[Halc]

In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.

That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.

In an expanding universe, it's possible for something to happen that will never be observed from here because it will effectively be moving from us at "more than the speed of light".

We see plenty of things receding from us at greater than c. That isn't what prevents light from arbitrarily distant places from eventually reaching here. It is the acceleration of that expansion which forms that event horizon from beyond which light can never reach us.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.

That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.

Not necessarily. I imagine that in a universe that has existed forever, big crunches and bangs would occur here and there, now and then, which might have the effect of "erasing the history of, or overlaying the evidence of" the remnants of such previous Big Bang events, [shrug].


Note also, I'm not saying that new matter is created for a new Big Bang, I suggesting that there is an existing infinite amount of matter and energy in the infinite universe and it cycles through from matter to energy and back to matter; Big Bang to Big Crunch and back to Big Bang, here and there, as crunches form, critical capacity of a crunch is reached, and the crunches lead to BANGS which then cause the expansion phase; bang, crunch, bang, crunch .


The cycle is driven by gravity on the accumulation side, leading to collapse/bang (Big Bang) on the expansion side. The bang occurs when the "critical capacity" of matter is reached where upon the compression exceeds the ability for atoms in the matter to maintain their individual space, ie. a compression limit is reached that results in the collapse of the atoms, and the matter collapses to a natural density limit and the dense state of matter "bounces" into expansion ... bang.




161135,161181,161226,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In vast places across space that at present seem to be without intelligent beings to record the passing of history, the mere potential for the invasion of intelligence coming from both near and far, and occupying those vacant places, are eventual likelihoods in the grand scheme of things.

That would contradict a universe that has existed forever. All those empty places you see have already had infinite time to fill up, and they haven't. More time isn't going to help then. You can only conclude that said intelligent beings are brief flashes in history, gone almost as soon as they crop up. How/why they disappear is the question asked by the Fermi paradox.

Not necessarily. I imagine that in a universe that has existed forever, big crunches and bangs would occur here and there, now and then, which might have the effect of "erasing the history of, or overlaying the evidence of" the remnants of such previous Big Bang events, [shrug].


Note also, I'm not saying that new matter is created for a new Big Bang, I'm suggesting that there is an existing infinite amount of matter and energy in the infinite universe and it cycles through from matter to energy and back to matter continuously; Big Bang to Big Crunch and back to Big Bang, here and there, as crunches form, critical capacity of a crunch is reached, and the crunches lead to BANGS which then cause the expansion phase; bang, crunch, bang, crunch .


The cycle is driven by gravity on the accumulation side, leading to collapse/bang (Big Bang) on the expansion side. The bang occurs when the "critical capacity" of matter is reached where upon the compression exceeds the ability for atoms in the matter to maintain their individual space, ie. a compression limit is reached that results in the collapse of the atoms, and the matter collapses to a natural density limit and the dense state of matter "bounces" into expansion ... bang.




161135,161181,161226,

I know that mine is a speculative scenario, but it includes the thinking that if an infinity of time is given, across a spatially infinite universe, filled with an infinite host of galaxies, who's stars can have some meaningful possibility to support planets, and where some proportion of those likely planets possibly do have the building blocks of life, then life abounds across the universe, IMHO.




161231,161258,161295,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I know that mine is a speculative scenario, but it includes the thinking that if an infinity of time is given, across a spatially infinite universe, filled with an infinite host of galaxies, who's stars can have some meaningful possibility to support planets, and where some proportion of those likely planets possibly do have the building blocks of life, then life abounds across the universe, IMHO.




161231,161258,161295,

As to why our searches of the known universe don't yet reveal irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial life, ... well it is disappointing. I remind myself of just how distant from Earth the nearest intelligent life (that seems logical to me would be out there) could be from Earth. Signals from distant places that would reveal intelligence could be so far away as to be undetectable among the electromagnetic waves that are bathing Earth continually from afar and from all directions. But in that infinite expanse, over infinite time, one thing that would hide such intelligences from each other would be the possibility that there was no intelligent life out there.


However, mankind has captured and is continuing to collect much data from signals from space that is yet to be sorted through, and that could reveal distant intelligent sources, so the search is far from complete.




161299,161326,161394,161418,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I find it logical to believe that the signals that we can and do detect from space, when surveyed in finer detail and over greater timeframes, will eventually reveal the prized signals that will be interpreted as evidence of extraterrestrial life. When that happens, it might be the most momentous event in the history of mankind. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened any day now. I'll keep tuning into the news each morning when I first awake.


But while such news is not yet forthcoming, I think expectations are high among those familiar with the ongoing sky surveys of signals arriving from across the spacial sphere.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Of course there are these:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111471532/space-science-stars-radio-waves-signals-galaxy-lightyears-mit

https://www.seti.org/

161636,162069,

[Zer0]

Or Maybe Other Highly Intelligent Life has Not evolved with a similar history of evolution as human species.

