If the big bang never happened, "Where is everybody?"

[JP Michael]

Either some magic created the universe, or it is infinite. What was there before in this astronomically long chain of causes and effects? You can't just claim that the physics have changed like the Big Bangers do. Science demands facts and logic, not cop outs

I guess you missed the logical non sequitur for point 1, and almost 200 years of evolutionary bait and switch fallacies for point 2. Keep trying, though, you'll understand one day. Maybe.

[Aardwolf]

The universe as a whole may be infinite but the local stars and our galaxy may not be. If it's taken 4 billion years for sentient life to evolve, it's likely that all our neighbours are at similar epochs. Other larger/older galaxies may be significantly more advanced but they are all way too far away for contact.

But there must be infinitely older galaxies with sentient life that have had a virtually infinite amount of time to expand.

Ok, so which of all the observable galaxies are infinite in age? Like I said, any galaxy that is conceivably within our vicinity to visit is no older than our galaxy. There may be some infinitely aged galaxies but they must be an infinite distance away. Also, if you were an advanced civilization looking for other life you may have a billion galaxies to choose from nearby with 100 billion stars to search in each one. You would need to build trillions of ships and they would have to rely on much faster than light travel otherwise generations would pass on the ship and likely the descendants wont even know what the mission was/is. Then they need to travel back with the news. Would they even know where/how to. All this just for an aimless search party. Why bother.

[folaht]

I am totally convinced that the big bang never happened, that the gravity model of the universe is wrong and that the Electric Universe model is correct.
So, if the universe is infinite in time, matter, scope and, probably, details we just can't "see"* yet, how can we answer Fermi's "Where is everybody?"
"We" already have conceived self replicating robot ships and explorers. AC Clark wrote a novel about it, Rendezvous with Rama.

I don't buy the Star Trek sop that they don't want to interfere and are observing us.

No matter which values you put into the Drake equations, at infinity, the probability is 100%, and some have been around for a, virtually, infinite amount of time.

jimmy

*old ditty, Dogs have fleas and fleas have fleas and so on infinitum

1. That the big bang never happened doesn't mean that the universe is infinite in time, matter or scope. It could be that our universe is a "big ball of yarn" that's truly expanding, just not in the way that big bang theorists are describing it.

2. There's a difference between travelling from star to star and travelling from galaxy to galaxy.
What do you suggest Fermi's maximum extend is?
Do you have a Fermi's extend equation? or a Jimmy Walter equation for that?

3. There's a lot of answers for this and I would say the best person that has made videos about it is John Michael Godier.
He's not an EU supporter, but since the Fermi Paradox hardly changes with it, he's worth a look up on youtube.

My own preference goes to the Impossible Earth / Rare earth / Stone age milky way hypothesis.
Just look at Mars, Venus, Mercury or the average star and then ask yourself,
if there's another livable planet in our galaxy, what are it's chances that this planet is as livable as ours?

What if instead of 6 livable continents, the only unlivable place to us is Antartica.
What if the average were to be the other way around?
What chances are there that their planets don't contain any metals or fossil fuels?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5BcXZ08z5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhpq-xIl7fw

[Aardwolf]

if there's another livable planet in our galaxy, what are it's chances that this planet is as livable as ours?

I would say high. I suspect all stars have multiple planets and you just need one that is within a region where water is liquid. Everything else follows from there. Whether or not sentient life has evolved far enough to escape that star is another story.

What chances are there that their planets don't contain any metals or fossil fuels?

Everywhere we look is mostly mineral rock so every reason to suspect most stars planets are of the same composition. Also, if you subscribe to the growing earth theory, planets form all the required materials. Which also lends to the theory the "fossil" fuels are not sourced from fossils, but from the planet itself.

[Harry]

The universe is infinite.
You cannot create matter or destroy.
Why can’t we see an infinite star?
Because matter changes by a cyclic process.
We can observe over a trillion galaxies within a deep field over 14 billion light years.
It’s all about the ELECTRIC process.

[Aardwolf]

We can observe over a trillion galaxies within a deep field over 14 billion light years.

Only 14 billion? That's the supposed age not the size. The observable universe from Earth's position is around 93 billion ly (46.5 billion in all directions). Beyond the observable some estimate as much as 7 trillion ly. You may as well just accept it's infinite in size so probably infinite in age as well, and do away with the assumption it's expanding at multiple times the speed of light.

