EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
Glad they’re science teachers.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Exploration of Probability of a UAP Seen on Earth Originating from Another Planet
- Thread starter Grildon Tundy
- Start date
Grildon Tundy
Member
Zero evidence as to their origin, I agree, but are you saying there's zero evidence of UAPs/UFOs at all?
This article is behind a paywall, but I spent the $1 for a 3-month subscription to read it again just now. This is the article that made me change my mind on the existence of UAPs back in 2017:
2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ (Published 2017)
What began as a training mission took a bizarre turn in 2004, an encounter that caught the attention of a Pentagon program investigating U.F.O.s.
Grildon Tundy
Member
What am I missing? This is what I get:You're gonna love this...
Kinetic energy.
Speed of 14 989 622.9 m/s (5% of the speed of light).
Mass of a single grain of dust: 0.0044 kg.
Kinetic force of dust grain striking drone travelling at 5% the speed of light, in one second, with minimal deformation: 49,431.535 Giga Newtons, or 5040 megatons.
Force of Hiroshima atomic detonation in megatons: 0.015.
KE = 1/2mv^2
KE in Joules:
m = 0.0044kg (grain of dust)
v = 14,989,622 m/s (5% light-speed)
KE = 494,315,288,946J
Joules to Megatons:
1J = 2.3900573613767E-16 Megaton
494,315,288,946J = 0.0001181442 Megatons
-----------------
What would be the odds of running into dust? This article was interesting regarding that:
Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of light?
Breakthrough Starshot has examined the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust.
arstechnica.com
Some excerpts:
"The goal of Breakthrough Starshot is to accelerate its craft to about 20 percent the speed of light. At that speed, even individual atoms can damage the vehicle, and a collision with a bit of dust could be catastrophic. So the team set out to quantify just how risky these collisions could be."
"But a sufficiently large dust particle will create a collision energetic enough to destroy a craft. And "sufficiently large" isn't very big; the authors estimate that it only has to be 15 micrometers across to kill off the craft. Fortunately, dust particles this size are rare, and the authors calculate the odds of running into one at 10^50 to one against."
"Overall, the authors find the effect of gas to be minor and only likely to cause damage down to a depth of 0.1 millimeters. Dust, however, is a different story. It will evaporate about 1.5 millimeters off the surface of the spacecraft, and melting will happen at depths of up to 10 millimeters. When every gram counts, this could be significant."
I believe they're talking about traveling to a single star, so let's say the 10^50-to-one odds are based on traveling 5 light-years. If a craft traveled the entire diameter of the Milky Way, that'd be 100,000 light years, so let's say the odds are 20,000x (100,000/5) more likely, which would make it: 5^45-to-one odds.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
What am I missing? This is what I get:
KE = 1/2mv^2
KE in Joules:
m = 0.0044kg (grain of dust)
v = 14,989,622 m/s (5% light-speed)
KE = 494,315,288,946J
Joules to Megatons:
1J = 2.3900573613767E-16 Megaton
494,315,288,946J = 0.0001181442 Megatons
-----------------
What would be the odds of running into dust? This article was interesting regarding that:
Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of light?
Breakthrough Starshot has examined the impact of stray atoms, cosmic dust.
Some excerpts:
"The goal of Breakthrough Starshot is to accelerate its craft to about 20 percent the speed of light. At that speed, even individual atoms can damage the vehicle, and a collision with a bit of dust could be catastrophic. So the team set out to quantify just how risky these collisions could be."
"But a sufficiently large dust particle will create a collision energetic enough to destroy a craft. And "sufficiently large" isn't very big; the authors estimate that it only has to be 15 micrometers across to kill off the craft. Fortunately, dust particles this size are rare, and the authors calculate the odds of running into one at 10^50 to one against."
"Overall, the authors find the effect of gas to be minor and only likely to cause damage down to a depth of 0.1 millimeters. Dust, however, is a different story. It will evaporate about 1.5 millimeters off the surface of the spacecraft, and melting will happen at depths of up to 10 millimeters. When every gram counts, this could be significant."
