Can the Fermi paradox be resolved through the assumption that interstellar travel realistically is not possible?

Can the Fermi paradox be resolved through the assumption that interstellar travel realistically is not possible?

No. Evidence can be transmitted with radio waves.

It's because of interstellar warfare and relativity bombs. Alien cultures want to be stealth so they encrypt their signals.

Pic Related, but it could also be that reality itself could be manipulated and maybe aliens are doing this instead of travelling within our universe. Kind of like the matrix or something.

On a sidenote: Anyone know how much time dilation a person would experience close to the event horizon of a black hole?

They're using directed radio waves to communicate that exclude earth

Assuming those radio waves dont get distorted enough to be unreadable after hundreds to thousands of years traveling through a universe filled with fusion reactors that convert mass into pure EM energy. Theres only a handful of stars our earliest transmissions have even reached.

Assumption 2 is flawed

Bitch we can barely detect radiation originating from distant stars in our own galaxy, you think a signal originating from an alien civilization would have an intensity great enough to be detectable? Any civilization with a radio telescope pointed at our sun would see our communications as noise and filter it out.

For extraordinarily short distances (in terms of interstellar distances.)

>close

Would depend entirely on things you don;t state, such as "What do you mean by close?"

I guess my question should have been how close to an event horizon do you have to be for any significant time dilation to occur?

That is not what the Fermi paradox is about

It's possible. We have the math for FTL travel. We have the physic. We just need the energy and the engineering.

except everything says that it's not possible

Uh no we don't.

>>x

> assumes a hypothetical technology is possible without empirical measurements based on a field of study that people only take seriously because of empirical measurements
You is stupid

The Fermi paradox is resolved easily even if FTL travel is possible just understanding how fucking huge space is and difficult it is to detect things that aren't stars. Stars that are very far away are rather difficult to analyze effectively, and yet stars are of the most luminous things in the universe. How bright do you think our radio communications would appear to an alien telescope on the other side of the galaxy? It probably wouldn't be seen at all. If a civilization could travel between stars, they would likely never discover life unless they by chance were headed towards an inhabited system already. For all we know there could be a super advanced intergalactic civilization that has spread itself throughout a million different galaxies including our own, and we would still probably never discover them and they would never discover us.

The solution to the Fermi """"Paradox""""" is that humans are primitive retards.

>B-but why can't we find interstellar civilizations communication with fucking electromagnetic radiation??

*communicating

what the fuck is a fermi paradox? is it science?

No, because it's not true that interstellar travel in not possible. It's very possible, just really difficult for us to fathom at this point.

Much like it would be incredibly difficult for 16th century Europeans to fathom crossing the ocean, or 19th century Americans to fathom walking on the moon, or 21st century Africans to fathom what clean water tastes like.

>>The Fermi paradox is resolved easily even if FTL travel is possible just understanding how fucking huge space is and difficult it is to detect things that aren't stars.

It's difficult to detect countless von Neumann probes in our own solar system?

We already know it's possible. It's not very likely that Voyager probes are going to be colliding with some shit if they were aimed at some distant solar system. Just takes a lot of time but there's plenty of that too.

>von Neumann probes
More human stupidity.

encrypting signals means nothing. anything that mades any kind of sense would be detectable, were not trynig to see what it means just detect where it comes from

No matter how fucking hard it is to happen, to be detected and to travel, if there is even a minuscule chance of life happening we should have seen some evidence by now.

Like, even if only 0.00000000000000000001 of all planets harbour life, we would be receiving the light of at least a couple of thousand billion TRILLION life planets.

at least one of them would show signs of civilization that we know can be detected from far and are currently possible with nowadays known technology

Civilizations advanced enough to build them would either choose not to due to the inherent risk of them consuming most of the mass in the Galaxy, or, if they somehow managed to 100% eliminate that risk, might be able to construct such small probes we're not likely to find anything.

> thousand billion trillion
I don't know why you responded to my comment because you clearly didn't read what I had to say. There are fixed limits on how far away a radiation source of some luminosity can be in order of us to be able to detect it. There's something like a tenth of a trillion stars in our galaxy, and basically all of them are far enough away that radio transmissions originating from them would be completely undetectable. You can forget about transmissions from other galaxies. Unless you are by coincidence already very close to an inhabited system you have no chance of detecting their communications.

Thinking that there are such things is human projection. Space is fucking huge. Larger than anyone can normally comprehend. Attenuation is a massive bitch. You can only communicate with other worlds is you harness the energy of a star to do it. Meaning the star/sun becomes a lighthouse beacon you switch on and off on the side you want to communicate with. Nothing on Earth can reach very far into space.

>at least one of them would show signs of civilization that we know can be detected from far and are currently possible with nowadays known technology

We can't detect shit with current tech except star dimming and flicker.

How about the idea that life on other planets never made it past the equivalent of stuff like bacteria or fungi, or that life never even emerged elsewhere? Why is it so hard to accept? Sure there are a lot of planets out there, but that doesn't mean the stars HAVE to align for any of them to produce life. Probability statistics are just math.