[crawler]

I like Conrad Ranzan's DSSU model of our infinite eternal universe.
The universe is made of cosmic cells, each say 300 million lightyears across.
Photons are created by the aether at center. Photons make our elementary particles. Matter is annihilated in blackholes, at edges.
Photons are stretched out of existence as they pass through thousands of cells, due to gravity.
Conrad probly mentions how long the average atom/planet/star lives, i karnt remember – not long.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/index.htm

[Marioantonio]

If it's taken 4 billion years for sentient life to evolve

Don’t you mean allegedly? Look at what Peter Mungo Jupp has said on his thunderbolts project videos: https://youtu.be/ut0KH3h7JVs

https://youtu.be/5vOMGQTjW9k

[Aardwolf]

If it's taken 4 billion years for sentient life to evolve

Don’t you mean allegedly? Look at what Peter Mungo Jupp has said on his thunderbolts project videos: https://youtu.be/ut0KH3h7JVs

https://youtu.be/5vOMGQTjW9k

I did say if. However, carbon dating / DNA aging does have serious issues; not sure that's even a controversial point. That it means humans evolved from amoebas circa 200,000 years ago. I doubt it. Also, it's a bit odd using a paper referencing mitochondrial DNA measurements that say humans evolved 200,000 years ago and then go on to say mitochondrial DNA measurements are scientific garbage. Maybe it's garbage the other way and shows 90% of all species emerged 200,000,000,000 billion years ago.

As a general point to the video, it seems that one driver of this theory is the missing so-called gaps between species, but I would argue you wouldn't expect there to be any. Or rather, its very unlikely you would be able to find them. Fossils are extremely rare and require very specific circumstances. What are the chances of finding an example of every stage in evolution? Zero. And there wouldn't be any extant examples because the whole point is the species had adapted to its environment and therefor the previous "versions" would be killed as the environment changes (that's the point) with no-one to record the stages and no one preserving all the intermediate fossils.

[allynh]

Sorry that I came to this thread late. Just read through it, and its full of fun stuff that I can use.

Thanks...

My viewpoint is that this bubble of Real is only 300m light years across.

It's a Poincare Sphere, essentially closed space, with all of the existing galaxies visible in many places across the sky. We have to look for older images of the Milky Way or Andromeda to show that.

Start with the concept of the Small Universe, and demand that science prove that it is not, rather than assume infinity right from the start.

Fermi paradox:

It's only a "paradox" because people assume that technology can travel beyond a solar system. We could be surrounded by worlds with our technology and we would not be able to see them at a distance. There could be millions of living worlds in the Milky Way alone, with our level of technology, and we would not be able to detect them. Especially if there is only a handful of active technologies at any one time before they fade away.

If you include Growing Earth Theory into the mix, then any living world only has a short window before they are rendered uninhabitable.

Evolution:

Evolution occurs through Symbiogenesis, basically hybridization, not step-by-step mutations the way Darwin proposed the model.

In 2013, Dr. Eugene McCarthy announced that Humans were the result of pig and chimpanzee hybrid.

When I saw the first announcement I thought of the great Spencer Tracy movie, _Inherit the Wind_, would now be called _Inherit the Swine_. I read all the information, watched the fun Jimmy Kimmel skit, then went to Sam's Club to shop. Standing there, looking at the vast crowd standing in line, I thought, Yes, what a bunch of pigs, and wanted to start calling, sooey, sooey, pig, pig, pig, and see if people would come over to see me. HA!

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig- ... umans.html

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybr ... dence.html

Here is the website if you want to go direct.

Biology, hybrids, human origins and more
http://www.macroevolution.net/index.html

This is a fun Jimmy Kimmel skit that shows the theory. So true.

Humans evolved from male Pig and Chimpanzee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFQRYv10OjI

On his website he points out that the duckbill platypus is a hybrid of duck and otter. Tie in Morphogenesis into this, and you have species coming in to existence with no intermediary steps.

That means there can be a rapid change from bacteria to complex organisms over a very short time frame.

Add in my personal theory that bacteria are the primary intelligence on the planet, literally creating new lifeforms, designing environments to maximize the living space for bacteria, and you can speed up the apparent evolution even faster.