I believe they're talking about traveling to a single star, so let's say the 10^50-to-one odds are based on traveling 5 light-years. If a craft traveled the entire diameter of the Milky Way, that'd be 100,000 light years, so let's say the odds are 20,000x (100,000/5) more likely, which would make it:
Yeah, that article is... weird. 'Dust' is extremely common in space.
https://herscheltelescope.org.uk/science/infrared/dust/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/matt...-tell-the-story-of-the-solar-system-20210204/
https://earthsky.org/space/dust-in-space-10-cool-things/
And never mind dust, there's a lot of other larger shit to worry about that at sub-light speed would ruin your day pretty quickly.
I got the conversion of newtons (measurement of force) to megatonnes from this calculator:
https://www.convertunits.com/from/newton/to/megaton
Or this one:
https://www.kylesconverter.com/mass/newtons-to-megatonnes
Idiotically high calculation is fun.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
The only reference to a crash location in the hearing was in Italy.
Grildon Tundy
Member
How did you get from mass and velocity to a Newton?
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
Newtons are how you measure force impact. So, the force that the dust would impact on the surface of the drone. That's very different from how much energy would be produced by the impact. Kinda like if you crash two cars together, the amount of force imparted is far higher than the amount of energy produced.
Grildon Tundy
Member
Ok, I'm still curious how you calculated it.
FunkMiller
Member
Size of dust travelling at that speed, imparts that many newtons, and that many newtons equals that many megatons.
Your energy calculation is spot on though. The collision wouldn't create much light or heat, but a whole shit ton of damage.
Edit: just for shits and giggles I calculated a chicken (5lb & 20 inches) hitting the drone at just under the speed of light:
16366384 megatons.
Last edited:
Grildon Tundy
Member
I meant more in terms of the actual mathematical formula you used. Been trying to replicate it but haven't been able to.
Romulus
Member
Okay so science and technology have been a state of change since humans evolved, but let's pretend we're at the apex of science and technology now, in this very moment?
A measly 100 years ago our conversations based on science and travel would be very different, but in another 100-1000 years they'll be exact the same? How can people fall into that trap of thinking their lifetime represents the pinnacle of technology? Or even begin to forecast what is it possible when we're infants in terms of space travel?
We're proven to suck at it. Remember the moon mission in 1969? Took 10 years of planning. I was listening to nasa recently about planning a new mission would take 10 years lmao.
This thread reminds me of listening to my young teenage boys talk about life. They regurgitate some of what adults(scientists)say and fill in the gaps with nonsensical gibberish.
A better analogy would be listening to our best scientists talking about flight being impossible, 50 years later commercial airliners were flying people everywhere lol
Not saying we'll be traveling the stars in 50 years, not even close.
A measly 100 years ago our conversations based on science and travel would be very different, but in another 100-1000 years they'll be exact the same? How can people fall into that trap of thinking their lifetime represents the pinnacle of technology? Or even begin to forecast what is it possible when we're infants in terms of space travel?
We're proven to suck at it. Remember the moon mission in 1969? Took 10 years of planning. I was listening to nasa recently about planning a new mission would take 10 years lmao.
This thread reminds me of listening to my young teenage boys talk about life. They regurgitate some of what adults(scientists)say and fill in the gaps with nonsensical gibberish.
A better analogy would be listening to our best scientists talking about flight being impossible, 50 years later commercial airliners were flying people everywhere lol
Not saying we'll be traveling the stars in 50 years, not even close.
FunkMiller
Member
Here's the calculator:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/impact-energy
0.0044kg
14989622 m/s
1cm collision distance
Average force 49431528894634 newtons.
49431528894634 newtons = 5040.613129894167 megatons.
Grildon is closer to correct and has roughly the right order of magnitude. A speck of dust won't produce megatons of kinetic energy on impact (but it's still significant).
Gotta use the relativistic formula at fractions of the speed of light though, not classical mechanics,
Grildon Tundy
, to get an accurate result. But at 5% light speed it's not a huge difference.
courses.lumenlearning.com
Gotta use the relativistic formula at fractions of the speed of light though, not classical mechanics,
Grildon Tundy
, to get an accurate result. But at 5% light speed it's not a huge difference. Relativistic Energy | Physics
courses.lumenlearning.com
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Thinking this is ridicule is the height of snowflake culture.
FunkMiller
Member
Grildon is closer to correct and has roughly the right order of magnitude. A speck of dust won't produce megatons of kinetic energy on impact (but it's still significant).
