Hiding in plain sight? The argument for invisible aliens (2020)

https://now.northropgrumman.com/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-argument-for-invisible-aliens/

by graderjs • 4 years ago

48 126 4 years ago

now.northropgrumman.com

ianai3• 4 years ago

The hypothesis of a prohibition on grabby aliens feels more plausible to me than most others. We’re relatively early on the scene. If one Von Neumann probe got out from a civilization it could mean no other species evolve again in the universe. That’s surely disastrous since the universe will be around for trillions of years and survival will require adaptation over that period. So maybe they’re around and watchful to allow species to evolve on their relative own.

Aside, I really wish we were already building the successor to JWST. And multiples of them for surety of success. For verification but also the universe is literally the largest thing we know. Lots of science to learn just by careful watching. It’s also work (astronomy) that does add to human knowledge with few negative externalities. So create jobs for astronomers!!

TheOtherHobbes• 4 years ago

I think VN probes are impossibly hard and extremely unlikely.

A working VN probe literally has to reproduce a significant part of an entire civilisation's industrial capacity - mining, refining, all levels of assembly - while improvising with a mix of raw materials which may not be similar to those available at source.

And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)

You may as well as just seed viruses everywhere and see what they evolve into. (What if we are the VN probe?)

ianai3• 4 years ago

Life is a likely VN.

Edit-not that life is anyone in particulars VN probe. But it’s clearly self replicating and can evolve to various conditions. Kind of the obvious example to prove the existence of VN probes as a logical concept.

ben_w• 4 years ago

Even if the traditional image of a VN probe were impossible, and I doubt that, the effect of a traditional VN probe is unambiguously also achievable with a big enough group of humans and tools.

On this scale, 10 MT of industrial equipment and 100k people that self-replicates in 35 years, isn't particularly different from a fancy hypothetical atomic 3D printer that masses 1kg, needs another 1kg of support equipment, and which self-replicates in 6 months.

hutzlibu• 4 years ago

"You may as well as just seed viruses everywhere"

A virus needs a host cell to replicate, so they likey would not get far. But bacteria survive in space quite well, and I would just send them. Or like you said, maybe some asteroid with bacterias was send to us on purpose and got successful.

tomrod• 4 years ago

You and I almost fit the definition of VN probes if you allow for mutation. Stephen Baxter's writing covers that notion on his book Evolution as a minor point.

TeMPOraL• 4 years ago

A working VN probe literally has to reproduce a significant part of an entire civilisation's industrial capacity - mining, refining, all levels of assembly - while improvising with a mix of raw materials which may not be similar to those available at source.

The optimization target here is a minimum-complexity design that's able to reproduce itself using in-situ materials. This is still an unsolved problem, but I don't see a reason the probe would have to "reproduce a significant part of an entire civilsation's industrial capacity" - it doesn't have to build anything else other than its own copy (and whatever it needs for that). It has to do one thing, and thus we could cut corners in the design.

And it has to do it in a way that is 100% guaranteed free from software bugs, hardware failures, and general space wear and tear. Over millions of years. (Assuming FTL isn't possible.)

This is not a hard requirement. You don't need 100% reliability - you only need enough so that, on average, one probe turns into more than one. Beyond that, more reliability only speeds things up. This is how biology does it: reliability is achieved by doing more things than necessary and rejecting (recycling) failures.

mnky9800n• 4 years ago

as noted by businessinsider.com

The pinnacle of trustable and verified information.

notorandit• 4 years ago

Let's imagine 1 civilization lasts 10 million years on a planet. Then it either blows itself out or moves away. Let's imagine it takes another 10 million years for a new one to spawn out there. Within 100 million years we could get 5 different civilizations, each unaware of the other ones, unless some long-lasting (> 10 my) relic can be found. So, for two civilization to come in contact you need to be within the same space-time boundaries. Otherwise they could be either too far in time or too far in space. Provided that both civilizations can physically get in an effective contact.

lnxg33k13• 4 years ago

I’d say any form of life out there would have to go through some form of capitalism that would extinct them before they’d be able to be advanced enough to get in touch, but also I always had this stupid idea, that if to develop an intelligent form of life it took a inhabitable planet then why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?

lgl2• 4 years ago

I’d say any form of life out there would have to go through some form of capitalism

This is anthropomorphizing at its best because we humans have largely decided that capitalist is the best "*ism". Alien intelligence could have basically unimaginable governments, societal norms, morals and/or motivations.

