There is nothing to say, Electric Universe is pseudoscience, pure and simple. Like it or not, there is abundant evidence for blackholes, dark matter and all the other phenomenon EU refutes. I'd recommend these videos:
I have personally talked to dozens of astronomers, physicists and other scientists who have freely disclosed to me their pet FP solutions, discussed new ones, expressed frustration at SETI and NASA and so on. Not only with myself, but with other scientists well. While yes some are rather conservative publicly, there are countless others who show no fear discussing such things in the open. Avi Loeb, Stephen Webb, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Frank Drake, Seth Shostak, Ann Straat, Sara Seager, Jason Wright, Clement Vidal, Robert Freitas Jr -- the list goes on and on. One of our most beloved astrophysicists practically made his career with talk of aliens, that being of course Carl Sagan. All of these people would acknowledge the existence of ET life in a heartbeat -- if the evidence is SOLID.
Our evidence has been shaky regarding ETI, hence most of these learned individuals have withheld going so far as to say we have discovered ET life. There is nothing wrong with that -- academic institutions require us to have solid evidence for something before we say it is real. That is the way of good science, something that most UFOlogists would take as a suggestion. That is not to say there are no scientific UFOlogists out there. There are, but while a scientist can be a UFOlogist, not every Ufologist is a scientist. You are robbing yourself of valuable input by avoiding talking to them.
This is a tu quoque fallacy argument. You offer no reasoning as to why you think ETI would terraform everything, or why it would be hard besides saying “they aren’t here” and using a decades old closed ecosystem design nobody needs. That’s not evidence, and that’s not logical.
My reasoning for why terraforming could be practical is based on well-known and robustly researched concepts. These links are just the tip of the iceberg:
However, I further ask why we see terraforming as necessary at all in light of other interplanetary colonization techniques, using mega structures (See the work of Gerard O‘Neill). This is followed by the reasoning that the more advanced in technology a civilization is, the more they will merge with their technology. I invite you to read any Transhumanism literature to see why, and I also ask you to look around at the world around us. It is very evident that we are merging more with our machines, and it is not illogical to extrapolate how much this will increase in the (far) future, and how that will change the way we explore the universe. These apply to ETI as much as they do to us.
To reiterate: terraforming is hard for us now, but we have a conceptual framework on how to do so, and that is with modern scientific knowledge. However, I further posit that there is no real reason to do so if your civilization isn‘t made up of the baseline organisms from which they descended, or just have more convenient methods of living off world.
What? Why? We have no reason to do so. Its expensive and unnecessary due to superior mechanical options. Even if we wanted to make a ISS with a self-sustaining biosphere, it would be murder to launch and develop. Same goes for Mars. Additionally, we do not have the requisite planetary science to apply these concepts to terraforming. There is nothing preventing us from doing any of these things though, especially further into the future when our technology improves.
The arguments regarding time here are exceedingly biased. It’s the same as saying we should have made a human-like AI by now since we’ve been trying since the 50s. The reality is more complicated than such absolute claims. We as we are now or in the past or future 50 years do not represent the pinnacle of scientific understanding. Your example of antigravity is contrived. I can just as easily say that we discovered biological cells in 1665 and now we can alter pretty much any cell at will and even create new ones, and use that as an example of how science progresses.
More absolutes. Science does not deal with these. Science describes that which we are reasonably certain describes a phenomenon until we are proven otherwise by upgraded theories or alternate ways of explaining things. The fact that we have things we are VERY sure about right now says nothing about them actually describing reality. They only describe what we think is reality until our perceptions improve. Even if we are 99.9999% sure something is the case, it is not an absolute fact., and could be proven wrong or improved. So yes, all laws can be broken if we discover the right things. Just because we can’t now, doesn’t mean someone else won’t later.
You do imply that the technology of FTL is static by assuming FTl travel would be either slow or very energy-consuming when we observe them. For the purposes of the Fermi Paradox, if the technology is NOT static, then it doesn't matter if the technology takes a few hundred or thousand years to improve because the random time at which we observe them if we take the average space-faring civilization to last anywhere between a few thousand to a few billion years is exceedingly unlikely to be the relatively narrow amount of time it took them to fix their FTL design compared to their long lifespan. The question then arises if FTL is possible - why haven't we seen them? Well, why should we see them? Why should reveal themselves to us? Who is to say they won't eventually, or have already and we're the crazies locked up a simulation because we couldn't handle the truth?