Gotta use the relativistic formula at fractions of the speed of light though, not classical mechanics,
Relativistic Energy | Physics
But I like classical mechanics. I'm old.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yup, which is nearly 500,000 megajoules (it's actually 495,244 MJ but whatever) which is almost the same amount of energy as 20,000 Navy railgun shots assuming each railgun shot is 25MJ.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Still the go-to for almost any real-world scenario on Earth! Starts hitting limitations when you get to things like GPS, which needs to incorporate special and general relativity to remain accurate.But I like classical mechanics. I'm old.
FunkMiller
Member
Ah... we're getting into the whole one way speed of light vs two way speed of light thing at this point, aren't we? The fact that we can never actually record the speed of light going one way because any measuring device would necessarily be wrong at the other end... because of the speed of light, bakes my noodle completely.
Grildon Tundy
Member
ThanksGrildon is closer to correct and has roughly the right order of magnitude. A speck of dust won't produce megatons of kinetic energy on impact (but it's still significant).
Gotta use the relativistic formula at fractions of the speed of light though, not classical mechanics,
Relativistic Energy | Physics
EviLore
&
FunkMiller
for indulging me and attempting to educate.If I'm understanding what I've been reading, it's kind of unknown as to whether all that force would be dispersed through the craft itself (i.e. "kaboom") or if it'd be a clean through-and-through like you see with some bullet impacts, for instance. Either way, it's enough energy to put a craft out of commission.
So I think the question is "how likely would it be that a craft hits an object that can mess it up?", and I've been reading and seeing conflicting information on that. So I gave up and decided to ask ChatGPT (which I've hardly used), and holy crap, this thing is awesome! Key takeaway: While the risk of encountering space debris exists, the likelihood of it causing significant damage to a spacecraft traveling across the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light is considered extremely low.
Here's what it said in full:
Me: "If a spacecraft travels the diameter of the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light, how likely is it to hit a piece of space debris that would put the spacecraft out of commission?"
ChatGPT: "Calculating the exact probability of a spacecraft hitting a piece of space debris is quite challenging due to various factors, including the unknown distribution and density of debris throughout the Milky Way. However, I can provide you with some general information.
Firstly, it's important to note that space debris is a significant concern in Earth's orbit, where it accumulates due to human activities. However, beyond our solar system, the density of space debris decreases significantly.
Assuming a spacecraft travels at 5% the speed of light and covers the diameter of the Milky Way, which is approximately 100,000 light-years, it would take roughly 2 million years to complete the journey. During this exceptionally long period, it is highly unlikely for a spacecraft to encounter a single piece of space debris that would put it out of commission.
In interstellar space, the density of particles or larger debris capable of damaging a spacecraft is incredibly low. Nevertheless, space agencies and organizations take precautions to protect their spacecraft by employing shielding, trajectory planning, and avoidance strategies.
While the risk of encountering space debris exists, the likelihood of it causing significant damage to a spacecraft traveling across the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light is considered extremely low"
ChatGPT: "Calculating the exact probability of a spacecraft hitting a piece of space debris is quite challenging due to various factors, including the unknown distribution and density of debris throughout the Milky Way. However, I can provide you with some general information.
Firstly, it's important to note that space debris is a significant concern in Earth's orbit, where it accumulates due to human activities. However, beyond our solar system, the density of space debris decreases significantly.
Assuming a spacecraft travels at 5% the speed of light and covers the diameter of the Milky Way, which is approximately 100,000 light-years, it would take roughly 2 million years to complete the journey. During this exceptionally long period, it is highly unlikely for a spacecraft to encounter a single piece of space debris that would put it out of commission.
In interstellar space, the density of particles or larger debris capable of damaging a spacecraft is incredibly low. Nevertheless, space agencies and organizations take precautions to protect their spacecraft by employing shielding, trajectory planning, and avoidance strategies.
While the risk of encountering space debris exists, the likelihood of it causing significant damage to a spacecraft traveling across the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light is considered extremely low"
Last edited:
The issues are time dilation due to the speeds that satellites move in orbit, and the difference in gravitational effects near the Earth's surface vs in orbit. The former gets corrected via special relativity and the latter via general relativity. Here's a brief overview:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Just to be clear, when I say "MJ", I am of course using the standard SI units of Mary Jane
FunkMiller
Member
Thanks
If I'm understanding what I've been reading, it's kind of unknown as to whether all that force would be dispersed through the craft itself (i.e. "kaboom") or if it'd be a clean through-and-through like you see with some bullet impacts, for instance. Either way, it's enough energy to put a craft out of commission.