(...) then why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?

The answer here is probably just evolution. Other intelligent species have developed on Earth thorough its history (e.g.: Neanderthals, Denisovans). They're not here anymore because we (Homo-Sapiens) killed them.

pentachoron• 4 years ago

So, the traditional counter to this is that they have: the crows/ravens and parrots all have member species who are pretty smart, there's plenty of smart aquatic molluscs (squid, octopuses and cuttlefish), and then there's dolphins, etc. No, none of them have developed technology to the extent humanity has - but it's not inconceivable that they would, if humanity weren't already around to mess with them. They just need another hundred thousand to million years of the right evolutionary pressure...

andrekandre2• 4 years ago

  >  why another intelligent form of life hasn’t developed here on earth other than human species?

do you mean outside of the many hominids that used to exist?

i guess the earth has a few billion years left to find out...

aflag3• 4 years ago

I think it's not unreasonable that we are sort of early to the party. Earth has existed for about 1/3 of the lifetime of the universe (and I think it was only around 8 billion years ago that the galaxy started looking like it does today) and we are only here right now and we don't have enough impact in our environment that would be detectable with our technology from very far away even within the milky way. Considering that in order to get technologically advanced you need some heavier elements to exist, your planet really needs to be formed after a few generations of stars. Then there are a bunch of other factors to get everything right in the planet so that it ends up creating inteligent life.

I suspect there's probably intelligent life out there and some may be a lot more advanced than us. But I think it's not unreasonable to think that no life in the milky way quite made it to galactic domination yet. If that's even feasible. It's just very hard to find anything short of that right now. And, even if such life exists in other galaxies, it would be very hard to detect that as well. Plus, they are really far away, so their influence didn't quite have the time to reach here.

ido• 4 years ago

The lifetime of the universe is so long that it's hard to reason about intuitively. Saturn's rings were formed about 100 million years ago, which is cosmologically speaking a blink of an eye.

1 million years ago is 1/14,000th (0.007%) of the lifespan of the universe, so almost trivially miniscule in cosmological sense. If some sentient alien civilisation got 1 million years head-start on us wouldn't they basically already have achieved any technological advancement possible?

867-5309• 4 years ago

the fact we have only been bleeding EM radiation for the last hundred years or so only gives us a radius of 100ly for detection - another tiny fraction of the galaxy

jonathanstrange• 4 years ago

Somebody must be the first, though. It is worth noting that assuming that we're the first (or among the first) seems no less reasonable than assuming we're the only intelligent life. At least it seems like that to me, maybe I've missed some argument.

SkyMarshal• 4 years ago

Also worth considering is that humanity is not the first major species to evolve on Earth. Dinosaurs came first, about 230 million years ago, went extinct ~60 million years ago, then humanity came about 1-2 million years ago.

Imagine some other planet in the universe (or even our galaxy) that went through similar geological processes as Earth and at roughly the same time, but on which the first species to evolve did not go extinct and instead went on to develop intelligence. That species would have a roughly ~200+ million year head start on humanity.

Further, consider the planets at the far edge of the observable universe from Earth, whose light emitted billions of years ago is only just now reaching us, and which are much older than the Milky Way. What if any of those planets went through a similar evolutionary process and developed intelligent life, but billions of years ago.

Such species would now be using science and technology completely incomprehensible to, and likely undetectable by, humanity. We're scanning for electromagnetic transmissions, while they're communicating via subspace, superstrings, ninth membrane, or whatever other exotic means. Everything we currently know about physics and the nature of reality would be useless in detecting and analyzing such advanced species. If they happened to detect and visit us, we wouldn't know unless they wanted us to.

It's possible there are many planets in the universe on which life evolved, and the subsequent emergence of intelligent life follows some distribution of trial and error. Most planets evolved intelligent life after one or more errors (dinosaurs and the like), but some small percent developed intelligent life first, ahead of the curve.

snowwrestler2• 4 years ago

If some sentient alien civilisation got 1 million years head-start on us wouldn't they basically already have achieved any technological advancement possible?

“Any technological advancement possible” (my emphasis) might exclude technological advances that would make us aware of intelligent life in other star systems.

