General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Brandon
Destiny
comments

Comments by "Brandon" (@gravoc857) on "Destiny" channel.

One day, humanity may progress so much that it will be reasonable for us to send missions to retrieve these craft, to be reunited with humanity.
99
@GrimSleepy There’s a stark difference between the two that you’re not currently seeing. According to virtually all religions: God is an immortal being that exists outside of the universe. A type 4 civilization is born within this universe, is finite and mortal, and can achieve godlike power and influence over the universe. If humans live long enough, and ascend far enough. We become those godlike beings. But we’re still not god, by the biblical definition. It’s like comparing a duck to a goose. Similar, but different. A type 4 could theoretically simulate universes. A type 5 could theoretically create baby universes. A type 6 could theoretically create and travel between full sized universes. A type 7 would be an eternal, all seeing being, responsible for the primordial plane of existence. Otherwise known as god. A type 4 isn’t even remotely close to this. So, I don’t understand how you are saying a type 4 is what you consider god.
33
@Gareth Evans As our universe observation technology continues to become sufficiently more advanced, we’re realizing how easy it is for super or hyper intelligent civilizations to find us. Humanity already has technology to see if there’s lights on a planet that’s billion(s) of miles away. Meaning if we think a planet has a possibility to host intelligent life, we have ways to look & test for it. Every solar system has a natural telescope powerful enough to see images in stunning detail from unfathomanle distances away. This telescope is called the sun and it’s accomplished by something called Gravitational Lensing. A type 2 civilization would be capable of exploiting this advantage. Hell, humanity might have solar sail probes capable of reaching the suns gravitational focal point before we become a full type 1 civilization. It’s only 625 astronomical units away from Earth. Minimal distances when you consider humanity is already in the process of developing very fast drones to explore Proxima Centauri. Now the real question is intelligent life there? Does it exist at the same time as us? Is it actively looking? Remember, humanity has been here for a blink. Our first radio waves haven’t even traversed 1/3rd of our galaxy yet. Earth has 3 forms of higher natural intelligence. There’s social intelligence formed from mammals, mastered by us. There’s hive intelligence, which is a relatively new concept to our planet, mastered by ants. Then there’s solitary intelligences, mastered by Cephalopods such as octopus & cuddle fish. So we know 3 classes of what’s considered higher sentient consciousness just here on Earth. We see lots of opportunity for life just in our solar system. We know of countless Extremophiles here just on our planet. We know the observable universe is incredibly vast, with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and planets. We know water is common throughout the universe. We know our star is common in the star family tree. We know Earth like planets around the habital zone is fairly common. Our technology continues to reveal more to us & its beginning to become odd that we aren’t finding life. It’s why we need to push harder for answers. There’s more reason to believe life not only exists, but thrives in the universe rather than is extremely rare. So where is all of it? That’s where the Fermi Paradox comes in. If you’re interested, I strongly encourage you to research it. It provides several logical answers to why we’re not finding life. Whether we’re alone or not alone. Both answers are equally exciting and horrifying.
18
@themeanestkitten Want some nightmare fuel? We’ve found “super Earth’s” that are candidates to host life. They have similar conditions to Earth’s that could make life possible there, but these planets are much bigger than Earth. If life exists & thrives on these planets. It’s likely their behemoths would put Earth’s largest known species to shame. Imagine a whale the size of the Empire State Building. We took the size of blue whales here on Earth, and scaled them up to be proportionate size in super Earth’s. The Empire State Building is the size of a blue whale, if scaled for a super Earth. Crazier yet is bigger planets generally have much denser atmospheres. It’s speculated that atmospheric pressures near the surface would be high enough for non-avian creatures to be able to fly. A human, if strong enough to withstand its gravity, strapped some wings onto itself could fly. It’s likely that many of the land animals and ocean animals would take advantage of easy flight due to a thick atmosphere that has properties resembling of water. So imagine a flying Empire State Building sized whale.
17
@Lars0499 Yes, but I think a reminder needs said. UFO stand for unidentifiable/unidentified flying object. This is obviously common knowledge but I feel people get it too unconsciously engrained that UFO’s equate to alien spacecraft. UFO can be anything. It could be an intergalactic spaceship from a type 3+ civilization, or it could be a rock. Or anything in between. In 2012, NASA confirmed its awareness to documents/data showing the existence of objects we cannot identify. Particularly within our solar system. This isn’t admitting aliens are real. It simply admits they don’t know what those objects are. But yes, that also admits the possibility of aliens out of the unknown.
17
It depends. The voyagers were able to utilize several grav-assists in a rare planetary alignment, giving them speeds far beyond what humans could send them at. That alignment won’t happen again for a really long time. So, we have to make something that artificially thrusts the objects into higher velocity. Nuclear & ion thrusters are a possibility.
12
@stfuitsjuan7119 If you think the speed of sound is fast. You’ll be shocked by how fast objects can go in space 😂
12
Your assumption is that an abundance of galaxies, stars, and planets guarantees abiogenesis elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. We don’t know how likely abiogenesis is. We can’t even figure it out here on Earth. To speculate on the odds of it occurring elsewhere in the universe, is to lean on ones conviction, rather than logic. The logical counter argument to your statement about more stars in our galaxy, than grains of sand on Earth. If the chances of abiogenesis is say: 1 in an octillion. Then it’s statistically likely that we’re alone in the galaxy, as well as humans are a statistical impossibility. Earth would be unfathomably lucky to have abiogenesis occur. Alternatively, if the chances for abiogenesis is say: 1 in a trillion. Than it’s likely that there could be a few civilizations existing, or who have existed within the Milky Way Galaxy. If it’s 1 in a billion. Then it’s statistically likely that there’s life within 100 light years of us. If it’s less than 1 in a billion. Than statistically speaking, our galaxy should be full of life. Until we discover how abiogenesis happens, and how likely, or unlikely it is to occur. We cannot make biased assumptions based on our conviction with any sort of degree of confidence. It’s speculation in the absence of data. There’s nothing wrong with speculation. I just think it’s important to highly that for every argument that claims the universe has life elsewhere, has an equal argument in favor of the opposite. Vice Versa as well. Until more data is available, all options are equally as probable. Whether that be a desolate universe, or a universe full of life, or anything in-between.
