DO recognize that as technology, tool use and culture. We recognize it precisely BECAUSE of our intelligence, not in spite of it.
    2
  25.  @serpentphoenix  An old civilization would have already reached all planets in the galaxy, making hiding useless.
    2
  26. Well, in special relativity space and time are one thing anyways and how you proportion spacetime into space and time is subjective, whether or not there are singularities. I don't know why you think "time comes to a standstill" at the event horizon. Nothing special happens at all locally when you cross the event horizon. If you didn't know where you are from observing the black hole and calculating it's event horizon, you wouldn't know that you crossed it.
    2
  27.  @CoolWorldsLab  That's sad to hear. I enjoy longer videos more, but I have to admit that I sometimes watch them in two sessions, which is probably bad for the algorithm.
    2
  28. What are you talking about? Who sent out one signal? Why would you think that every single civilization in the cosmos sends exactly one signal? That doesn't even begin to make sense in any way. I don't know how confused thinking like this gets over 2k thumbs up. You don't seem to have understood any of the reasoning in the video. If someone wants to signal at all, it doesn't make sense for them to send exactly one signal. And if they would, we wouldn't have detected it. He even adresses that explicitly, one signal being a special case of periodicity.
    2
  29.  @SwrveYT  I don't know what you're talking about. Humanity as a civilization isn't trying to send any signals atm. If they did, they'd do it with more than one transmission. If your hypothesis is: there's some civilization somewhere that beaconed literally ONE time and we just happened to pick it up by shere coincidence. Well that's a supremely bespoke, unlikely and unhelpful thing to believe.
    2
  30. Hawking radiation is different from the light coming from objects falling in. The light coming from objects falling in doesn't contain all their information. Hawking radiation is random.
    2
  31. ​@marckiezeender All that happens from far away is that you see objects get dimmer rather than smaller at some point. That doesn't mean you have all of the information of the objects.
    2
  32.  @marcv2648  Then why not release the radar data rather than those unremarkable videos?
    2
  33. I don't really see how that changes anything. Alice observes 50:50 up and down regardless of what Bob does on his side.
    2
  34.  @dontactlikeUdonkno  Yeah, he didn't talk about that in the video, I guess the starshot idea is to just fly by the target system? But I guess you could use electromagnetic breaking in addition to the light pressure of the star to slow down? Don't know whether that would suffice.
    2
  35. The "particle pair" explanation is just super confusing in many ways. For example, I'd expect Hawking radiation to be STRONGER in larger black holes if that was the case. But the opposite is true. Hawking radiation gets much, much more intense, the smaller the black hole is.
    2
  36.  @davecarsley8773  It doesn't matter how experienced you are, you can still be confused. What has to be explained is the videos and they are explained. What someone said doesn't really have to be explained.
    2
  37.  @tctopcat1981  Your insistence on following fake authority rather than reasoning sounds like nore like the previous level.
    2
  38.  @ipproductions  It's funny how you think that having good eyesight means you somehow identify things correctly.
    2
  39. All other projects also benefit from not pissing away nearly 100% of the available energy.
    2
  40. Precisely. Just because questioning the existance of anything doesn't make sense, does not mean that questioning anything in particular stops. All of the questioning, curiosity, critical thinking and so on continuous when it comes to any particular topic.
    2
  41.  @Bahnz1985  You can get rid off all of the preconditions and just assume that all civilizations try to eradicate all other civilizations and it still wouldn't make sense to "hide". In fact there's be MORE of a reason to expand, because then you're covering the far more likely case of civilizations arising after you rather than at the exact same time as you.
    2
  42. The title already tells me that's I'm missing like 5 years of maths to understand any of this. Let's see...
    1
  43.  @BroughPerkinsMedium  People have been trying to make "psychic phenomena" work for over a century. Of course at some point people will roll their eyes at it.
    1
  44.  @tacostuesday7530  They should show those vehicles then and not just claim that they have them. I don't think you quite understand what kind of extreme claim that is.
    1
  45.  @pn4841  Is the radar data also public?
    1
  46.  @jeffreygrimm2361  For all I care they could say that they saw a flying elephant. What evidence do YOU have? Those three videos. And they are better explained as above than with any tic tac.
    1
  47.  @Jay-407  Of course they aren't trained to identify balloons, but even if they were, why should they be able to 100% of the time. Your understanding of "identification" is cartoonish.
    1
  48.  @BroughPerkinsMedium  None of that is evidence. The only evidence YOU have is those videos. You are just very credulous which makes you confuse claims with evidence.
    1
  49.  @Localjadedealer  Fact? You mean claim. Guess.
    1
  50.  @bonysminiatures3123  You have analyzed that radar data?
    1