Greg Bear wrote a number of novels discussing that concept.

But I digress.

[Cargo]

I think you may be looking more Fungi as far as the ultimate lifeform goes.. Even the shroom type maybe.

It's difficult for me, because the OP question is irrelevant. It's like asking, if nothing never happened, where is everything. that's just a non starter right? Not only has BB even existed, any thinking based on it's influence should have never happened. Why bother?

I got a better question for the deep thoughts. If we don't know the distance to anything outside our galaxy or solar system, how 'far' is it really? The answer it obliviously: forever, we don't know.

That's it. And one day, you wake up with feet instead of wings.

[allynh]

As a brief response, so as not to derail the thread:

Fungi is the tool bacteria created to break down plants that they created to stabilize and feed soil.

Plants are a way for the bacteria to harvest solar energy and produce sugar to feed the soil.

The soil is a complex world of many different animals that the bacteria tend as "crops".

A good example of this is:

Rat Attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGxVx0uT8Y

The bamboo stabilizes the soil on the hills, then every 48 years the bamboo fruits, triggering the rat population to explode. The rats dig burros, aerate the soil. The rats starve and die, their flesh feeding the soil as they decay, adding nitrogen to the soil as fertilizer.

Bacteria use similar tactics world wide.

In the North West US, when salmon swim up the rivers to spawn, bears harvest vast quantities of fish. They carry them into the forest and eat the easy parts, leaving most of the fish to decay and feed the soil with nitrogen fertilizer.

In China, humans sculpt the hillsides with rice patties. Those humans grow fish, eels, crustaceans in the flooded patties to control the insect pests and add fertilizer to the soil.

See where I going with this. We don't need aliens showing up to visit.

Wave to our bacterial overlords. After all, they are living in our bodies as we speak. Only ten percent of our DNA is human, the rest is the bacteria that runs our bodies.

A century from now, most illnesses will be cured by communicating with bacteria.

But I digress.

[Aardwolf]

I got a better question for the deep thoughts. If we don't know the distance to anything outside our galaxy or solar system, how 'far' is it really? The answer it obliviously: forever, we don't know.

We do know that it must be immense. Just take a look at the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field image. This contains 5,500 galaxies in an area of space about about 1-2% the area of the moon as seen from Earth. If these were "nearby" at such density then we would need to be at the center of a huge bubble mostly devoid of galaxies, with 99.99% of everything else situated around the edge of the bubble, which would be absurd. It is far more likely that the universe is homogenous and they are very very far away (up to 100 billion ly+).

[allynh]

The fun thing about the Small Universe concept -- 300m light years across, a Poincare sphere -- is that it appears infinite from the inside. That no matter where you look you will see galaxies in the far distance.

Those galaxies we see are simply fossil images, and we need to find a way to identify the different images.

- Think of standing inside a mirrored cube, ten feet across. No matter where you look you see yourself extending out for miles.

With the Webb telescope we should "start" to see stigmata of that fossil light, and distortions caused by us being in a closed space.

We are only now putting technology in space that can begin to answer these questions.

A century ago they thought that space was randomly filled with stars, they had no concept of "galaxies". When Palomar started showing that "nebulas" were actually vast galaxies filled with stars, they went through a profound shock that is still unresolved.

We are going to need multiple Webb telescopes working together to form a larger telescope that can see farther and wider before we can actually see what is out there.

[Marioantonio]

The fun thing about the Small Universe concept -- 300m light years across, a Poincare sphere -- is that it appears infinite from the inside. That no matter where you look you will see galaxies in the far distance.

Those galaxies we see are simply fossil images, and we need to find a way to identify the different images.

- Think of standing inside a mirrored cube, ten feet across. No matter where you look you see yourself extending out for miles.

With the Webb telescope we should "start" to see stigmata of that fossil light, and distortions caused by us being in a closed space.

We are only now putting technology in space that can begin to answer these questions.

A century ago they thought that space was randomly filled with stars, they had no concept of "galaxies". When Palomar started showing that "nebulas" were actually vast galaxies filled with stars, they went through a profound shock that is still unresolved.

We are going to need multiple Webb telescopes working together to form a larger telescope that can see farther and wider before we can actually see what is out there.

Sounds similar to the idea of space being curved, think like the PAC-MAN game, you go to one side, you wind up on the opposite side.