Just because we can imagine things does not mean they are actually possible, even with lots of time to try.

danwee• 4 years ago

If we are speculating, then this one is my favourite: what if there are other universes out there? With sufficient time civilizations of another universe could move freely between universes. If they can do that, then they probably have tech to be "invisibles" as well. If the multiverse theory is true, then we have an infinite number of multiverses in which an infite number of civilizations could have developed tech to travel between universes and to be invisble. They are here already :D Nah, well, who knows.

bluGill6• 4 years ago

Even if you have infinite time, is there enough energy to get between universes?

sampo• 4 years ago

I think it's not unreasonable that we are sort of early to the party. Earth has existed for about 1/3 of the lifetime of the universe

    Universe begins
    |  9.2 billion years
    Earth formed
    |  0.5 billion years
    First life
    |  0.5 billion years
    First photosynthesis
    |  3.0 billion years
    Enough oxygen in air for macroscopic life
    |  0.5 billion years
    Now

The main work was:

(1) Supernovas creating heavy elements. At first, the universe is all hydrogen (and helium). It takes some generations of stars forming, and exploding as supernovas to create and spread around heavier elements, so that a planet like Earth can form, with all the minerals we have. Do we need 9 billion years for this, or could there have been planets with heavy elements, how much earlier? Is Earth among the first possible?

(2) It took 3 billion years of photosynthesis, by single-cell microbial life, to produce and accumulate enough oxygen. First the oxygen released into air would go and oxidize the minerals on Earth's surface. Only after the whole rocky surface was oxidized, would oxygen start to accumulate into the atmosphere. Somewhere around 10% or 13% atmospheric oxygen, it was enough that also other than flat, single-cell-layer multicellular macroscopic life could start to form, without the inner cells being starved of oxygen. 3 billion years of repetitive, grunt work by the microbes. (Then it took 0.5 billion years of evolution from the Cambrian evolutionary explosion, to humans.)

Compared to these two, the other steps took much less time.

JoeyJoJoJr• 4 years ago

It kind of blows my mind that of all time that will ever exist in the universe, our existence has been plonked right at the (almost) very very beginning. It somehow seems significant to me. I’m not sure if I could articulate it properly, but of all time that will ever exist, why/how is it we came to be right at the “start”, instead of any other time.

djaouen• 4 years ago

I personally feel that the aliens are everywhere, only we can’t see them. Like shapeshifters, they come and go as they please [1].

[1] My Uncle Larry

le-mark• 4 years ago

Odd that Northrop Grumman are publishing this. Otherwise the point about phosphorous relative importance (in terrestrial biochemistry) vs abundance is new to me, very interesting.

Lastodon• 4 years ago

My first thought as well. What's in it for them? Planning a pivot toward space based defence assets perhaps? How forward thinking.

kypro• 4 years ago

Honestly I'm questioning the quality of this website. Seems like it's largely one guy writing low-effort clickbait science articles, likely to raise public awareness of the Northrop Grumman brand and some of their focuses - space, sea, STEM, automation, cyber security, etc.

https://now.northropgrumman.com/aliens-in-the-ocean-is-sea-i...

https://now.northropgrumman.com/proof-of-mermaids-science-te...

mannykannot2• 4 years ago

WRT phosphorus: this article also brings up the microbes (found in Mono lake) which have allegedly substituted arsenic for phosphorous in their biochemistry. As far as I know, this claim has been refuted, or at least dialed back to their being remarkably arsenic-tolerant.

https://www.monolake.org/today/mono-lakes-arsenic-tolerant-m...

dtx12• 4 years ago

An american Defense Contractor writing about this just reeks of slow preparation of the public for the eventual release of evidence that some of those Navy UAPs are in fact extra-terrestrial and we have no Idea what to do about it.

marcus0x62• 4 years ago

Or they are positioning themselves as a “thought leader” in order to win lucrative contracts to study those UAPs. For the public benefit, of course.

steve1977• 4 years ago

Follow the money

Loughla3• 4 years ago

100% this. The releases by the government, these sorts of stories. I am 100% convinced it's just to chase defense contracts and to justify further US federal spending on this.

Sometimes the stupidest reason is the reason. Especially when it comes to money.

solumunus• 4 years ago

There are videos debunking them which are pretty damn convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

tunap• 4 years ago

More plausibly, they are seeding the Demon Haunted World theory to distract the populous from their immediate problems. I found the timing of resurgent UFO/UAP stories & official statements at the height of the pandemic quite dubious.