Maybe they never came across Radio Waves or did and moved on Ahead.

Maybe they use Quantum Communication Techniques.

Maybe their Philosophy does Not permit colonization of other stars, planets or galaxies.

P.S. - Hope you don't mind me posting vague ideas in your OP.
I'm Not trying to Sabotage it, Only attempting to Add more Value to it thru Diversity of opinions.
✌️

[Zer0]

Yea my primary concern was that my views might not be Relatable to the Topic in discussion.

But perhaps the OP finds it in line & going in the same direction...
Hence Happy!
(Zer0 😊 too)

I'm Aware of the Fermi Paradox & The Great Filter.

I do have Fearful reservations of the LHC Experiments.
They can create miniscule blackholes, expecting them to Evaporate.

There might be Millions of tiny blackholes in the milky way galaxy.
Maybe WE might suffer the same Fate.

I Wish to provide Readers with a Fascinating Thought & Incredible Imagination from Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Credits/Source/Many Thanks -
vson8 Channel/YouTube/Dr Tyson.

P.S. - It's Only a 5 minutes video, but what an Incredibly Imaginative Thought, Completely Worth It.
👍

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The point that an extra 1% or 2% greater Intelligence based on differences between human and chimp DNA is a huge leap might be overstating the effect of such a small difference, but clearly stepping up the intelligence of a life form would be a game changer for them.

However, it does seem that there is a bigger difference in the intelligence among individual humans than just 1% though, and maybe the percent between us and those as yet undiscovered aliens would be much greater.




162095,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Finding, and being able to communicate are two different things, of course. Simply detecting each others signals doesn't mean communication would be taking place any time soon. We wouldn't even be able to send and receive each others signals in any conversational arrangement, given the vast time and distance constraints, let alone the "understanding" issue, . A lot of science fiction has been written based on "contact" hypotheticals, but the reality is that we don't know yet.


But it is our nature to keep looking.




162233,162477,

[Zer0]

There is a High Probability of Us finding ET Life based upon the same principles like Us.

THEY Might be Alot more Similar in Complexity than We imagine.

Credits/Courtesy/Thanks -
Chemistry In A Box/YouTube/Dr Tyson.

Communication with ET is a whole different ball game.

But i Believe, even thou Primitive, We still might invoke Interest & Amuse Them.

We do Not have ways of sensible communication with Ants, but that doesn't Stop Us from studying Them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmecology

P.S. - I keep invoking Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos bcoz i do Not want to misquote or misrepresent his views & thoughts.
I Assure the OP that i shall get the Discussion back on track soon.
👍

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

I wonder if cosmic ray bursts might be indicators of big bangs that happened in the distant past somewhere across infinite space.

I wonder about the emergence of life out of the elements and conditions of exploded stars?

How common could it occur in terms of space and time?

What is the probability that intelligent life will emerge, once the earliest life forms arise?

 
162535,162607,162714,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

...

ON the premise that I have been touting, that the universe is infinite and eternal, the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs admittedly takes liberty with the Big Bang model and theory. The consensus model seems to be about the entire universe emerging from the Big Bang event, where that event took place out of a "point-space" that appeared out of nothing, and bloomed into the entire expanding visible universe and the grand universe beyond.


Given that the setting of this popular Big Bang model is sometimes characterized as tracking back to a "point" of space. and that if we could follow this backtracking to its original point-space, not just in time, but in space as well, then The Big Bang Theory might seem to incorporate "the beginning of space and time".

If that beginning could be characterized as a "point/space beginning", then maybe that initial point would be thought of as being surrounded by nothingness, keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volume. So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emerged, and the rest is history, lol.


Maybe it would be appropriate to say that, "If at first there was nothing, not even space-time, then nothing could ever be, but if we just look around we see the existence of a grand universe as far as the eye can see. Conclusion, space and time have always existed, i.e., let's say it is settled, there was no beginning.





162719,162738,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

keeping in mind that one definition of a point is that it has location but no volume

What sort of definition of a point has either no location or a nonzero volume?

The BBT does not posit a point so you know. It's a popular misconception is all.
The theory does not ever suggest a finite size of the universe at some time in the past.

So somewhere out of nothingness a point-space emerged

Yea that too. It never posits something out of nothing, or that there ever was a time when there was nothing.

Conclusion, space and time have always existed.

Which follows from the above, yes.

In classical Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion that models an exact location in the space, and has no length, width, or thickness. In modern mathematics, a point refers more generally to an element of some set called a space. Wikipedia


,162818,162849,162923,

[Zer0]

Topics worth discussion:

I wonder about the speculation that there could have been multiple big bangs?

I heard this on StarTalk by Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson...
He was explaining the accelerated rate of expansion of the Universe.

He mentioned Billions of years from Now, all Galaxies will start to recede away from Us.
As the space between Us & other Galaxies expands Faster Than Light, they shall all disappear from our sight.