11
@GertjanLievaart Yes we can observe 93 billion light years away. Cosmic inflation has pushed them that far away in 13.8 billion years. Eventually we won’t be able to observe them, once the last of their light arrives to us that is still in transit all those billions of years ago. The space between them will eventually grow faster than the speed of light. This is likely the case for several distant objects, and is absolutely the case for things already beyond our particle horizon.
9
@GrimSleepy humans may one day simulate its own universe, with conscious beings existing inside of them. These beings would have no idea their simulated. So, does that make humans god?
9
Social media and news are heavily congested in the modern era. No need to feel bad. This would have been a front page story for weeks in the 90’s. Now, it only got a momentary spotlight before being drowned out,
8
Science needs funding. How do you think they get it? By pandering to those willing to pay. You talk about cynicism and distrust. Well, duh. People are disconnected from science. So why the hell would they financially support it? Imagine what science could be, if rich parties had to compete with masses of passionate laymen, offering their coin for the betterment of humanity. Instead, laymen call scientists nerds & make fun of them. It’s a human problem, not a science problem.
7
@asianartist1 Nope. Expanding into the cosmos will put humanity in extremely difficult environments. Ingenuity arises out of necessity, which will drive advancements in techniques, technologies, and material physics. You know, just like how NASA solving challenges it faced in space now enables you to shitpost your doomerism onto the internet. Space is the answer to solving Earth’s problems.
7
It makes sense once you think about it. Exploring space with telescopes is vastly easier than exploring the oceans. You have a whole universe and 13.8 billion years of history on your doorstep. The cosmos showers you in data-rich photons all the time. The oceans on the other hand are dark (no photon information), are inhospitable, are slow to navigate, and are massively barren.
7
Within General Relativity, time travel to the past is impossible. Only forward time travel Is possible via time dilation.
6
@GG-ng6zm I’m not saying there isn’t any fish in the ocean. My comment was to emphasize that taking a bucket to the ocean, is not sufficient to claim a universe full of life, or a universe void of life. We cannot use our own existence as proof of life beyond Earth. Our lack of information means that abiogenesis could be a regular occurrence, or extremely rare. Assuming life exists beyond earth due to the number of stars and planets, is to lean on ones conviction. Not a statistical probability, backed by data. I personally believe that life exists beyond Earth. But again, that’s my conviction in the void of evidence.
6
@StandingUpForBetter Many people already know it’s not a food quantity issue. It’s a food availability issue. Getting food to the right places is tricky. Especially when geopolitics, actual geography, and warlords get in the way.
4
Delusion
4
@JoJo-xz2px yes. Humans already have adapted for hotter weather. It’s why we lost fur, are the sweatiest of mammals and have the only skin known that gets purposely darker with more sun exposure. Modern day humans evolved from a very unique species of mammal. Homo Erectus engaged in a very unique hunting strategy called persistence hunting. To this day, homo erectus and modern day humans are the only species known to utilize persistence hunting. Persistence hunting is a combination of tracking, sprinting, jogging & walking. It’s when a slower species runs down a faster species by exhausting or overheating its prey with relentless persuit. Persistence hunting means actively engaged in one pursuit and that pursuit could take days. It means to not give up when outpaced. No other hunting species is known to do this. Other species will give up on the pursuit & try again later. Not Homo Erectus. It goes until it chases its prey down. For Homo Erectus to achieve this, it evolved several adaptations. Homo Erectus began losing hair. It’s ancestors were significantly hairier. It began developing a significant amount of sweat pores, far surpassing any other mammal in terms of total sweat pores. We are also the only known mammal with skin designed to be exposed to the sun and build resistance to the sun with added exposure by getting darker. This means our glands also have an unprecedented ability to develop melanin. This ability to generate large amounts of melanin is shared with for example: Octopi & Chameleons. Homo Erectus was also one of the only mammals, apart from modern humans, to be able to engage in intense physical activity for 4 hours strait. This means Homo Erectus was able to better store and regulate water usage in the body than other species. Humans are quite the oddity and alien in our own right. We developed and evolved down a very unique evolutionary path. Even if you don’t consider our massive prioritization of the brain and frontal cortex, modern humans have evolved some seriously interesting traits. But going back to your original question. Yes, we evolved to be hot, and we’ll continue to evolve towards environmental fitness. Both on an evolutionary standpoint, but also on an intelligence standpoint. Humans have a unique advantage not granted to other species. Our superior intelligence grants us the ability to adapt much quicker than other species can. Humanity is already beginning to show signs of adapting to this hotter world. Stuff like Saudi Arabia’s Line City, or Operation Cool Singapore. Heck, scientific engineers are playing with the idea of developing “artificial ice” to replace our planets natural heat mirror. The polar caps melting means our dark oceans absorb more heat. The idea that we could prevent this compounding warming effect by installing artificial & biodegradable materials that are cheap and scalable to industrial levels is simple & incredibly effective. You have an entire science and industry designated to building economically viable carbon scrubbers. We’re basically there mate. Carbon scrubbing is already profitable in some cases & it’s something that entire industries are looking to adopt into their business structure. You have scientists working on artificially engineering bioplankton that can survive a hotter & more acidic ocean. You have an entirely new generation of farmers beginning to focus on sustainable farming. Can’t forget to mention the growing industry of vertical hydroponic farming. Which can be done in factories or underground. Water desalination is slowly but surely becoming more viable. The first commercial fusion reactor is set to be completed and operational by 2035. If this commercial reactor is able to prove concept, humanity gains access to enough energy to explore our entire solar system. This means we have access to 100 million times more resources than we have on Earth. This allows us to make colonies on several moons & Mar’s. This significantly increases the species chances of survival, as well as humanities chances of surviving on & restoring Earth. With fusion, sky hooks and space elevators. We would have enough technology and infrastructure to bring massive quantities of water to space & vice versa. Why would we want to bring water to space? If we bring water to space, we can let the near absolute zero temperatures of space freeze the water into ice. We then can take this ice back to Earth & cool the oceans and/or replenish the ice caps. So as you can see, humanity has a lot of ways to adapt & evolve to survive this new world. It’s not guaranteed, but us humans are crazy smart. If you need further inspiration. You can look to those who live in the most hot parts of the world. See how they live and adapt to the heat.