I did/do really enjoy the thought experiments posited in these comments. For more than a few minutes my mind's eye forgot that my finances have been a slow-motion trainwreck these last 3 years.

drumhead• 4 years ago

Aliens mean danger and danger means new, advanced and very expensive weaponry.

machina_ex_deus2• 4 years ago

Looking at the rate of technological progress, my bets are that intelligent life that spreads intergalactically takes extremely small time to do so (relative to the expected time to randomly spawn life from fluctuations). So the odds of two simultaneous fluctuations competing is nearly zero. We're just the first, and it is the normal thing to expect to be the first. With sufficiently high ratio between these two durations, most observers in most universes would be the first ones. Being first isn't special, it's actually the most common.

vlovich1233• 4 years ago

Why do you conclude we’re the first?

last_responder• 4 years ago

Hubris, bravado and ego most likely. There is no evidence of any sort that would indicate this so this thought has to have manifested itself from some fantasy.

d1sxeyes7• 4 years ago

Because we have no evidence to suggest we are anything but, and we don't know if there will be others.

Given that we believe the universe to be infinite, we could be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3 billionth, etc. But one thing is for sure, we're on the list, but our likelihood of correctly guessing our position on the list is 1/Infinity.

However, if we assume that there is SOME constraint, then that list is no longer infinite. Instead of our 'guess accuracy' being effectively 0, it's 1/<list length>.

If there are 3 billion, we might be 3 billionth, but if there are 2 billion, we are definitely not 3 billionth. The same follows all the way down to if there are only two, we may be either first or second. We know that there is at LEAST one, so if we guess first, we're at least certainly not guessing out of range.

The probability, without any other information to the contrary, of us being 'first' is higher than the probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list.

Therefore it is a more logical conclusion—although clearly it should not be parroted as a fact.

machina_ex_deus2• 4 years ago

There are three time periods: before there is any intelligent life, during the spread of the first intelligent life, and afterwards where it's already extremely unlikely to be independent of the first life.

If you assume life spreads very fast, the first duration being much much longer than the second, and the third duration has no room for independent life to exist, it means in most universes most observers are the first. Only if a second life somehow develops during the second time window despite the expectation time being the first time window, you'll have a chance of not being the first. The time for a critical fluctuation to arise is much much longer than the time it takes for it to dominate, so most critical fluctuations are the first.

Universe isn't infinite because we know it started with the big bang. We're likely the first in whatever scale it is likely that life can spread to faster than develop independently. So we're likely be the first anywhere we'll ever be able to reach.

throw_me_5555• 4 years ago

There is pbs space video https://youtu.be/uTrFAY3LUNw about topic.

mannykannot2• 4 years ago

We have one example of life beginning and zero examples of intelligent life that spreads intergalactically. About the most favorable thing one can say for your hypothesis is that we have insufficient data to rule it out.

cies2• 4 years ago

How are "invisible aliens" not rebranded ghosts? (beings without a physical body)

sghio4Q2• 4 years ago

This is a fascinating conversation.

cies2• 4 years ago

No answers though. "The Truth Is Out There" (X-Files theme music in the background)

Brajeshwar• 4 years ago

So, I went ahead and tried to read further about the author -- Doug Bonderud. Interesting that his articles are pretty much about aliens, "Aliens in the Ocean", "Proof of Mermaids", "Area 51: Aliens, or Just a Simple Myth-Understanding?", "What do Astronauts do in Space?", "5 Odd Theories of the Universe That Might Just Be True", "The Great Conjunction Curse: Creative Conjecture or Concerning Coincidence?"

prometheus76• 4 years ago

What's odd to me is that this blog is sponsored by Northrop-Gruman.

Loughla3• 4 years ago

I think we might see more and more forays into odd-ball theories by the likes of Northrop, Boeing, and other defense contractors/aerospace companies.

With the relatively new "Space Force" spinning up, it's in their best interests to have the American public talking about these things mainstream. They want money. How else to get money? Terrestrial terrors are sort of played out. So why not dip some low-cost toes into the wacky alien technology theories?

Alternate option; they know more than we do and are preparing for something.

Either way.

yucky• 4 years ago

SEO spreads its tentacles even into the vast recesses of the military industrial complex.

shireboy3• 4 years ago

Interesting thought experiment, but untestable with current tech. I’ve wondered if dark matter/dark energy couldn’t be organized into life. There’s 80% of mass we know next to nothing about. Any reason that can’t be organized into dark matter planets with dark matter people running around?