Hence future cosmologists won't see any Other galaxies except Ours in the night sky.
They will have to completely rely on empirical evidence & historical data from Us to believe the fact that once there were billions of galaxies.

Then He finally makes a point saying, if future generations of cosmologists had a whole chapter ripped out just because they could not see it with their own eyes, what is to say that Maybe there were a few chapters of the Universe already ripped apart from Us right Now because We cannot see it or test it or have no knowledge of it.

He wasn't in Denial of the Big Bang.
Just pointing to the possibility that there might be a few things about the past of our Universe We might Never be able to know for certain.


I wonder if cosmic ray bursts might be indicators of big bangs that happened in the distant past somewhere across infinite space.

i do not understand this phenomenon, i have very little knowledge of it, hence No Comments.

I wonder about the emergence of life out of the elements and conditions of exploded stars?

We are living evidence of it.

How common could it occur in terms of space and time?

The previous video i posted of Mr Tyson states that We are built from the most abundant elements found commonly in the Universe, with an exception to Helium.

What is the probability that intelligent life will emerge, once the earliest life forms arise?

Watched a video of Prof Richard Dawkins on this Subject...

He mentioned earliest fossils to be around 3.5billion years old.
Then he stated Earth to be around 4.5billion years old.
Then he said primordial earth was too hot for life to evolve, so for the Earth to cool down to a conclusive environment in which life could Originate, a buffer time of 0.5billion years.
He concluded it took life around 500million years to spring up.

He also mentioned that there were alot of instances in fossils which it was observed that eyes evolved or ears evolved.
But for Intelligent Life like Us to evolve took 4billion years.

He ended by saying a strange thing thou, that Intelligence did not seem to be the necessity or necessary for Survival.
If Evolution's primary goal was Intelligence, then we would have seen the emergence of it long before.
The norm was simply of diversity & survival of the Fittest.

 
162535,162607,162714,

P.S. - I'd recommend readers to watch YouTube videos of Prof Dawkins & Dr Tyson in conversation.
👍

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

My bad;
Gamma-ray bursts is what I was trying to say [shrug]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst


162979,163004.

[Zer0]

My Bad Too!

I previously mentioned a fear of LHC Experiments.

I reasoned other Blackholes in the Galaxy to be remnants of failed particle science experiments.

But all those Blackholes are minimum 5 solar masses & above, none resembling an Earth like mass.

Even if Earth suddenly turned into a Blackhole, it would still stay in Orbit around the Sun.

And Cosmologists haven't really spotted any Blackholes orbiting around Stars orbiting around them.
They would surely be easy to spot & differentiate from planets.

So my Fear seems Illogical.

P.S. - or perhaps We shall go down in the history of this Universe as a first example of the Dangers of Intelligence.

[Halc]

I previously mentioned a fear of LHC Experiments.

No fear needed. It is not possible, no matter the power of the collider. I mean, something fundamental like a single electron is already smaller (size 0) than its own Schwarzschild radius (something not 0), and yet its gravity doesn't suddenly become more powerful than all the other forces that repel things that are on trajectories that approach its event horizon.

Even if Earth suddenly turned into a Blackhole, it would still stay in Orbit around the Sun.

That it would, and the moon and all the satellites in orbit around it. The tides would mostly disappear, so the moon would cease receding at 3.8 cm/yr like it's doing now.

And Cosmologists haven't really spotted any Blackholes orbiting around Stars orbiting around them.

Oh yes they have. They're just not little.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Out here On the Lighter Side/New Theories, I feel I can say why I think the universe exists.


It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.


It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past, and it doesn't exist through some chance convergence of great forces at the beginning of time, it simple has always been here.

I've talked about the idea of multiple big bangs. Given the supposed infinity of space and the eternity of time, the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.

I've made it clear that I think that space is infinite, and it is filled with much the same kind of things as we observe in the space that we can see. That is not to say that somewhere in the unfathomable expanse beyond our view that there aren't things that will be surprising. Certainly there are things we will never know about, or understand. The unknowns are many and our chances of knowing most of them are slim.


But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.


I hope that we are able to find intelligent life out there so that we might have a chance to expand our knowledge in giant steps on the shoulders of other advanced life forms and civilizations.




163411,163513,

[Halc]

It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.

It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past

Those are both ways to explain how it exists. Neither addresses why it exists. Your answer just says it exists, so it exists. Doesn't really answer the question of why this one exists and not some other, or none at all. The creation thing doesn't say why this universe instead of another either. It just says something created it, by design or otherwise.

the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.

It certainly antagonizes mine. I've already posted why it cannot be, at least not with our laws of physics. No bang can take place at a location in space, at least not one bigger than say a star exploding.

But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.

Some of them, but never all. I personally don't think we'll learn much more before we start forgetting faster than we learn new things.