4
Too long of a message. Only read like a 5th. I’ll address what I read. Galaxies didn’t form instantaneously. Rather, they formed a bit quicker than anticipated and are fairly larger than expected. All this suggests is that the Big Bang & early galactic formation theories just need tweaked. For example, black hole stars are a possible solution to this. Extremely short lived hyper massive stars that were only possible at the beginning of the universe. Stars so large that their cores collapse into black holes, while the rest of the star carries on. These theoretical monsters can explain how ultra massive black holes got so large so quickly & served as early galactic seeds. As long as physically plausible options can be put forward, it’s tough to conclude god.
4
… Or we just terraform the planets & moons in our system. Terraforming a planet to be more earth like is both more likely and quicker, than traveling to another star outright. Imagine making a 10,000 year voyage to a star, just to find out there’s no celestial bodies suitable for life.
4
People used to say the same exact thing about airplanes. “Oh this will just be a thing for the rich. Normal people will never get to utilize this technology”. Think bigger. Oh, and normal people will be the ones colonizing planets. Why? Because most rich people don’t want to leave the comforts of earth for the horridly desolate conditions of Mars. Highly educated citizens will be at the forefront. The rich won’t come until Mars offers comforts and economic opportunity.
3
Not likely at our current technological stage. Nor are we looking. That’s changing, though. There are things like “The Galileo Project” coming into existence where the project aims to search for relics of otherworldly civilizations in our solar system.
3
Imagine thinking we didn’t land on the moon lmao.
3
? Is space not a part of this causal universe we all exist in? What point are you even trying to make? “SpAcE iSn’T rEaL” - You, probably.
3
The Proto-Earth was inhospitable to life. It was also as small as Mars. The proto-Earth would be a dead planet right now, if not for the collision with Theia.
3
Because the future of humanity lies in the cosmos. Earth will die. It’s not if, but when.
3
@dimplescris1 Downer. Imagine being this depressingly pessimistic. Must be horrid being you daily.
3
Just 100 years? I want to go thousands of years ahead when we achieve type 2.
3
@abelis644 They are traveling insanely slow compared to the speed of light. If humanity can achieve even 10% the speed of light. Catching up to them won’t be a problem at all. Perhaps future humanity decides it doesn’t want to broadcast its existence to the galaxy. Perhaps we’re living through Dark Forest Theory as an explanation to the Fermi Paradox. If that’s the case, humanity has every incentive to retrieve them. There’s plenty of other reasons to want to retrieve them, under other scenarios as well. Simplest one: It would be a milestone for humanity. It would signify that we could also catch up to ʻOumuamua, and answer what it is once and for all.
3
How so? All it’s releasing is zero point radiation heat waste. We can detect this. We cannot detect dark energy though.
2
@BadCompany3 Aquatic life would thrive in planets with stronger gravity. Gravity doesn’t really matter when the stuff you’re surrounded by is all the same density. A super earth with lots of water could breed oceanic giants. The challenge for life on stronger gravity planets is gravity will be unforgiving to ocean life once it tries to transition to land. It will require bigger bones, stronger muscles and a clever cardiovascular system. These are all very expensive evolutionary traits. But just because they are expensive doesn’t mean they are impossible. Take a look at humans and octopus for example. Both have very expensive brains that are big & slow to develop. When humans were prey, our brains were a disadvantage to us and got many of us eaten by predators. Whether it be a mother needing labor or giving labor. Or the process of keeping a helpless child alive longer than what is needed for other species with smaller brains or even our curiousity. Our brains allow us to be fascinated by the world, which in turn means some of us would have died out of curiousity of predators. Something smaller brained animals generally do not succumb from. Yet, octopus and us are still here. A planet with stronger gravity will favor different evolutionary traits. For example, insects here have a biological version of hydraulics. A planet with stronger gravity might have life that favors biological hydraulics in larger species as a way to cope with increased gravity. Stronger gravity isn’t all just cons though. Like I mentioned in my above comment. A planet will strong gravity will have a dense atmosphere at the surface. This makes flight much easier on these planets than it is on Earth. Meaning, you don’t need to achieve apex evolutionary traits that allows avian creatures on earth to fly. Flying creatures on these planets will have a much easier go at it, meaning many evolutionary paths will allow creatures flight, that aren’t specialized in it. Like how earth has mammals that specialize in gliding. These planets would have an abundance of creatures that come up with secondary mechanisms to achieve partial or full flight. Kinda funny but not farting might be a mechanism. At these densities, lighter gases will have a lot more desire to float up than they do here on Earth. A small creature might accidentally discover temporary flight after eating something gassy and finds itself floating. After thousands upon thousands of generations of trial and error. The species may master eating certain foods to generate internal gas, and then lower themselves from the air by releasing the gas. Smaller gravity planets would favor massive frames but they would be light. These frames would benefit those attempting to reach up or across. Or those wanting to run faster in a lower gravity environment. Or those wishing to live in extreme environments such as mountain overhangs. Or those who want to jump higher and farther, or fly higher and faster. So in short. Strong gravity worlds favor massive creatures as the sheer size is needed to cope with the gravity. The oceans would be capable of evolving giants. Those giants might eventually move to land. Small gravity planets will allow more versatility and flexibility in frame evolution. There won’t be a strong demand for big bones, strong muscles or complex systems to cope with the excess gravity. Therefore these species will prioritize evolutionary advantages that assist them in surviving their environment, rather than surviving the forces around their environment.
2
@MK12275 God is the simpletons answer. It’s the answer of someone who needs the comfort of an easy explanation. It’s the answer for someone who dares not use the capacity of their brain to imagine or investigate a universe full of complexity and beauty.
2
Okay downer.
2
@kusalg Humanity has a problem if it wants to become an intergalactic (or even galactic) species. The speed of light is painfully slow on a cosmic scale. It’s not practical to travel even if we could go light speed. Theoretical concepts were developed. Like Warp speed which is 100 times faster than the speed of light. Even warp speed isn’t viable and just simply doesn’t give us the speed to go where we want to go in a reasonable manner. Humanity really needs to find teleportation, unlock wormholes or figure out how to fold space time with gravity. That’s our only real chance at becoming an intergalactic species. If we fail to do that, we’ll most likely end up space nomads. Drifting around our galaxy, generations wasting away in starships.
