Are Humans the First Technologically Advanced Species in the Universe?

[oldpaddoboy]

10 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. 

Found this at Wiki WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.....which seems to make sense......  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when". Gravitational singularities exist at a junction between general relativity and quantum mechanics; therefore, the properties of the singularity cannot be described without an established theory of quantum gravity. Trying to find a complete and precise definition of singularities in the theory of general relativity, the current best theory of gravity, remains a difficult problem.^[1][2] A singularity in general relativity can be defined by the scalar invariant curvature becoming infinite^[3] or, better, by a geodesic being incomplete.^[4]     

 

Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density would become infinite at the center of a black hole without corrections from quantum mechanics, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities.

 

General relativity predicts that any object collapsing beyond a certain point (for stars this is the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed.^[2] The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems define a singularity to have geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner.^[6] The termination of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity.

[oldpaddoboy]

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

How do you know that?

Because the conditions would be hostile to say the least.

[Vmedvil]

Just now, oldpaddoboy said:

Because the conditions would be hostile to say the least.

There would still be stars and planets for the next 100 trillion years, why would it be hostile?

[oldpaddoboy]

18 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. 

A ring singularity, and two EH's. It is also said that if one could pass through the polar regions of a Kerr Black Hole, with a trajectory passing through the exact center of the ring singularity, one could pass through unaffected. into where...or when, is another story!!!  

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Found this at Wiki WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.....which seems to make sense......  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when". Gravitational singularities exist at a junction between general relativity and quantum mechanics; therefore, the properties of the singularity cannot be described without an established theory of quantum gravity. Trying to find a complete and precise definition of singularities in the theory of general relativity, the current best theory of gravity, remains a difficult problem.^[1][2] A singularity in general relativity can be defined by the scalar invariant curvature becoming infinite^[3] or, better, by a geodesic being incomplete.^[4]     

 

Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density would become infinite at the center of a black hole without corrections from quantum mechanics, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities.

 

General relativity predicts that any object collapsing beyond a certain point (for stars this is the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed.^[2] The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems define a singularity to have geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner.^[6] The termination of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity.

"Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density would become infinite at the center of a black hole without corrections from quantum mechanics, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang."

Link = What happens at the center of a black hole? (astronomy.com)

[Moontanman]

11 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

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

What exactly what does this have to do with a ring inside a spinning black hole?

9 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

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

It very well could be, I have my doubts that life of some sort cannot exist under circumstances we would find outrageous, in fact we already have found such life and everytime we do our definition of what conditions life can survive and even thrive in change. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

How do you know that?

He doesn't anymore than you can say leprechauns do not exist or that life will survive until the universe gets to a certain age. He might very well be correct, you might very well be correct, the key is determining if anyone can know these things. 

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

A ring singularity, and two EH's. It is also said that if one could pass through the polar regions of a Kerr Black Hole, with a trajectory passing through the exact center of the ring singularity, one could pass through unaffected. into where...or when, is another story!!!  

That is one of the most fascinating aspects of this to me. 

[oldpaddoboy]

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

There would still be stars and planets for the next 100 trillion years, why would it be hostile?

Not sure where you get that idea. Maybe some White Dwarfs, perhaps some red super giants, but most stars will be gone. Our universe will be certainly hostile. 

 

[oldpaddoboy]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What exactly what does this have to do with a ring inside a spinning black hole?

It very well could be, I have my doubts that life of some sort cannot exist under circumstances we would find outrageous, in fact we already have found such life and everytime we do our definition of what conditions life can survive and even thrive in change. 

 

 

He doesn't anymore than you can say leprechauns do not exist or that life will survive until the universe gets to a certain age. He might very well be correct, you might very well be correct, the key is determining if anyone can know these things. 

Well said! 

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What exactly what does this have to do with a ring inside a spinning black hole?

 

 

Beyond the event horizon the attraction of gravity would be equal to the speed of light which means due to special relativity beyond that point length contraction would have a zero length, even if it is a ring singularity.

