Are Humans the First Technologically Advanced Species in the Universe?

[Moontanman]

26 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Making people follow links, without any posted content, is usually frowned upon here.

I was giving you an example of a theory that did not include a big bang or a singularity and includes things that happen before what we think of as the universe formed. 

Edited April 2 by Moontanman

[Vmedvil]

38 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins

 

 

Well, even if life did exist for 3.7 billion years and not 4.3 billion that only changes the possible length of evolution from 3.02 times to 3.513 times the length of evolution of life on Earth. The question still remains are we the first life in the universe since there has been no detection of Dyson spheres and advanced alien civilizations in the galaxy? Assuming you are correct in being that the frame is 3.513 times the length of Earth's evolution that the universe has been in a state to produce life.

[Vmedvil]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Yes I have read that hypothesis. Your entire post is confusing, I'm not sure what you are trying to assert is supported by your post please clarify it for us. 

  

 

The point of this part is the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and we can rule out the first 650 million years for generating life. All stars in the universe will cease to exist in 100 trillion years which would make the conditions unsuitable for planetary development of life, which means there is still a window of 7,299.27 times the length of the 13.7 billion year, universe has existed for life to exist and that humans came into existence near the beginning of the era of life formation based on these calculations. There was the point added by Halc that it could not be as we know it the life that existed during that time, but it would seem for life as we know it those are the metrics for it in the universe.

Edited April 2 by Vmedvil

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 

Well, even if life did exist for 3.7 billion years and not 4.3 billion that only changes the possible length of evolution from 3.02 times to 3.513 times the length of evolution of life on Earth. The question still remains are we the first life in the universe since there has been no detection of Dyson spheres and advanced alien civilizations in the galaxy? Assuming you are correct in being that the frame is 3.513 times the length of Earth's evolution that the universe has been in a state to produce life.

We might be alone as a technological civilization in an area of reasonable distance, I have no idea what a reasonable distance is but I know that we... our civilization could not detect a identical civilization at the distance of alpha centauri. In fact with in one or two light years all signal leakage from the Earth is filtered out by interstellar plasma, gas, and dust. 

I see no way that is can be asserted that we are the only life bearing planet within our own solar system much less the entire universe or even our galaxy. 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Vmedvil said:

 

The point of this part is the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and we can rule out the first 650 million years for generating life. All stars in the universe will cease to exist in 100 trillion years which would make the conditions unsuitable for planetary development of life, which means there is still a window of 7,299.27 times the length of the 13.7 billion year the universe has existed for life to exist and that humans came into existence near the beginning of the era of life formation based on these calculations. There was the point added by Halc that it could not be as we know it the life that existed during that time, but it would seem for life as we know it those are the metrics for it in the universe.

I still don't understand what you are asserting here. Please elaborate. 

[Vmedvil]

17 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

 the human species evolved near the beginning of the universe

 

That's what I am asserting.

[oldpaddoboy]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What are you trying to say here? The idea of a singularity is real, whether or not a real singularity can exist seems to be iffy. If Plank time and size exist then a singularity cannot exist. In fact some scientists think that need for a singularity in our theories indicate something is not correct, infinities are often a sign of something wrong in the theory. 

The singularity is defined as where our laws of physics and GR break down. That is at the quantum/Planck level, to my knowledge and according to  what material I have read. We need a QGT, (quantum gravity theory) to describe at this level. So, then all we can say, is that gravity and density approach infinite status at these levels. Remembering that the Planck scale is a "man made" aspect. So then we can speculate that at or below the quantum/Planck level, a surface of sorts could exist. I'm pretty sure most cosmologists reject infinite gravity and density. 

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I'm pretty sure most cosmologists reject infinite gravity and density. 

That is not necessarily true, infinity density is a well-defined property of black holes which is what the initial singularity explanation is defining was the "creator of the universe".

"The theoretical density of a black hole depends on how big it is and how you define its size. The density at the center of a black hole is infinite (it's a famous "singularity", which leads to difficulties in modern cosmology)."

Link = Density of Black Holes - Chemistry LibreTexts

 

Edited April 3 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

24 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

That's what I am asserting.

That imo is near impossible! How could the human species evolve near the beginning of the universe, (14 billion years ago) when the first stars weren't around until about 200 million years afterwards. Then planets needed time to cool, and then abiogenesis itself would have taken a while. Plus of course our Sun and the planets are thought to be 5 billion years and 4.5 billion years old respectfully.

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

The singularity is defined as where our laws of physics and GR break down. That is at the quantum/Planck level, to my knowledge and according to  what material I have read. We need a QGT, (quantum gravity theory) to describe at this level. So, then all we can say, is that gravity and density approach infinite status at these levels. Remembering that the Planck scale is a "man made" aspect. So then we can speculate that at or below the quantum/Planck level, a surface of sorts could exist. I'm pretty sure most cosmologists reject infinite gravity and density. 

They also reject the infinitely small as well, I tend to not accept much of what is proposed as true based on the fact that quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible. Once we have a theory that incompasses both any conclusions we come to based on one or the other will be suspect. 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

That is not necessarily true, infinity density is a well-defined property of black holes which is what the initial singularity explanation is defining was the "creator of the universe".

"The theoretical density of a black hole depends on how big it is and how you define its size. The density at the center of a black hole is infinite (it's a famous "singularity", which leads to difficulties in modern cosmology)."

Link = Density of Black Holes - Chemistry LibreTexts

 

And yet a spinning black hole cannot have a singularity at its center and all black holes must spin. A spinning black hole would have a ring at its center not a point. 

[oldpaddoboy]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

That is not necessarily true, infinity density is a well-defined property of black holes which is what the initial singularity explanation is defining was the "creator of the universe".

"The theoretical density of a black hole depends on how big it is and how you define its size. The density at the center of a black hole is infinite (it's a famous "singularity", which leads to difficulties in modern cosmology)."

Link = Density of Black Holes - Chemistry LibreTexts

 

Infinite density is not a well defined property of black holes. How can it be, when our laws of physics and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level? 

[Vmedvil]

14 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

That imo is near impossible! How could the human species evolve near the beginning of the universe, (14 billion years ago) when the first stars weren't around until about 200 million years afterwards. Then planets needed time to cool, and then abiogenesis itself would have taken a while. Plus of course our Sun and the planets are thought to be 5 billion years and 4.5 billion years old respectfully.

In a frame of 100 trillion years only 13.7 billion years is near the beginning there is still a length of over 7000 times that to come until the stars fade. It is near the beginning of the universe, you see?

Edited April 3 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

And yet a spinning black hole cannot have a singularity at its center and all black holes must spin. A spinning black hole would have a ring at its center not a point. 

Yes, which sorts of defeats your argument. 

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

And yet a spinning black hole cannot have a singularity at its center and all black holes must spin. A spinning black hole would have a ring at its center not a point. 

This is true that the spin counteracts the gravity however you are forgetting about length contraction beyond the event horizon.

"Length contraction L is the shortening of the measured length of an object moving relative to the observer's frame. L=L0√1−v2c2. If we measure the length of anything moving relative to our frame, we find its length L to be smaller than the proper length L0 that would be measured if the object were stationary."

Link = 28.3: Length Contraction - Physics LibreTexts

Edited April 3 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

In a frame of 100 trillion years only 13.7 billion years is near the beginning there is still a length of over 7000 times that to come until the stars fade. It is near the beginning of the universe, you see?

Life itself, anywhere, will be many orders of magnitudes extinct by then.

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Life itself, anywhere, will be many orders of magnitudes extinct by then.

How do you know that?