2
They don’t. That’s why it’s common to say the largest black hole yet observed.
2
Not only knowing coordinates, but also navigating in such a way that you don’t get hit by anything as you ascend backwards, such as the planet or the sun. You’re essentially having to travel at the speed of light in the reverse direction of time, while also maintaining spatial speed, while also having to have an awareness of where things will be at and when. It’s obscenely complicated, and impossible by General Relativity. Gonna need new physics and a gross understanding of reality.
2
I used to subscribe to the belief that there aren’t intelligent civilizations out there, because we don’t see artificial mega structures like stellar engines, Dyson swarms or intergalactic starships that would produce loud signatures like stars do. That belief is changing. Science just discovered for the first time ever that there are massive galactic filaments that snap apart and together by the electromagnetic force. These are a very likely candidate to explain the billions of times more powerful radio bursts we’re seeing flare up all over the galaxy. It’s also making science contemplate if dark matter is truly so mysterious, or if the answer is glaringly obvious. So to me, the fact that billions of times more powerful galactic objects exist in the Milky Way AND they went undetected for so long. That makes me challenge the belief that we should be seeing signs of galactic or intergalactic civilizations. Why would we see a higher intelligence, if it took us so long to see these natural behemoths in our own galaxy. I don’t believe we’re alone. Here’s to hoping that gets proved in my lifetime. I’ll even take single celled organisms living in the clouds of Venus and Jupiter.
2
Why? All things that start must end. Even the universe. Don’t worry. You and I will be dead LONGGGGGG before any of this starts happening.
2
The most annoying thing about the 21st century? The mainstream popularization of human pessimism 🤡🤡🤡🥴
2
Thousands is a scale to gauge our own galaxy with. When considering other galaxies, we’re on the scale of millions, to billions of light years.
2
Not really. God is magic, and created the universe through magical powers that will never be accessible to man. Simulation theory suggests an advanced civilization is simulating universes using tangible physics, knowledge, and technology. It suggests that we may one day do the same for related or unrelated reasons. A simulation that simulates additional simulations. A great example would be ancestry simulations all the way down.
1
@frankbacon1002 Good science questions everything. One such question is why are the laws of the universe so fine tuned? Such as the speed of light. Many have attempted to answer, all unsuccessful. Simulation theory gives scientists a new perspective in which to test these fundamental constants & find the answer to WHY they exist. If it’s unsuccessful, then it’s just another dead theory that lays upon a mountain of dead theories. The point is it gives us SOMETHING to test that we didn’t have before. I don’t see any groundbreaking revelations happening in science with old theories. So why not theorize that the speed limit of light is set to allow for the processing power of a universe simulating computer. Like I said, the worst that can happen is it leads to nowhere. What’s more likely is it will give us new perspectives that may one day lead to a correct theory. As all good science does, it’s useful even when it’s wrong. Religion can’t say that at all.
1
@frankbacon1002 We’re already simulating things, and our capability to simulate is growing exponentially quick. We’re approaching quantum universal computers this century or the next century. These computers can simulate universes that can process trillions of simultaneous particle collisions. We’re making advancements in AI & the understanding of the human brain. The theory isn’t founded on nothing and based on nothing. It’s based on constants in our universe that can be perceived as simulation, as well as our own trajectory to running our own ancestry simulations.
1
@frankbacon1002 Not really, because religion says we have to blindly trust in god and we only get to see it after death. That’s rather useless. Simulation theory doesn’t require blind trust & we don’t have to die to experiment with it and to question it. It’s not religion 2.0. It’s just a theory. Theories need tested. Those tests will determine if the theory carries any merit, or if it will inevitably die off. If you want the theory to die off. Push the field forward so that simulation theory can be properly tested. Let the results speak for themself.
1
No
1
Yes we do. Nyanzipithecus alesi. The shared ancestor that all hominoids evolved from.
1
@Ranchdressingman Proving someone who is delusional that they’re delusional? Lol no thanks. You believe in a bearded man in the sky who can see you through the walls while you shit, after all.
1
@JCAH1 You’re right that ice is increasing in some places. But that doesn’t mean you’re right climate change isn’t happening. The issue is the ice that’s increasing is not quality ice. You want it to be thick ice. Thick ice is harder to melt & thick ice is better at reflecting the suns heat. Those regions are only rebuilding thin ice. Al Gore is a sensationalist who screamed the most extreme predictions based on various different climate simulations. I agree that the likes of Al Gore hurt the climate change movement as a whole. But he wasn’t wrong, his timeline is wrong. Scientists have confirmed many times since Al Gore’s warnings that there is enough ice in both poles to raise the global sea level by 20 feet. That is enough to englulf coastal sea lines all over the world. It would swallow New York, Cali, Florida and other places. The issue here is loss of ice compounds the heating effects of the sun. Exposed waters hold more heat, which means the oceans are warming. As the oceans warm, it causes ice to rebuild thinner. When ice rebuilds thinner, it makes the whole system a little bit more fragile. A fragile system is at threat of total collapse. Total collapse leads to snowballing events. All it takes is one abnormally hot winter in the poles to further destabilize the region. Al Gores model didn’t predict a resilient Mother Nature. She’s got her limits though. Humanity continues to push Mother Nature to new extremes and I honestly believe we’ve gotten lucky as a species that Mother Nature has been able to maintain control. How far do we need to push it to break the whole system? I’m glad there’s a global wave of awareness about climate change and the importance of reaching net zero carbon emissions. I’m nervious that in the 50-100 years it will take to reach those goals, we’ll push Mother Nature over the edge.