The other issue is that directing such a weapon would be computationally impossible, not only because of the absurd precision to which you'd need to calculate its acceleration in order to set it on a trajectory that would hit a distant planet, but because you'd also need to know the exact future history of its entire path volume including the exact size, movement, composition and gravitational field of every object it will pass through or near. That gas cloud thirteen years in was fractionally denser than you thought? You hit the target dead on, but were ten minutes slow so the planet was 12,000 miles further round its star, which was in turn 86,000 miles further around the galaxy. Didn't spot that tiny asteroid cloud 30 light years away? Each of the two dozen 15-kilogram rocks delivered a relativistic amount of energy, so your bomb is currently dispersing conically at nearly the speed of light.

> detectable with current technology
This is entirely incorrect. If you are going to dispute this please cite a reference. Our technology would not be capable of detecting alien communications unless the aliens are very nearby.

No, even if you want to assume that everyone is confined to sublight speeds you would still see technological civilizations spread across the galaxy in a few million years

FTL travel is dependent on negative mass existing, something that we're unsure of whether it exists or not. Even though wormholes and some warp drives are solutions to Einsteins equations

Look at us, we aren't even an intelligent civilization. So there are exactly zero instances of intelligence in the universe. So how do we expect to find something that we have not even seen a shred of evidence could exist?

This level of anti-humanism is honestly fucking retarded. Obviously intelligence is a relative term, saying we aren't intelligent when we are in fact the most intelligent species we have ever been in contact with is ridiculous. The fuck even counts as intelligence according to you?

Where are the superstructures littering the closest galaxies then? Don't tell me hypothetical life hasn't had time to do them, even a mere million years is enough headstart to make something noticeable.

Unless there is no life nearby, or no interest, but those are solutions to the fermi paradox.

> make something noticeable
Exactly what do you think is noticeable? You mentioned superstructures, but exactly how big are you thinking? How massive? Unless it is at least as luminous as a star or as massive as a billion suns we wouldn't notice shit. You realize that just because something isn't invisible and is perhaps rather big that maybe it isn't big at all in comparison to the distance between stars and unless its emitting a shit ton of radiation we have no chance of ever knowing its existence? Do you know how long after the invention of the telescope it took us to discover Neptune? And it's not like we just suddenly saw it one day, we figured out by other means that it should exist and where it should be and then checked. The Fermi paradox is a meme concept and a non-question. We haven't discovered life because we simply couldn't have even if it's there to be discovered.

The entire post is flawed wtf are you saying. It was written by a retard.

from the first day life/self-replicating molecules emerged to appearance of eukaryotes cells (which is pivotal to complex organisms) it took about 2 billion years. That's 2 billion years of random chemical reactions, wouldn't be took absurd if it took an additional 2 billion years to happen instead, because even if your chances of winning the lottery are one in a million, in the real world you could bet a million times and still lose. What I'm saying is complex organisms are probably much more rare than people think.

On top of that we're never leaving the solar system, it's impossible.

It would help. desu tho I would say that most alien civilizations are probably like ours, stuck on their home planet without a big enough incentive to ever leave even if they could.

a Dyson swarm would be rather noticeable and make stars look more diffuses even in the earlier stages of development

i'd argue that intelligent life is much more improbable than we think

You are assuming a relativistic cannon ball with no guidance system.

You are also assuming a single munition instead of a trillion bombs with MIRV.

RKKVs are science fiction and you need at least a type II civilization to even consider the prospect due to the sheer energy requirements of accelerating even a tiny object into relativistic space. Second, they are rendered ineffective by even the slightest miscalculation in trajectory or an undocumented object at the wrong time and they are not unstoppable even on a theoretical basis.

A civilization capable of generating the raw power required to accelerate an RKKV would not waste it on a RKKV except perhaps in extreme home defense situations. If you're a type II civilization and you have the capability to generate significant quantities of antimatter and you have the ability to travel at relativistic speeds why not take warships to the system and launch antimatter tippled missiles at the habitable bodies? It's more guaranteed. You don't have to build a giant propulsion chamber on the scale of the fucking Star Forge just to destroy one little pissant civilization that overstepped its bounds.

RKKVs are more suitable to the practices of a mass doomsday weapon capable of causing MAD rather then something you used to destroy one or two errant civilizations. You could have arrays of these immobile projectile weapons targeted at the enemy's homeworld and major population bodies and power them with vast dyson shells that could remain uninhabited and fully automated. You could then build a series of relay stations in communication with the head that could give the order to fire at will even after the homeworld is destroyed - similar in practice to the Soviet deadhand system if much grander in scope. Any attempt by the enemy to take out your governing body would result in a Pyrrhic victory on enormous scale. Even if you knew about the weapon, you could do very little to stop it before the order was given and nothing after.

A perfectly compressed message cannot be distinguished from noise without proper decoding info. Also, what is quadratic attenuation?

Yes, that's a possible solution to the Fermi paradox.

Yes

>On top of that we're never leaving the solar system, it's impossible.

Never is a long time, non.

Stars didn't align for life to emerge here, it was just basic chemistry on a small rocky planet at a certain distance from it's host star. Hardly unique conditions even if the vast distances and our limited opportunities to study exoplanets (fun fact: even though we have catalogued thousands of exoplanets we've only directly imaged less than 20) may make it seem that way.