Link = Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light | Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

"Part of Kerr's solution shows that the region bounded by the ring singularity is a region of the most extreme peculiarity. This is a region of negative space-time! While the meaning of this is still being debated, the consensus among many scientists seems to be that this is an area in which gravity is switched into a repulsive, rather than an attractive force. In other words, this is a region in which the presence of a mass in the rubber sheet analogy would cause the sheet to bend upward"

Link = Beyond the Event Horizon, BlackHols (astronomical.org)

 

Therefore, it would still have an infinite density because the length of space would be zero due to that gravitational pull.

 

[oldpaddoboy]

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 

Beyond the event horizon the attraction of gravity would be equal to the speed of light which means due to special relativity beyond that point length contraction would have a zero length, even if it is a ring singularity.

Link = Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light | Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

"Part of Kerr's solution shows that the region bounded by the ring singularity is a region of the most extreme peculiarity. This is a region of negative space-time! While the meaning of this is still being debated, the consensus among many scientists seems to be that this is an area in which gravity is switched into a repulsive, rather than an attractive force. In other words, this is a region in which the presence of a mass in the rubber sheet analogy would cause the sheet to bend upward"

Link = Beyond the Event Horizon, BlackHols (astronomical.org)

 

Therefore, it would still have an infinite density because the length of space would be zero due to that gravitational pull.

 

The conclusion from your link says it all....... In short though, I'm not sure I like the way  some things are put...While Einstein's GR certainly predicted BH's, the first one discovered was Cygnus X-1 in the 60's. GR predicted them in 1919. Plus they were first theorised in 1879 by a bloke called John Michell. He called them Dark Stars, simply based on Newtonian mechanics, and the surface escape velocity of a collapsed star. As Moontanman has wisely said, there is much we do not and cannot know about black holes. I prefer the GR solution, as it is still our best theory of gravity, and while our knowledge of a quantum gravity theory remains incomplete. GR predicts compulsory and total collapse once the Schwarzchild limit (EH) is reached. But then GR itself breaks down at the quantum/Planck level which we define as the singularity. Reversing this and the same speculative scenario may apply at the big bang. Conclusion

 

[Vmedvil]

However, I would like to get back to the point of this thread which are humans the first civilization that is technologically advanced in the universe that exists.

[Moontanman]

11 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

However, I would like to get back to the point of this thread which are humans the first civilization that is technologically advanced in the universe that exists.

Fine, do you have any evidence this is true? 

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Fine, do you have any evidence this is true? 

I don't have any evidence that we are the first species in the universe however based on that stars will cease to exist in 100 trillion years, that we are near the beginning of the universe at 13.7 billion years old and the universe is young. I guess its inconclusive isn't it... that if humans are truly the first... I guess, the conclusion is "Nobody knows".

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

I don't have any evidence that we are the first species in the universe however based on that stars will cease to exist in 100 trillion years, that we are near the beginning of the universe at 13.7 billion years old and the universe is young. I guess its inconclusive isn't it... that if humans are truly the first... I guess, the conclusion is "Nobody knows".

I honestly cannot see how these assertions support your conclusions, I'd call your assertion non sequiturs,  OceanBreeze did a good job of pointing that out already. If you disagree then feel free to continue but you need better evidence for sure. 

Edited April 3 by Moontanman

[Vmedvil]

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I honestly cannot see how these assertions support your conclusions, I'd call your assertion non sequiturs,  OceanBreeze did a good job of pointing that out already. If you disagree then feel free to continue but you need better evidence for sure. 

 I wish there was more evidence but unfortunately even in the massive body of information that is the internet, there isn't much work on these subjects. people seem more concerned with solar panels and deepfake A.I. than anything like this.

Edited April 3 by Vmedvil

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 I wish there was more evidence but unfortunately even in the massive body of information that is the internet, there isn't much work on these subjects. people seem more concerned with solar panels and deepfake A.I. than anything like this.

Think of this for a moment, the Earth exists, it has life, how is the Earth unique from every other planet in the universe? Even if you claim that only one in a trillion planets have technological civilizations there are mostly likely Trillions of technological civilizations in the universe because there are Trillions of Trillions of planets in the universe. We can arrive at these numbers just by extrapolating the number of stars and planets in the milky way. 

I have my doubts that a one in a trillion rarity is accurate, one in a million seems a bit off the hook but even at one in a million we are likely to have hundreds of technological civilizations just in the Milky Way.