1
@JCAH1 I’m not disagreeing with quite a lot of what you’re saying. Obama proved to be an establishment shill in just about every aspect, climate change included. I used to be the biggest Obama enthusiast but he seems rather right leaning after I discovered true Progressive views. I don’t think we’re at immediate threat of ocean levels rising. I think it’s a problem for our grand children. Unless something were to trigger a rapid cascade of change, which is entirely possible. Look at Venus. Billions of years ago, Venus resembled Earth. Hell, it’s possible life used to exist on it. Back then, our sun burned 80% dimmer which put Venus in the habital zone. There’s a common misunderstanding today that Venus became a hellscape because the sun started burning brighter. That is incorrect. Venus experienced an era of hypercarbonization which turned its atmosphere into a pressurized inferno. The landscape became uninhabitable before the sun got brighter. Same thing with Mars. Mars likely had liquid water once. Something happened that destroyed its atmosphere. The point is irreversible things can happen in ecosystems that destroys them forever. That alone should make us want to be more cautious with our environment. It’s one thing if an external force destroys our planet. It’s another if we’re responsible. So why keep pushing Mother Nature to new extremes, just because Obama, Al Gore & the elite own some ocean front property? I agree, renewables alone can’t power our grid. At least not right now. A civilization with sufficiently advanced solar harvesting and storing capabilities could do it. But not us. We don’t have Dyson swarms and hyper conductive storage devices. Solar isn’t clean, either. The process of gathering energy is. But the process of building & transporting solar panels is dirty. So is the industry of battery power storage. Even if we went 100% solar, we wouldn’t reach net zero carbon. So we either need to radically rethink the dirty part of solar, find other sources, or both. Wave power harnessing devices have hope. I’m a fan of new generation portable small “box” nuclear reactors. They are practical, safer and significantly cheaper. I’m not a fan of old fashioned nuclear. I’m a fan of fusion. Fusion will power us to a full type 2 civilization alone if and when we finally master the technology. Renewables will become more viable once we have an industrial orbital infrastructure. Micro gravity opens up a world of mass-scale superconductor production. Which Earth’s energy grid desperately needs the ability to store and transport energy with significantly reduced energy loss. Solar will be the ultimate energy source. A sufficiently advanced civilization will most likely have solar outpace the practicality of fusion, as that civilization gains access to multiple stellar masses. Which routes back to what you’re saying about the utter unreliability of renewables. It’s not sufficiently advanced in its current form. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. Also, coal & fossil fuels hosts the largest global death toll. People all over the world are dying from chronic exposure to emissions-generated airborne carcinogens. Nuclear is one of the lowest global death tolls of any energy form. In the long run, humanity needs to perfect renewables, fission & fusion. We need off of coal, natural gas and oil ASAP. We need to have a grid powered by a diverse source of energy. Venezuala isn’t a good example. Yes they are in an energy crisis due to hosting one type of energy. But it isn’t the energy sources fault. Any energy source can fail. It was the countries fault for only having one energy source. Same way it’s Texas’s fault that their energy grid collapsed. Kleptocracy’s can’t be trusted to provide long term reliability and sustainability. America is a Kleptocracy now. It’s why our energy grid is destined to fail in the long run and it’s why I don’t trust old fashioned nuclear. I trust the tech. I don’t trust the Kleptocracy responsible for ensuring the tech doesn’t fail.
1
@JCAH1 I don’t feel much sympathy for Texas. A similar deep freeze happened either in the 20’s or 30’s. There’s humans alive today who experienced the last great failure of the Texas energy grid. The feds suggested guidelines but decided not to enforce. The state of Texas obviously chose not to enforce. The energy companies decided not to invest the money into securing the grid because it happens roughly once every 100 years. Power executives prioritized shareholder profits over reliability and sustainability. That kind of thinking will ensure we never become a full type 1 civilization. Fusion is closer than you think. I grew up most of my life thinking that Fusion would be technology for our grand childrens’ grandchildren. Now the first commercial fusion reactor is scheduled to be completed by 2035 & we’re currently living through a modern space race to harvest Helium 3 off of the moon. It’s surprising when you realize China, Russia and the US are scrambling to get mining operations on the moon. KSTAR just held a stable fusion reaction for 20 seconds. A x2 increase compared to the last benchmark record of sustained 10 second reaction. 10 seconds doesn’t seem like a lot until you realize 300 seconds of fusion reaction generates equal energy to 365 days of non stop nuclear reaction. The goal is to sustain a 50 second fusion reaction by 2035 when the first commercial reactor is completed. A multi trillion dollar investment is inevitable. Moon mining is within my lifetime. Asteroid mining is possible within my lifetime but most likely will be in my children’s lifetime. Our solar system has an estimated 100 million times more resources available in it than what’s available on our planet. Why is it inevitable? Greed and scarcity. Asteroid mining will create the worlds first multi trillionaires & it will solve Earths energy & resource scarcity issues. Fusion is a requirement to harvest the moon & asteroids. A multi trillion dollar investment will lead to thousands of trillions of value to be harvested. Your argument that it’s too expensive is similar to people who argue that NASA is too expensive. Hindsight tells us that the money invested into NASA has benefitted our economy more than 100 fold the initial investment. Investment into NASA is responsible for major advancements in commercial and personal tech that benefits the global GDP. Consider fusion the same, due to the benefits unlocked by that costly investment. Those insurmountable fusion hurdles you’re talking about are currently being lept over & is visible by the ever-increasing time we can sustain stable fusion reactions. Fusion allows us to make orbital infrastructure. Orbital infrastructure solves many issues like I mentioned in my last comment. Orbital infrastructure causes helium 3 to become significantly cheaper. Currently one gram of Helium 3 costs 200 billion dollars. That’s because of the costs to send capital to the moon to harvest it and return it to Earth. Estimates put it that with properly developed orbital infrastructure, we can get helium 3 down to the millions per gram, rather than billions. Also, yes Obama is right leaning. At least by European standards he is. Bernie Sanders is considered slightly left of center by Europe standards. That puts Obama to the right of center. I no longer subscribe to American socialism & instead I subscribe to European socialism. That’s what I personally view as true progressive views & Obama certainly does not share those views. He campaigned twice as if it did. Both terms of his administration delivered something far from Progressive ideology.