So I think the question is "how likely would it be that a craft hits an object that can mess it up?", and I've been reading and seeing conflicting information on that. So I gave up and decided to ask ChatGPT (which I've hardly used), and holy crap, this thing is awesome! Key takeaway: While the risk of encountering space debris exists, the likelihood of it causing significant damage to a spacecraft traveling across the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light is considered extremely low.
Here's what it said in full:
Me: "If a spacecraft travels the diameter of the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light, how likely is it to hit a piece of space debris that would put the spacecraft out of commission?"
ChatGPT: "Calculating the exact probability of a spacecraft hitting a piece of space debris is quite challenging due to various factors, including the unknown distribution and density of debris throughout the Milky Way. However, I can provide you with some general information.
Firstly, it's important to note that space debris is a significant concern in Earth's orbit, where it accumulates due to human activities. However, beyond our solar system, the density of space debris decreases significantly.
Assuming a spacecraft travels at 5% the speed of light and covers the diameter of the Milky Way, which is approximately 100,000 light-years, it would take roughly 2 million years to complete the journey. During this exceptionally long period, it is highly unlikely for a spacecraft to encounter a single piece of space debris that would put it out of commission.
In interstellar space, the density of particles or larger debris capable of damaging a spacecraft is incredibly low. Nevertheless, space agencies and organizations take precautions to protect their spacecraft by employing shielding, trajectory planning, and avoidance strategies.
While the risk of encountering space debris exists, the likelihood of it causing significant damage to a spacecraft traveling across the Milky Way at 5% the speed of light is considered extremely low"
Interesting (though my trust when it comes to ChatGPT is somewhat lacking). I've always read that while debris in the interstellar medium is obviously far less than throughout solar systems for obvious reasons, that there is enough there to cause real problems for vehicles travelling at fast enough rates.
Maybe if your theoretical drone avoids all solar systems it would be okay? But then that'd probably add a lot of journey time, the same way that avoiding the shit parts of town would make your drive through it longer.
Grildon Tundy
Member
ChatGPT is my new best friend. Here's what it said about dangers within our solar system as an example to be extrapolated:
"Although it is difficult to provide an exact probability without specific mission parameters and trajectory details, the likelihood of a spacecraft being hit by a mission-ending debris while traveling at 5% the speed of light in the solar system is generally considered to be extremely low."
Full text:
You: If a spacecraft travels through the solar system at 5% the speed of light, how likely is it to hit a piece of space debris that would put the spacecraft out of commission?
ChatGPT: Determining the likelihood of a spacecraft hitting a piece of space debris depends on several factors, including the density of debris in the spacecraft's path, the size of the debris, and the duration of its journey. While I can provide some general information, please note that a detailed analysis would require specific data and calculations.
The density of space debris can vary significantly in different regions of the solar system. Near Earth, the density is relatively high due to human activities, such as satellite launches and decommissioned satellites. However, as the spacecraft moves away from Earth, the density decreases. Moreover, the likelihood of encountering large, potentially mission-ending debris decreases as well.
Space agencies and organizations like NASA make efforts to track and catalog larger space debris to minimize the risks for spacecraft. For smaller debris that cannot be precisely tracked, estimates are made based on statistical models.
Considering the speed of the spacecraft (5% the speed of light), it is crucial to note that space debris moves at significantly lower speeds, making the chances of a collision even lower. Additionally, space agencies and operators often plan trajectories to avoid known debris regions.
Although it is difficult to provide an exact probability without specific mission parameters and trajectory details, the likelihood of a spacecraft being hit by a mission-ending debris while traveling at 5% the speed of light in the solar system is generally considered to be extremely low.
ChatGPT: Determining the likelihood of a spacecraft hitting a piece of space debris depends on several factors, including the density of debris in the spacecraft's path, the size of the debris, and the duration of its journey. While I can provide some general information, please note that a detailed analysis would require specific data and calculations.