Interesting thought experiment but my 2c is physics limits space travel such that it can never be what we see in sci-fi. Any civilizations elsewhere - phosphorus based or otherwise- have just as hard a time getting off their rock as we do, if not harder (larger gravity wells). If they do, they have an even harder time getting off their star. Certainly getting beyond their galaxy is physically impossible. Makes lousy sci-fi but fits observations.

Loughla3• 4 years ago

My thoughts are that if we can measure [Thing A] sufficiently precisely, we can figure out a way to impact/harness [Thing A], regardless of what it actually is. Therefore, it's just a matter of developing appropriately advanced technology to be able to impact the base laws of physics. I think it's harder to get to that point than anyone could ever imagine just because of the natural tendency for species to destroy themselves.

I think that Ringworld had that part right - any species that is sufficiently advanced to be interstellar travelers would absolutely have to be able to identify, and nullify, naturally selected traits about themselves.

Sakos2• 4 years ago

The core issue is that we have no idea how consciousness sparks into being. Everything we know indicates that you need something brain-like, which requires a particular set of environmental stimuli and developmental history to form.

Maybe there's another way to create consciousness, but we'll probably never find out.

CuriouslyC• 4 years ago

There's no evidence that consciousness "sparks into being" at all. Self awareness probably needs something brain-like, but that's a different matter.

trinsic2• 4 years ago

Yeah that's an interesting idea. If we were destined to get off our planets and stars systems why are there such strong gravity wells hampering our ability to do so?

tuatoru• 4 years ago

Nobody destined anybody. There's just the universe, no sky father.

wcoenen• 4 years ago

Any reason that can’t be organized into dark matter planets with dark matter people running around?

Yes, there is a reason why this can't happen. Dark matter doesn't clump.

snowwrestler2• 4 years ago

Dark matter does not seem to interact electromagnetically, so that rules out all of chemistry.

shireboy3• 4 years ago

Rules out chemistry that interacts with regular matter, but is it ruled out that there are forces that govern dark matter internally? Dark electromagnetism? Or can we tell from interaction with gravity that dark matter doesn't interact with itself in any way?

TechBro86152• 4 years ago

Is dark matter some tangible "stuff," or is it more of an artifact of gaps in our observation?

Why do physicists, when confronted with the lack of observational evidence for the "dark matter" that their models predict, assume that "dark matter must exist?" Couldn't the model be wrong? At what point does the unproven prediction of dark matter call into question the many otherwise proven predictions of the Standard Model? How much of the experimental evidence supporting those predictions has an implicit dependency on the same invalid assumptions leading to the prediction of dark matter?

I remember reading an HN comment that described the Standard Model as a sort of legacy codebase with technical debt and strange abstractions to fix earlier errors. That resonates with me, and in fact seems applicable to the entirety of the human epistemological "tech tree." I sometimes wonder, what secrets might we uncover if we could start fresh, speed running different paths through the tech tree?

smallstepforman• 4 years ago

From the universes timeline, there had to be a civilization which was the first. They pondered to themselves "the universe must be full of life, where is everyone?" But they were the first, hence they never encountered a more advanced species to themselves.

Maybe that's us.

masswerk5• 4 years ago

Well, here's my hypothesis: The universe develops in superposition until the first observer emerges, causing the superpositions to collapse. Meaning, the first possible observer will not only be guaranteed to exist, they will also make their mark on the universe. Conversely, they also adjust the local universe to their causality, making it harder for other observers to emerge. – In other words, there we did something again, by launching the Webb telescope… ;-)

(PS: Here, the universe behaves like a path search for first possible observers and, thus, causality. Posing the question, if there is no possible observer in a given universe, does it even exist or is the search exhausted in what isn't even an instant? Anyway, let's call it the "race to causality" hypothesis.)

snapcaster• 4 years ago

Do you mean observer as in a photon?

masswerk5• 4 years ago

As in "an observer which/who requires causality and cannot exist in superposition". Whatever that is. Is causality a product of at least a minimal level of awareness? (We won't be able to tell, as exploring the concept of causality already presupposes awareness.)

andrewclunn• 4 years ago

I believe this hypothesis assumes some sort of metaphysical property to consciousness. Also, Permutation City did it first (consider this a book recommendation).

djexjms• 4 years ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. I'm just some random internet dude who likes learning things. My understanding is that a single photon wouldn't count as an observer. It doesn't even experience time (from the point of view of the photon, admission and absorption are simultaneous). Now if that photon is entangled with another photon, that can then be considered an observer. Someone please correct me if this is not accurate.

giraffe_lady• 4 years ago

It was a pretty confusing series but I think ultimately the plot of terra ignota is basically this?

t8sr3• 4 years ago

Here's my hypothesis: the quantum flux remains in a state of zero-point energy superposition until the power of quantum consciousness emerges through dark energy chaos and acts to select from the multiverse of madness the timeline curve to follow.