1
Deconstruct Mercury with autonomous drones. Use a rail gun vehicle launcher to send the infrastructure into orbit around the sun. It’s a compounding process. The more infrastructure we send into orbit around the sun, the more energy is available to deconstruct Mercury more quickly. Once energy availability is sufficiently abundant. That energy can be used to fuel expeditions to the Oort Cloud, to begin harvesting resources. Those resources can be brought back to the sun, to further build more of the Dyson swarm/Dyson sphere. Eventually, we’ll have enough energy to venture into interstellar space, harvesting resources out there and bringing them back. Maybe even one day, we’ll venture to colonize a nearby star. The mirrors of a Dyson swarm can be orientated, to send an extremely concentrated and powerful beam of light. This beam could be used as navigation, a way to accelerate a craft, and a way to energize a craft for a long interstellar voyage.
1
@Myfootonyourneck1 What suggests it’s wrong by orders of magnitude? Based on observational evidence, we’re pretty damn close. It’s hilarious that anti science clowns sit here and call science a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is orders of magnitude wrong. Whilst typing on a cell phone ONLY possible due to science. If General Relativity is grossly wrong, satellites wouldn’t stay up in space. Logic gates couldn’t handle processing data transferred at the speed of light. The internet wouldn’t exist and you wouldn’t have a platform to spew your idiocy.
1
We’ll likely be type 2 in 3,000 years, if we survive. Type 3, we’re looking at an aggressive estimate of 2-5 million years. Likely longer to become a full type 3. Unless we make extreme paradigm shifts in our understanding of physics.
1
Technology.
1
@idgaf2461 It is possible that the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) isn’t actually speed at all. The speed of light is the flow of time. Which is why faster than light travel is unlikely. Quantum physics is quite amazing and challenging all of our perspectives of classical physics. The speed of light being the speed of time explains how photons can exist in both a particle and energy state at the exact same time. Something classical physics cannot explain. Why this matters: While the speed of light is undathomably fast to humans. It’s incredibly slow on a cosmic time scale. If humans are forever restricted to the speed of light. Then we are doomed to extinction. If humanity unlocked speed of light travel today. Then 94% of our observable universe is already beyond reach and is forever lost to humanity. Every second that passes increases the % of the observable universe that is unreachable. The longer time goes on, the faster cosmic inflation becomes. The longer we wait, the faster that 94% grows. Science speculates and theorizes that there is more universe beyond the observable universe & it’s probably full of a lot of the same stuff. If humans achieve x100 the speed of light today. We would still never reach the most distant objects in our observable universe, let alone anything beyond. So unless we discover something much faster than x100 the speed of light, or teleportation or traveling between multiverses. We’re restricted to our local cosmic neighborhood. That’s great for a species looking to survive millions of years. That’s bad for a species looking to survive to the end of the universe & colonizing the entirety of it. Humanity will be unlikely to survive long enough to see a new era of the universe. We certainly won’t make it to the heat death where civilizations would survive around brown dwarf stars and black holes. The ideal time to be a living being would have been the early universe. A few million years after the Big Bang, everything was a lot closer and denser. The ambient temperature of the entire universe was similar to warm bath water. There was no stars and little to no planets back then. Hell, primordial black holes were likely a rarity back then. If life existed, it existed as beings that survived on cosmic dust and the heat from the rapidly cooling universe. It’s unlikely complex life or intelligent life could have formed. But simple forms such as single celled beings could have formed. This period would be ideal because this life would have traveled more of the universe via cosmic filaments than humanity will likely ever travel. These beings could still exist today. They were nurtured in an ideal environment and had billions of years to evolve biological machinery that gives them resistance and durability to the elements of space. It’s possible that all life in the universe could be seeded by these elementary and early forms of cosmic life. It’s possible that complex and intelligent life could have formed on primordial exoplanets. Whether or not they could have become a stellar or interstellar species without star light is up for debate. At least in our observable universe it does not appear that any primordial intelligent forms existed. Of were successful. They would have existed during an era of the universe where it would have been much easier to colonize other stars and galaxies. A successful species from the primordial planet and star creation days should theoretically have colonized thousands, to millions to possibly even billions of galaxies. We just don’t see that anywhere. Maybe we don’t know what we’re looking for and there is signs of intelligent life all over our universe. We can’t rule that possibility out, but we have a pretty good idea what we should be looking for. We don’t see mega structures. We don’t see artificial dimming of star light. We aren’t detecting signs of energy emissions required for intergalactic structures to move at or beyond the speed of light. What we instead see is an empty universe where everything that happens has a natural explanation, rather than artificial. It could be that intelligent life (us) formed too late. Or it could be that we’re early. While the early days of the universe was ideal for expansion into the cosmos. The increased density of the universe back then made it undesirable for sustainable life. The universe was exceptionally violent during the star and planetary formation era. We know it took life on Earth 4.6 billion years of evolution to go from single celled to complex & intelligent life like us. 4.6 billion is an exceptionally long time to go without having a cataclysmic event that exterminates all life. Earth has had major extinction events but nothing that exterminated 100% of life. Maybe that’s why we’re lucky to be early to the cosmic game of life. One positive consequence that comes from the expansion of space time and the passage of time, is that the universe becomes more gentle. Time allows for solar systems & galaxies to stabilize their orbits & eject or destroy any rouge planets, comets, asteroids, stars, etc. This will allow future planets to have decreased odds of total extinction. The expansion of space time affects all objects, even gravitationally bound objects. Gradually, the distance between all objects grows greater. This also decreases the chances of total extinction events. The later universe will also have less mega stars, supernovas, pulsars, etc. Star production will slow and produced stars will be made smaller. This is also ideal as smaller stars last longer and are more stable. Intelligent life in the later stages of the universe might be restricted to their galaxy, their solar system or even their planet. They’ll look up into the night sky and see a pitch black universe with no stars. They won’t articulate the concept of cataclysmic extinction from asteroids, their sun, etc. These species may believe their world or stellar neighborhood is the universe & may believe it’s eternal. This era of the universe is likely to be the most hospitable era for life. It’s likely there will be complex and intelligent life everywhere, but everything will be so far apart that none of them will know about each other. It could be that this is intentional. When major sources of matter are so far apart that no being restricted to the laws of nature will ever be able to reach. We might as well have mini universes within our universe. It could be that the purpose of all of this is to create an environment ideal to foster isolated life & we are an outlier that exists at an era of the universe we shouldn’t. Our consequence being existential dread about cataclysmic extinction or the fact we can see but never reach 94% of our observable universe. The reward for existing at an unintended time is we see what was not intended to be seen. We know there is more out there. Therefore we may attempt to reach it. We see the larger mechanisms of the universe and we may attempt to hack it in order to do what we cannot within the natural laws of the universe. We may ascend higher, or we may be stopped if a higher creation does not intend for us to do what we set out to do.