There is no evidence to suggest this is the case, even if you use this figure arbitrarily. We know the conditions and requisite elements that would’ve allowed planets to form around stars suitable for life and for life to develop existed about 1 billion years after the big bang, with conditions possibly existing even before then if you consider the Bathtub Universe Hypothesis: www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/02/03/271093289/eureka-first-life-in-the-universe
Therefore, an ETI could have arisen at any point after 2 billion years from the big bang. Unless we find direct evidence that mandates ET life has requirements that disclude it from developing as soon as possible, this is our best guess.
It doesn’t matter what you think is a good idea. The science behind nuclear fission propulsion is sound and as technically grounded in reality as conventional rocketry, having been tested and studied extensively. It does not use actual nuclear bombs, but rather compact fissile explosives in the 0.1 to 1 kiloton range. These would be the smallest and more clean nuclear devices we ever made. It is perfectly suited to the task of shifting huge payloads at great speed off world, between the planets and beyond them. Moreover, it can be done using modern technology. Think on that: we could cut the travel time to Mars down to 1 month and going to Alpha Centauri to 40 years. Only antimatter or light sails can compete -- and they have other, more insurmountable issues. If you want to know more about it, I suggest you research it here:
Regardless, we digress. The point is that interstellar colonization is possible even without the resources of a K2 civilization, and the chances of it happening only improve from there. This really drives home the issue of the Fermi Paradox. If it’s so easy that we could do it now in a limited way, why don’t see the vastly older civilizations do so more?
I also don’t think the Kardashev civilization scale is very useful, since it presupposes a lot in terms of power consumption and how you’d get that power. But it’s a useful enough term to use in conversation. I use it to mean any civilization that has colonized enough of its solar-system to call itself interplanetary, and has a very robust power production system that can support it. This would include solar because of its sheer abundance, but also en mass fusion, fission, antimatter and perhaps even very low mass blackholes.
Let’s get the wording right first. Dyson Spheres (as in, enclosing a star in a rigid sphere) is not what we mean. A Dyson SWARM is what we refer to, that is, a swarm of solar cells orbiting a star to collect the radiation as power and transfer it to somewhere useful. A small swarm of satellites JUST collecting 1% of the Sun’s output would produce 3.8x10^26 watts PER SECOND. The world’s current power consumption equals 1.7x10^11 watts in a YEAR. Dyson sails would struggle to beat that -- especially because a wind turbine wouldn’t work in a vacuum.
These satellites would not be hard to make, as they are technologically-modern solar cell surfaces with associated electronics and a emitter a power station. We could technically start making a Dyson Swarm now. It would take a while to reach the 1% capture mark, and we have no use for it, but the point remains. The ease at which you can make these again raises the point: why don’t we see them in the universe everywhere? This is called the Dyson Dilemma.
In any case, the concept of a Dyson swarm dates back to the 1930s with the author Olaf Stapledon. Freeman Dyson merely refined the idea and put some math behind it. They are not the result of modern tastes.
No, it is not irrefutable. Irrefutable would be that we observed aliens doing these things and have no other natural explanations. Until we can eliminate more likely natural causes, ETs doing these things is just one among many explanations. Just as it is unscientific to say this is not aliens off the bat, it is likewise unscientific to say it is without further research. These are experiments we can do, proposed by the scientists you said do not do such things or choose to accept the results.
Just remember this handy adage:
“It’s never/ it is aliens” - unscientific.
“We have a phenomenon that might be aliens -- further testing required” - more scientific.
“We have yet to rule out aliens - very scientific.
“This data says x and y on the emission bands blah blah blah. Results will be in a few years” - most scientific.
These were experiments, among others, that we used to peer into the possibilities of alien life. Just because we found something doesn’t mean it was aliens. It is too premature a time to say.
Also, I wanted to address this:
This assumes that the radio emissions are “leakage”, essentially the radio noise of civilizations that spills out from the home planet/ solar system from their activity. These would indeed be (at some point) drowned out by natural radio noise. However, there is an issue with saying that beyond that volume (which is a really big one, bear mind), you wouldn’t be able to hear anything: naturally, since this is radio leakage, it is omnidirectional and this its energy is dispersed across a wide area. It will also hit frequencies that will allow it to be drowned out by natural sources with those frequencies because it was designed to bypass those. Say you designed one that could: this would be your SETI beacon device. To build this, you would need to emit your radio waves in a narrow beam to focus as much energy as possible to penetrate the interstellar medium and maintain signal strength, and you can use a variety of methods to bypass the natural radio emission lines. One is by sing the “water hole” frequency, another is by broadcasting on a range of frequencies, thereby causing their reflections to be different at different wavelengths.