Flying through the cosmos at 82,000 mph is Pioneer 10, humanities first interstellar spacecraft. Attached to it is a 6x9 inch gold anodized aluminum plaque, with a mysterious part and an 'obvious' part. The mysterious part is the man and woman to the right of the plaque. And they will be mysterious because there will not be men and women, anywhere else. The rest of the message is written in what we assume is 'Galactic clear'. The one language all intelligent life forms have in common, the language of science. It essentially indicates the planet from which the space craft was launched. The star in which that planet orbits out of the several hundred thousand million stars in the galaxy, it specifies one. And the year of launch out of the 10,000,000 year history of the galaxy. And it does it by reference to a set of galactic clocks called Pulsars.
The chance of this being intercepted is small, precisely because space is so empty. It's traveling so slowly, even though it's the fastest thing we have ever launched. That it will take it 80,000 years for it to reach the nearest star, but it's not headed towards the nearest star. So it will very likely survive for billions of years, but in the dark of interstellar space. It will be the oldest artifact of mankind. Because a billion years from now, mountain building and erosion will have destroyed everything on the earth, but this plaque will remain intact.
>>71980888
Unless it gets destroyed in space.
>>71981132
tbqh one of the Pioneer craft getting obliterated in interstellar space by a rogue planet would be an excellent analogy for the futility of man
>>71980888
>Attached to it is my 6x9 inch gold anodized aluminum cock
>>71981132
Space is some 99.999-repeating% empty.
>>71980888
I never understood why people were so positive about extraterrestrial life out there...somewhere.
Arguments were always probability arguments about the sheer number of potential Earth-like planets. But if we have only ourselves as an example then how do you get a probability out of that?
for lack of a better contribution, bump. Bump for humanity, bump into the greatest void.
>>71982584
drake equation bruh
>fastest
No
>interstellar
No
>arrive at nearest star in 40k years
No
Yall niggas better check your research
WHITE HUMANS ON PLAQUE
>über race confirmed
>>71982584
There are a lot of planets. Like a lot a lot.
>>71984944
I can only imagine the clusterfuck image of what a human looks like that they would have to attach to it in [current year]
>>71980888
>implying ayyy lmaos arent already among us
>tfw it's going to last longer than humanity itself
Stupid idea, but has anyone ever been concerned that sharing alcohol with an alien would kill them? It's the greatest gesture of hospitality we know of, but it is a solvent...
>>71985168
Right? A mulatto landwhale sjw with a scarf, hornrim glasses, and blue hair.
Puke.jpg
>>71982584
Because of the immense size of space. It's more likely that we're not unique. How common life is is another question. We've also found plenty of planets in their suns Golidocks zone, and while they're not all suitable for all life and may not have life, it doesn't change that we've found planets that could have formed similar to ours. We need to realize that while Earth looks unique, it's still a terrestrial planet made up of common elements. This happeed in one solar system and there are billions of stars within the Milky way alone. We are one star out of over 400 billion.
>>71985446
>>wikipedia
>>Nova
whea lad
>>71985640
I need a translation of this incredibly stupid post.
>>71985714
offer some insight that is not a regurgitation of facts/theories not are not straight from the wikipedia or a youtube documentary. As in add some of your own opinion.
>>71985714
>>71985845
i've been drinking, the grammar is not all there but you know what I mean
>>71985845
>Stop having opinions similar to others
>Stop using facts that I've heard over again
Is this a celebrity contest to you? Are you "bored" and "tired" of the same old arguments? Goodness imagine if every position could be dismissed simply because people are tired of hearing others defending it.
>>71982584
>But if we have only ourselves as an example then how do you get a probability out of that?
math. literally math.
how dense elements are, what forces are needed to make them in quantities that they can form an earth-sized planet with earth-relative quantities of matter, in orbit to a star stable enough to support the chemical processes for life in/from liquid water.
>>71985963
not an argument, try again.
As for the the overall vastness of the universe and the constraints it places on communication, we are discounting the dark matter, dark energy, and any technology that would enable faster than light travel/communication. Drakes equation means shit against the technological curve.
Your rebuttal.
![18ln5drw6up2ijpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Q3F6z6l.jpg "18ln5drw6up2ijpg[1].jpg")
>>71980888
Kinda typical it would be a picture with our dick on it, isn't it? Wherever we go we must also ensure everyone know about our dicks.
We should launch another with dank memes and intergalactic pepes.
>>71984944
no, you weren't around when the drawings were decided. the male was supposed to be ambigous white/negro/east indian and the woman was supposed to be ambiguously asian/native american/polynesian
I always wondered why they didn't put a DNA helix on it though
How much do you think it would cost to launch my semen into outer space?
>>71984612
>>71984947
>>71985446
From what little I've heard about it, in the Carl Sagan vids that I watched when I was in high school, I understood how you could incorporate the sheer number of planets, stars, etc. that could potentially allow for life but I never understood how you could come up with a number or probability for how rare life is even on one of those planets. Seems you could have a planet with similar conditions to a pre-life Earth and life could not develop on it.
>>71986217
I agree that we could get a probability for how likely a planet is that could be stable enough to support the chemical processes for life. What I don't understand is how we get a probability for how likely that life is to form at all, given that we only have one example of it happening.