1
@nasqad3357 Please provide citation to this galactic war.
1
God uses magic to create something from nothing. AKA not possible.
1
The video has nothing to do with god. Someone is a bit sensitive about the religious subject lmao.
1
@williamarchibald1378 Tell me one predatory species that doesn’t destroy. Tell me one non-predatory species that has achieved harmony with its environment, without the presence of predators. I’ll save you your response. You can’t. Humans are predators. The only thing that differentiates us from other predators is our intelligence. Of course they destroy. You’re like captain obvious. Tell me something I don’t know. Now tell me how humanity ascends beyond the traits we evolved from living eons in a finite world. You haven’t thought that far ahead. Instead, you subscribe to a belief that humans are parasites on this planet. I suggest you spend some time thinking about the future and what that future means for humanity.
1
@williamarchibald1378 Do the world a favor and don’t pass on your genetics. Sounds like you already are planning on this. Enjoy wasting the gift of your temporary sentience. Now let your genetics rot away and never replicate.
1
There’s two universes visible to us. There’s our particle horizon, and there’s our past. Astronomers are looking at the latter, not the former.
1
Yes. A void is defined by its quantity, or lack there of. A super void is a void that is defined by length, and classified “super” due to the sheer length of it
1
Ergosphere defined as the area in which a black hole can externally exhibit its angular momentum influence. Accretion disk where black holes deconstruct matter, into glowing and super heated streams of ionizing radiation via Spaghettification. Photon ring is where some photons get stuck in a permanent stable orbit, just before the event horizon. This is how you can see the front and back, top and bottom of a black hole simultaneously from any angle. Event horizon is the point of no return, where not even light or gravity waves can escape. Gravity is so immense at this point, that time stops existing, and spacetime flows faster than light towards the singularity. The inner event horizon represents the point in which spacetime ceases to exist. What happens within the event horizon, and the singularly, is currently unknown.
1
Fusion might actually prevent war. It’s such a clean and efficient energy source that it eliminates the need for conflict and competition. That leaves only wars out of ideology, humanities last great weakness. Fusion unlocks the solar system and all of its resources. That eliminates resource scarcity, water included. It allows us to power more efficient infrastructure that could lead to an Earth capable of hosting 1 trillion humans. Fusion will finally make humanity a full type 1 civilization and put us on the fast track to becoming a full type 2 civilization. This could finally be harmony and peace amongst our species.
1
@Ryooken You are ignorant.
1
Death created time so that it can grow things to kill.
1
@jpthepug3126 Still a short term solution. For example: Our solar system alone has thousands of years of resources. Other stars will be similar. That’s great news for the immediate future of our species. Bad news is it’s not infinite. If we make it to an intersolar species (not quite galactic), we still run into the issue of eventually running out of resources. Which is followed by extinction. Long term survival (into the millions, billions and trillions of years) will require teleportation in one form or another.
1
@jpthepug3126 We don’t know what dark matter is. Dark matter engines are a fascinating concept but are entirely theoretical. Anti matter & black hole engines are more likely. We know much more about both of those science concepts than we do dark matter. Our current theory of dark matter is that they are axions or neutrinos that can phase through matter, including the entire planet and star, and possibly even black holes. Unless there’s some force physics we’re unaware of, we’ll unlikely be able to harvest dark matter as energy. We need to learn more about dark matter first though.
1
@jpthepug3126 That’s not what anti matter is. Anti matter is matter with a reverse charge. We can create anti matter in labs. Quantum particles make up protons, neutrons and electrons. The charges can be reversed and still exist as a stable particle. The particles cannot interact with their opposite charge or else they release all energy and return to their simplest quantum form. The only reason the universe is filled with matter, is because quantum mechanics made slightly more units of matter than anti matter. We don’t know why that happened, but our best guess is just pure coincidence. Even on a universal scale, 50/50 odds rarely end in an exact 50% percentage. That’s only a mathematical principle that if you have infinite number of rolls, you get to 50%. In reality, a plethora of external forces can lead to say 50.001% or 49.999% even when the odds are perfectly 50/50. That’s why Einstein was so frustrated with quantum mechanics and stated “God does not play dice with the universe”. Which was followed up by an intellectual challenger saying “Don’t tell god what to do”. All these years later, we do know quantum mechanics is a dice roll & it’s a structured chaos beyond pure coincidence. Otherwise 50/50 odds would result in perfect 50/50 rolls. We don’t see that on a universal scale.
1
Yup the cloud cities of science fiction were based on early science theory of how to study Venus, and even have a permanent scientific outpost on Venus. Science has moved on from cloud city theories though, and now plays with the idea of entirely terraforming Venus to make the entirety of its surface habitable. If humanity decides to undertake this project. It will take roughly 5,000 years to remove the incredibly thick greenhouse atmosphere, and to restore an incredibly earth-like atmosphere. The rewards for doing so is an additional planet that is remarkably similar to Earth. More so than Mars.
1
Why? You and I will be dead long before the events described in this video come to fruition. You should be more worried about your insanely short time here in the universe, than worried about the death of Earth or the death of the universe itself.
1
@douglassheridan8497 Then best make the most of your life! The reaper is coming for us. A blink of an eye on cosmic timescales.
1
Imagine staring into the cosmos, and rejecting the human spirit for adventure. Some people just truly exist in a sad state of fear. The call to adventure is what drove humanity’s progress for thousands of years. Now you want to turn your back on that and call it “the worst idea in human history”. Gee I’m sure glad you aren’t in charge of making decisions on the future of humanity.
