swansont

That's not a link to peer-reviewed literature. You've already admitted you're not a scientist, so you have no credibility in making claims

I'm going to need supporting evidence for this. i.e. peer-reviewed literature. edit to add "A study published in August 2021 indicates that if you had COVID-19 before and are not vaccinated, your risk of getting re-infected is more than two times higher than for those who got vaccinated after having COVID-19." And other links that indicate vaxxed is better than not being vaxxed, after having the disease https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

To some extent they are the same thing. We haven't been "advertising" ourselves until relatively recently, so not knowing we are here and us being ill-developed are almost the same thing. The distinction would be whether they know about us (and don't care), or don't know about us. But why would they know about us?

And if you don't have a vaccine, the virus will also mutate, as it has already done in the absence of a vaccine. Again I ask: what is the actual problem? What does "the distance between vaxxed is shorter" mean? ! Moderator Note Note: similar threads merged

It's the amount of fuel available, which might limit the population (number and geographic spread) and the energy density, which would restrict travel and scope of industrialization. Scientific advancement relies on having people free to pursue science, which would happen slower if more manual labor was still required because you didn't have the same available machinery that high-energy-density fuels make available. A solar furnace isn't going to propel a train very effectively, for example. I'm also not sure how effective metallurgy is going to be with wood vs coal fires.

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining what the problem is, because I can't believe that anyone thinks the virus wouldn't mutate in the absence of vaccines, because it did. The alpha variant (identified below as the first "highly publicized" variant, suggesting there were others) showed up in Nov 2020, and the first recipient of a vaccine (other than trials) was the following month. Beta also showed up around that same time. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-variants-of-concern-omicron As I understand it, "immune escape " means the virus mutates to where vaccines (or possibly acquired immunity from having the disease) no longer affords protection. So we'd be in the same boat as if there were no vaccine. But more people would be alive, not having succumbed to the disease, relative to the situation where there was no vaccine. Why is this bad? You also need to explain why "Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?" Dangerous variants can't "spread well"? What is it about shots that make the virus "spread well"?

! Moderator Note If you have no studies, it precludes being certain. You are pushing an idea without scientific backing, and that has no place here.

It doesn’t matter what their technique is if the evidence of intelligent life hasn’t had time to reach them yet.

We have generational ships? Fusion hasn’t been 20 years away for the last 60 years? How long does a fission reactor last, vs the travel time for interstellar travel? This is but one example of the details you gloss over in these discussions. “Proposed” is not solved.

Which you’d expect early in the universe, before you had stars going supernova or having neutron stars merging, and dispersing the heavier elements. You’d also have issues if they evolved early in the planet’s life, before large coal and oil deposits formed.

Why is this a matter of philosophy? What changes with respect to our aging process?

Because these are waving-of-hands with no analysis backing them up. It’s the Sidney Harris “then a miracle occurs” cartoon - you need to be more explicit in step 2. http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php (it’s reminiscent of the joke in our D&D group when a tough foe was encountered: “we kill them and go on”) IOW the devil’s in the details

As I recall, trying to get you to give scientific/analytical support for your conjecture about interstellar travel in the past has been like pulling teeth. I’m not interested at this time.

Please show the derivation

Please don’t respond to obvious spam. You aren’t going to shame them or reason with them. Use the “report post” function to bring it to the attention if the moderators.

I agree with Greene to some extent; the earth would not stand out. If they are more than ~100 LY away, what would make us “interesting”? It’s not communicating with an anthill so much as communicating with a rock. Why would they care about this rock?

How fast is this drone traveling? i.e. how far away are the Lax? A few thousand LY? (~0.001c) What made the earth stand out among all the systems within that radius, that they sent a drone, expecting to communicate? The earth would not be forming, with only a potential for life, if the time span is only a few million years. But earth would have no technology beyond crude stone tools. They could be sending drones to all “goldilocks” planets, of course.

What, again? Why do my previous posts not suffice? Speculation does not absolve you from basing things on science. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down. It can’t be both. If you want to discuss a framework for sci-fi, you need to make that clear.

Like how 18.92 mm is smaller than 1 cm?

That’s science fiction. You can cite e.g. Star Trek all you want, but don’t pretend it’s science. It’s your list. You numbered them and I referred to the numbers. I think such lists generally build on previously stated assumptions because if there is a dependence it’s less confusing that way; there’s a logical order. You can have 3 or 4 without 2. Once you’ve stated 2, there is no need for 3 or 4, since that’s already implied, unless you are invoking magic. But to go further, 3 and 4 do not guarantee 2

Are they citing the equation based on an aether, or one based on special relativity? Since you cite pages early in the book, it seems the former is likely. You can’t use SR applied to an equation derived assuming the existence of an aether. The assumption is invalid, so the equation can’t be assumed to hold. Saying ∆x = 0 and ∆t = 0 is an assertion that time dilation and length contraction don’t happen, which is a circular argument. And we have experimental evidence that SR is correct.

2 kinda requires 3 and 4, and 2 is a bad assumption, given the physics we know.

With what, specifically?

Is there any evidence that they do?

The M-M experiment failed. There was no fringe shift. Do you have an equation that works, i.e. is consistent with relativity, to discuss?