swansont

"Common" is similar to the "throughout" I objected to earlier. How many rocky planets with liquid water are within, say, 10 light-years of earth? That's the thing; there aren't billions of choices if you are traveling along some path. And there's nothing about this premise where earth was "singled out" so that's moot.

That's a different kettle of fish. This isn't about seeking us out, specifically Earth certainly could be noticed as a low-ish gravity rocky planet from afar, irrespective of detecting signs of intelligent life. So if you're looking for raw materials, it's a candidate that you can land on, isn't very cold, and one that isn't overly costly in terms of energy required to go gather those raw materials. So if you're plotting a path through interstellar space, we'd likely be on a map of potential refueling stops.

! Moderator Note This isn't the proper place to post it; we're a discussion board, not a publisher. If you have things you wish to discuss, then post those topics. Do the blogging/soapboxing elsewhere

Sure, traveling light-years to get to the next system is “easy pickings”

“throughout” is doing some heavy lifting here. There’s a whole lot of space. “nothing” is what’s plentiful You don’t have to actually be on earth to be noticed.

Interplanetary travel is assumed here. Eventually you will need to replenish, and no, they are not found anywhere.

Not even raw materials?

Several factors possibly in play - It could be supercooled, and the bubbles are the disturbances that allow freezing. - What you say about the freezing point isn’t an argument against this - if the system is at -2C, and under pressure freezes at -3 C, and you lower the pressure so the freezing point is -1 C, the liquid is suddenly below the freezing point. So it freezes - CO2 coming out of solution reduces the freezing point depression, so it might now be below the freezing point, as above.

You are free to open a thread in speculations and present evidence to support this claim. Assertions are insufficient, and this is also not in keeping with relativity, so it has no place in this discussion.

Don’t change the subject. You asked about superposition and relativity, not about the block universe interpretation. If you want to ask about the block universe, open a new thread.

Just as there are different kinetic energies; it depends on who does the measuring. Length, like kinetic energy, is a relative quantity. Two measurements by two different observers does not mean anything is in two positions at once, just as it doesn’t have two speeds at once. A superposition is measured by a single observer.

I don’t follow this. There is contraction for any observer (or frame) moving relative to it. But it’s not true, so any conclusion drawn from it is invalid. Further, the thread is about superposition in relativity; relativity is taken as being true. If you have some alternative to SR, like a concept of intrinsic length, it needs to go in a thread in speculations

You’re taking “observe” literally. It’s a frame dependent quantity. KE is a relative property, just as length is. Why do you accept one but not the other? It was incorrect.

You would be wrong. How did you get this far in discussions of relativity without knowing this? Also, I will mention again that you continue to avoid answering my question about kinetic energy Your OP said nothing about this. No, the length depends on who observes it, as it always is with relativity. There is no intrinsic length.

If they aren't strong enough to challenge us and we are prone to be belligerent, how is it in their best interest to reveal themselves?

Did you mean 12 weeks? Weren't there tourists in space (briefly) back in October? I know Shatner played Captain Kirk, but he still counts as a tourist.

And how do you know "something stealthy" hasn't? Because you saw something that isn't (and has never been claimed to be) stealthy? To rebut the existence of stealth spacecraft, you have to be seeing the stealth craft. The ISS isn't one. It's like claiming that seeing a white horse proves that brown horses don't exist. I don't. That misses the point, which is it might end badly, and some people/beings might want to minimize risk. I also wear my seatbelt when I drive my car, even though I don't know that I will get into an automobile accident.

! Moderator Note Discussion on emergent phenomena has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126248-what-does-emergent-mean-in-a-physics-context-split-from-information-paradox/

Does it? Can you know ahead of time how somebody else will react? Are you willing to ignore the mountain of evidence of such scenarios ending badly? IOW, does your self-confidence that you will be welcomed as a liberator play much of a role? That didn't work out the last time I heard that phrase.

Sometimes is the key. If half the time you get a nice reception and the other half you get punched in the face, it's not very long before you have a bloody nose. Discretion is the better part of valor, as they say.

Humans sometimes respond to new things with violent opposition. It's not a unique behavior.

Where is "better" claimed? All I see is "more advanced" "The Day The Earth Stood Still" comes to mind.

How would we know? Anyway, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) That doesn't actually support the argument.

Superposition refers to quantum states, or the addition of certain quantities. Length is neither of those. To any observer, a length has a single value. A quantum superposition is a quality of the particle or system in question and choice of basis states, and does not depend on the observer. The followup to this is: Is location an eigenstate? No. So there is no quantum superposition. As I believe you've been told before, length is not an intrinsic/inherent property; you keep treating this as some length having multiple values, and I think I've pointed out to you that we can look at the kinetic energy of a particle, which is another relative value. If you're at rest with respect to the particle, it has no KE. If there is relative motion, the KE is nonzero, and that value will depend on the relative speed, so it can have any positive value. But this doesn't seem to cause any conceptual issues (or maybe it does?), while length does.

The total output is 40 MW, but only about ~27 MW could be used; ~13 MW is carries away by neutrons And using any of that 27 MW would likely be counterproductive, since it would tend to cool the plasma down, requiring more input.