We're having a contest in who can string more meaningless physics-sounding words together, right?

To be less snarky: the word "observer" in physics has nothing to do with a self-aware brain. Photons are about as good at causing decoherence as you are.

masswerk5• 4 years ago

Regarding being snarky: I guess, you've observed the ";-)" annotation… ;-)

(Conventional meaning: this is irony/a joke and the author doesn't actually believe in this.)

college_physics• 4 years ago

we don't really know how and why life came about and how representative it might be of a broader phenomenon unfolding across the universe. but anything else of that nature happening around here would have to have a minuscule footprint in terms of the conventional physics / standard model to successfully evade serendipitous detection in any of the countless and very diverse measurements across physics, chemistry, biology and various engineering disciplines worldwide (and for more than a century)

missing pieces (as we now understand the world) show up only when the puzzle reaches cosmological scales. of-course it would be extremely exciting if something "invisible" had a faint trace in our lowly spacetime neighborhood. but as Feynman might have said, the Universe is what it is and it is not hear to entertain us (nor drive clicks onto aerospace company blogs)

iambateman• 4 years ago

To add to this rather fun, hypothetical conversation…I join most Christians to believe in angelic beings - creatures who exist in an invisible universe alongside us. I see no difference between the Christian understanding of an “angel” and what we call “invisible aliens” in culture.

In fact, many religions accept a kind of shadow-world as part of their orthodoxy.

Perhaps it’s all superstition emerging from our biology but it is at least possible that someone knew something meaningful about a shadow-world and encoded that knowledge into religion.

mistermann4• 4 years ago

In fact, many religions accept a kind of shadow-world as part of their orthodoxy.

Consider pre-scientific times: little did people know at the time that there was a whole world or "level of reality" all around them that could be seen, but only to those who knew how (which had to be discovered and developed). Consider also some of the reactions (powered by intuition) people would have back then if someone from the future ran some of the things we now know and take for granted by them, and compare that to how modern people react when propositions regarding unknown matters are presented to them.

It seems at least plausible that humanity in 2022 has not reached the pinnacle of potential knowledge and capability.

theGnuMe• 4 years ago

Meh, we can identify and reason about things we can't actually see.

chadlavi• 4 years ago

This is an insane rant on hypercube levels. What did I just read??

rojobuffalo• 4 years ago

I like the idea that aliens are here but they reveal just enough of themselves to be at the top of our hierarchy without getting close enough to hurt us or make us hate them. They're here to passively observe, but they also want to make sure we don't expand beyond our solar system, or as Robin Hanson puts it "become grabby" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZP4rLk6bk&t=6672s

LeonTheremin• 4 years ago

Consider:

Woman forces emergency landing after biting passenger and claiming Jesus told her to open plane door mid-flight

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/woman-bites-passenger-thigh-tries-...

A victim of electromagnetic weaponry used by terrorists for covert crime. Religious figures don't talk to people "telepathically" to make them kill others, criminals posing as them do.

By using these same weapons and methods, they have managed to coerce people working in semiconductor industries into inserting backdoors into all your CPUs - albeit they would rather not be known that this is the case and prefer resorting to making people do what that woman did so killings look like human error instead of malicious sabotage.

"Aliens" is just one of the false narratives propped up so people keep looking up to the skies while weaponry buried on Earth's core (maybe by a previous civilization, "Silurian hypothesis") is used for total electromagnetic surveillance of this planet and sabotage of our science - like in the Three Body Trilogy.

rbanffy• 4 years ago

Nobody wants to talk to meat.

MilStdJunkie• 4 years ago

I felt that the Strossian "Bandwidth Explanation" (from Accelerando, a not-great novel but a cornucopia of ideas) for the Fermi paradox honestly made more sense than just about anything else I've heard. The further you are from your planet, the dumber you get . . or, more precisely, the smaller / slower your mind is. So most stick close to the gravity wells and low-latency areas.

Anything that can store data in Planck lengths, that's going to be completely imperceptible, something built into the structure of the universe. Might as well listen to digits of Pi like in Contact.

Hiding in plain sight? The argument for invisible aliens (2020)

Related Stories