The density of space debris can vary significantly in different regions of the solar system. Near Earth, the density is relatively high due to human activities, such as satellite launches and decommissioned satellites. However, as the spacecraft moves away from Earth, the density decreases. Moreover, the likelihood of encountering large, potentially mission-ending debris decreases as well.
Space agencies and organizations like NASA make efforts to track and catalog larger space debris to minimize the risks for spacecraft. For smaller debris that cannot be precisely tracked, estimates are made based on statistical models.
Considering the speed of the spacecraft (5% the speed of light), it is crucial to note that space debris moves at significantly lower speeds, making the chances of a collision even lower. Additionally, space agencies and operators often plan trajectories to avoid known debris regions.
Although it is difficult to provide an exact probability without specific mission parameters and trajectory details, the likelihood of a spacecraft being hit by a mission-ending debris while traveling at 5% the speed of light in the solar system is generally considered to be extremely low.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's not the only environment the drones would be operating in. This thought experiment is to make you think about the possibility of alien drones visiting Earth, right? Well, the drones, if they're here, would also have to deal with the hazards of Earth (and Mercury and Venus and Mars and Jupiter and Saturn and Neptune etc). The average density of the Milky Way is low enough so that sure, randomly crashing into something isn't high on your list of concerns. However, these drones would necessarily be seeking out places of interest, which probably have more shit flying around.
FunkMiller
Member
Like driving through the country and never worrying about crashing into anyone, but then you reach a city, and suddenly the chances greatly escalate. Especially for a craft flying at the kinds of speeds necessary to make any real headway.
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
So many angles to approach this phenomena that goes way back...
I have my ever evolving thoughts but seeing I'm operating from within an active suspension of disposition/judgement I'll won't participate.
Shout out to the OP
Grildon Tundy
for at least approaching this phenomena from a grounded perspective.
I have my ever evolving thoughts but seeing I'm operating from within an active suspension of disposition/judgement I'll won't participate.
Shout out to the OP
Grildon Tundy
for at least approaching this phenomena from a grounded perspective.
Grildon Tundy
Member
That's a good callout. I asked my new best friend ChatGPT what would happen if a craft went at 5% light-speed following earth's orbit around the sun and...the outlook is not positive lol
Before, I'd plugged in a wide ballpark allotment of double the time required (starting from 75K to 200M years) to account for stops, repairs, detours. galaxy gap-filling which would include this, but I wish I could get closer to an estimate with numbers with supporting reasoning behind them.
Again, a full simulation would be interesting (to me). My thinking is the drones/crafts would slow down as they near astronomical bodies of interest (just like you drive slower in a city vs on a rural interstate), so I'd want to plug in assumptions like:
1) how long does it take to slow down to "safe" speeds/ramp back up to high-speeds?
2) what are those "safe" speeds?
3) distribution of debris in relation to proximity to an astronomical body
4) how do those detours impact the overall time required to fully map the MW
Guys, it's almost like modeling out a hypothetical full Milky Way mapping done by hypothetical Von Neumann probes of off-world origin while taking into consideration astrophysics, mechanical/observational/communicative/damage-resisting/repair/self-replicating/traversal capabilities of crafts, logistics of resource-gathering/availability, etc...is hard.
Grildon Tundy
Member
I didn't realize that this thread would bring out such apparent animosity. That was not my intention, and I'm also disappointed in how it turned out in that regard.
Seems like the topic of non-Earth-originating intelligence is more incendiary than I thought. I'll try and keep that in mind in the future. The thread also has had more responses than I thought it would as a result: pulling a "Facebook" in terms of engagement through divisiveness, if you will.
How would this thread have gone if, instead of positing an off-Earth origin for the drones, it was a thought experiment on how long it'd take humans to map the Milky Way? Probably a lot different, with a lot less input from the community, if I had to guess.
FunkMiller
Member
Ah, see, now you're talking...
All the issues with the improbability of an advanced civilisation having the technology to find us and then visit us, from the frankly idiotically huge gulfs of space go out of the window when you switch it around like that. Self replicating drones built by future humanity making their way out into the galaxy to chart it is a far more likely occurrence.
