Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1.  @bradtem  The book ends on a rather sad note. Lem came to the same conclusion. He had similar story lines in other books, where "first contact" turned into a completely futile exercise in human wishful thinking.
    1
  2. Yes, theoretically a random sequence always looks like a random sequence. Can you assign an action to the value of a random sequence? Sure. It will be a completely random action. ;-)
    1
  3. No, we can't. The measurement on one end changes absolutely nothing about the measurement on the other, so you can't tell if it's been 3 seconds or 6.
    1
  4. Yes, if I could get a horse that flies, then I would not have to fly with United. Just too bad that there are no flying horses. ;-)
    1
  5. Well, you died a little bit while wasting time on watching this bullshit. :-)
    1
  6. Why not? It's not like a civilization can hide.
    1
  7.  @almightybunny3320  Yeah, that's scifi bullshit. Anybody who wants to visit your system can and once they are up close you can't hide.
    1
  8. A galactic civilization doesn't need FTL. One can populate an entire galaxy within less than one galactic rotation with chemical rockets and in ten million years with nuclear rockets, which are very, very easy to build for anybody who has the taste for them. We have built successful fission engines in the 1960s.
    1
  9. The hypothesis that life has a hard time to get started is not really covered by facts, though. If we happen to find life in the inner oceans of the moons of our gas giants, then it will be gone entirely. Life probably doesn't mind frozen surfaces, as long as there is water on the inside.
    1
  10. There isn't. ;-)
    1
  11. The process is that there is no process. We fully understand all of this. :-)
    1
  12.  @Amathylar  The "determining factors" are relativity and Noether's theorem. You have simply been over-trained by our school system to think exclusively in causal "if A then B" relationships, whereas modern physicists are dealing with the physical vacuum, which works based on a "if not A then B, C, D, E, F...." kind of logic. The physical vacuum is completely empty. This has profound consequences for the universe. It literally creates everything you see around you and we can actually mathematically enumerate all the effects that can follow from emptiness. :-)
    1
  13. And entangled system looks exactly like a non-entangled one. No difference.
    1
  14. You are not in a quantum state. You are in a state of ignorance about basic science. ;-)
    1
  15. One can't watch a quantum system all the time. One can make exactly one measurement on it, then it's destroyed.
    1
  16. The cosmological constant is one of an infinite number of mathematically allowed terms in extensions of general relativity. There is no theoretical argument that can rule out that any of these terms are not zero, so we have to rely on observations to set limits for them. These observations happen to be quite hard. I honestly don't expect to see reliable tight limits on the cosmological constant and some of the higher order terms in my lifetime. Some things in life are difficult and take a long time. That's the nature of the scientific beast.
    1
  17. The "Three Body Problem" is a case of really poor scifi writing. Nothing to see there. The science is as wrong as it comes. ;-)
    1
  18. That's because there is nothing fundamental about the speed of sound.
    1
  19. It doesn't. Distances are to the right and the left. Time is towards the top.
    1
  20. Because if you can have everything, then you have nothing.
    1
  21. No.
    1
  22. So you were drunk when you talked to a physicist? :-)
    1
  23. Nobody can show you "how quantum entanglement works" because quantum entanglement doesn't "work" at all. It's not an effect. It's the absence of an effect.
    1
  24. Why are you telling us that you failed in high school? :-)
    1
  25. When did you start feeling like an animal that is going to be slaughtered?
    1
  26. Awh, you are so cute when you are coping. ;-)
    1
  27. One can't influence the wave function any more than one can influence a probability distribution. They are both ontologically the same and they actually derive mathematically from the exact same axioms.
    1
  28. Dudes, if they are there, they know that we are here. They just don't give a frell. We don't have anything they need and they don't eat ants. ;-)
    1
  29. Nobody asked you to "accept it". We asked you to understand it by studying hard in school. Apples and oranges.
    1
  30. You won't see a difference at the other end. It will always be a random outcome, no matter whether anybody did a measurement or not. This follows trivially from relativity.
    1
  31. Time is that which the clocks show. Clocks are not illusions. They are local energy reservoirs that are distributing their energy in equal amounts towards infinity.
    1