1
The causal speed limit of light only applies to matter & energy. Spacetime is neither of those things, and therefore is not bound by the speed of light. Spooky action is also a quantum mechanical phenomena, which again isn’t bound by the speed limit of light. Only macro universe phenomena is restricted. Quantum randomized information appears to transfer 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. The issue is that this information will likely never be useful to us, as macro organized information can never be sent.
1
@justpassingbby I’m atheist & yes I’ve seen the footage. It’s real. Skeptics claims have been debunked.
1
@TheSorcerer1 You’re referring to the filaments on a universal scale that are influenced by gravity and connect galactic super clusters together. I’m referring to the new discovery made this year (May 2021), that shows that our galaxy has its own individual filaments and that they interact with each other utilizing the electromagnetic force. I suggest you check out the NASA’s newest image they have captured using the Chandra X-Ray Observatory. It captured the clearest image of the center of our galaxy that we have to date. It reveals massive filaments at the center of our galaxy and that these filaments only interact with our galaxy alone. These filaments snap apart and reform, releasing x rays billions of times stronger than anything else we’ve witnessed in the universe. Also, I just re read your comment. Not sure where you’re getting the portion about me stating them being man made. I never stated these things are being built by living beings. I’m simply describing a massive scientific discovery that changed my perspective on the Fermi Paradox. It changed my perspective, because it took modern humans a really long time to discover something in our own galaxy that’s billions of times more powerful than we’ve seen before. If something like THAT can go undetected for so long. Then it would be a great answer to the Fermi paradox on why we can’t see life anywhere else in the universe. Why would we see hyper intelligent civilizations, if we couldn’t even see some of the largest and most powerful natural structures of our own galaxy.
1
No. Just. No.
1
@CardThrone That’s one possibility. Unlikely though. Asteroids didn’t kill all the dinosaurs. Ice ages didn’t kill all life. Even nuclear war won’t be able to kill all humans. I think a more likely possibility will be that humanity won’t be the same as we know it, but something descending from us will still be kicking around.
1
Sorta. They have an experimental fusion reactor, capable of generating plasma significantly hotter than the sun.
1
@joeantolak4629 lol this comment is pure ignorance. The moon has been bombarded for millions of years with astroids. The moons has gained millions of pounds of mass. All of that and our moon is still our moon. Humanity could chuck and detonate every nuclear warhead ever made at the moon. The result? Nothing really. All of our nukes combined equals about a medium-sized asteroid in terms of kinetic force. The moon used to eat those for breakfast mate.
1
@joeantolak4629 tunneling the moon? Lol. We haven’t even reached the Mantle of Earth. Yet you’re talking about tunneling an object in the most brutal elements, which is space.
1
Yes. During the grand unification epoch, why does 100 quintillion degrees functionally serve as 0 degrees? Why do the fundamental forces merge together into one super force as absolute heat or absolute zero is reached? What causes cosmic inflation? Why did spacetime expand many orders of magnitude faster at the moment of the Big Bang?
1
Depends on the speed traveled.
1
Type 5 is known as Type Omega. Complete control over this universe and it’s resources. A type 6 civilization is an alpha omega, capable of controlling multiple universes. A type 7 is a god, overseeing the entirety of creation. Whether it ascended there, or always was is another question.
1
Advanced civilizations won’t use primitive radio waves. They likely will use gravity waves of neutrinos to communicate across the cosmos. They are better in just about every way when compared to radio waves. Radio is good for technologically illiterate species, like us, who’ve not mastered the physics of the universe yet.
1
Y I K E S. It’s so mainstream to have this anti human doomerism. It makes you look like a brain dead moron who echoes depopulation ideas that you heard on Facebook.
1
Yes. He mentioned that there are candidate galaxies that emit higher than expected radio frequencies, which could be indicative of a higher civilization, or a natural phenomena we don’t understand yet.
1
@casperstour Sigh.. How does one manage to come to such a skewed conclusion? Light from that object wasn’t 28 billion light years away 14.8 billion light years ago. That’s how far it is NOW. There are photons emitted from it within our particle horizon that were emitted billions of years ago BEFORE cosmic inflation causally disconnected the star. Also, photons don’t die. Their wavelength gradually loses energy as it’s stretched by cosmic expansion, but will be detectable for tens of billions of years.
1
Yes it did. Geodesic incompleteness points to an origin of a singularity.
1
Colonizing space > world hunger. You will not solve world hunger. It’s not an availability issue. It’s a cultural and geopolitical issue that will not be solved any time soon. Start working on the future of humanity now.
1
We’re running out of resources and time. Even if we found a way to live in complete harmony with the planet. We’re still running out of time. The death of the sun as we know it. Venture beyond, or go extinct.
1
So negative. We’re on the verge of fusion, becoming multi planetary, and possibly close to the theory of everything. Humanity is poised to advance more in the next 100 years, than the last 400,000 years combined.
1
lol no
1
😂🤡😂🤡😂🤡 it’s like you fundamentally don’t understand science. Change is the entire point. As our understanding changes, so do our theories. Our understanding is based upon evidence and there is ALWAYS new evidence coming. Better to change with reality than to remain stagnant with the words of a fictional book written by primitive man.
1
Not really. Think bigger. What will humanity be like if it’s still around 5 million years from now? What if we, as a species, survive for a billion years? Think beyond your biological life.
1
Man, you’re such a downer. Are you always like this?
1
🤡🤡 because galaxies are bigger than expected & formed slightly earlier than anticipated? All it suggests is the Big Bang model needs revised to account for this new observational evidence. Many good theoretical candidates are arising, such as black hole core hyperstars. No god needed.
1
No. Infrared is non-observable by the human eye. Only technology & other certain kinds of animals can view it naturally. Technology has to map it and apply visible light spectrum to it for us to view.
1
Nope. Just Mercury. That’ll provide enough material to get the sphere started & generating useable power. Next would be to start harvesting asteroid belts, and inevitably the Oort Cloud.
1
The part where they found several candidate galaxies for intelligent life, where we’re receiving abnormal amounts of radio signals from them. Either alien, or a natural phenomena we don’t understand yet.
1
Nope. As referenced in the video. The 66 billion solar mass black hole is 10 billion light years away. Your bones will have decayed into literal dust, billions of years before this could even reach us. Oh, and it won’t. It’s not moving towards us.
1