Some would then turn that around and say, well why can't there be an alien civilisation who could do the same? To which I guess my only sad reply would be that it probably means they don't exist to do it... or are nowhere near advanced enough to do it while our civilisation exists
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
I've depressed myself now. I'm off to find gin.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Probably why we haven't observed any hard evidence of this. It's also not just enough to plug in the known hazards. There's a lot we don't know about the galaxy. Who knows how many unknown hazards are out there that we can't even plug into our calculations because we don't know they exist.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
The number of planets in our galaxy is around 200 billions I believe? And I think that in the universe that we know about so far, it's in the 500+ quitillions? Chances of alien life? Extremely likely.
Chances of alien civilization sending drones here? About 0%.
Chances of us meeting another sentient species, from another planet? Also around 0%
Chances of alien civilization sending drones here? About 0%.
Chances of us meeting another sentient species, from another planet? Also around 0%
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Every progression that humanity makes into signals intelligence and electromagnetic science, the more telling the absolute silence from the cosmos becomes. At what point does a lack of evidence become evidence?
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Do the aliens have the Epstein client list?
Chronicle
Member
Yes, I'm saying there is no evidence of extraterrestrial crafts. None.Zero evidence as to their origin, I agree, but are you saying there's zero evidence of UAPs/UFOs at all?
This article is behind a paywall, but I spent the $1 for a 3-month subscription to read it again just now. This is the article that made me change my mind on the existence of UAPs back in 2017:
2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ (Published 2017)
What began as a training mission took a bizarre turn in 2004, an encounter that caught the attention of a Pentagon program investigating U.F.O.s.www.nytimes.com
Grildon Tundy
Member
Thanks. I agree, because the craft-like UAPs in question have literally only been observed on Earth.
I do wonder what the evidence would have to be to prove they're of off-world origin. I can't think of what would actually confirm that.
Quasicat
Member
I think this is the best explanation yet when it comes to explaining these events.
UnravelKatharsis
Member
Assuming op's numbers are right, even if craft crashed here and was transmitting back to home planet, were looking at a few million years before they get the info and make it back here anyway. None of this shit matters unless there's intelligent life in our solar system. And considering how many times I read about meteors whizzing by our planet that we didn't even know were coming until they passed us by....that's a more likely possibility than drones coming from millions of light years away. If there's intelligent life in our solar system, which I'm not saying there is or that I think there is, they're clearly not dumb enough to broadcast it out into the universe and they're clearly smart enough to hide their existence from us. It's only a matter of time before the interstellar Brittish come and colonize us.
Last edited:
simpatico
Member
The response to this has been more interesting than the actual content of the hearing. I can think of no other time in my life when the gov could announce "aliens are real" and get absolute zero response. I think you can read into what this might mean for the meta mindset of the country. Just a really crazy situation from that perspective. Take this exact same news only 10 years ago and it's the only thing being discussed at any workplace with wall to wall TV coverage.
Grildon Tundy
Member
Fascinating, isn't it?
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Because we all knew the truth back in the 90s thanks to a little documentary.
FunkMiller
Member
If they did announce that with actual proof, it would become the biggest news story in human history. For all of us, not just America.
Last edited:
Games of Today
Member
This is in interesting theory. But for some reason I just find it much more plausible that a civilization figured out a way to bend space to their will, essentially being able to warp large distances in a fraction of the time.
But seeing as we've only just started breaking the surface of A.I., I'm sure self replicating drones could be produced and not only did that but had specific A.I. programming to keep them hidden/out of sight of potential contact or even the capabilities of UAV's where the A.I. would bring it to a certain point and once contact was established a remote operator could take over.
But seeing as we've only just started breaking the surface of A.I., I'm sure self replicating drones could be produced and not only did that but had specific A.I. programming to keep them hidden/out of sight of potential contact or even the capabilities of UAV's where the A.I. would bring it to a certain point and once contact was established a remote operator could take over.
Bry0
Member
It probably has to do with the continuing lack of proof and yknow, nobody really has any faith in gov institutions at this point, for good reason. This talk has been going on for what, 70 years?
Show the grays and the craft they have, until then nobody outside the uap “community” is gonna care because it hasn’t changed their daily lives at all. If that happens, I promise you it will be a global media phenomenon.
Last edited:
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
Steven always reminded me of Homer Simpson if he ever acquired a gastric band. Irrelevant to this thread I know, but always something that amused me.
Last edited:
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
I never liked the guy personally