Age of the Galaxy in MM

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />In MM, is our galaxy 13 billion years old, 113 billion years old, or is its age infinite, unspecified?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Estimates of the age of our Galaxy usually come in at about 9 billion years. It is apparently not as old as the Hubble age.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the galaxy is very much older than the Standard Model indicates ... then ... would you not expect that it should be fully explored and colonized (as in Fermi's famous question "Where are they?) ... ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The biggest change MM makes in the Drake equation (which estimates how many colonized planets should exist in any given volume) is eliminating the speed of light barrier. That makes the Galaxy age a minor factor in comparison. It also means that intergalactic travel is possible, so the age of any one galaxy is no longer important -- especially in an eternal universe.

So MM requires us to rethink the entire Drake/Fermi argument, since infinite time is available and travel and communication speeds are not limiting factors. The first new conclusion that emerges is that, despite our newly emerged awareness of the Galactic neighborhood, we aren't smart enough yet to listen to the ongoing "adult" conversations. That is because no advanced civilization would conceivably use pony express to send long distance messages when instantaneous email is available. So our searches of the electromagnetic spectrum (SETI) should continue to be fruitless. We must learn to monitor graviton signals just to advance to the point of listening in. Understanding is another matter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is the same bone I pick with SETI. If one believes that there are many civilizations (a few thousand at least) ... they do ... and that space travel is possible ... I believe they do ....... then ...... the conclusion is inescapable. The galaxy must already be completely colonized, i.e. it's like dodge'em cars out there ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have just begun our exploration of other planets. And in the first case where we have taken photos with enough resolution to see such things (Mars), we have found evidence of prior colonization. www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydo...act_html/default.htm At the least, prior colonization cannot be ruled out.

So why aren't they everywhere? Another aspect to Meta Science is the exploded planet hypothesis. It appears that explosion is a natural end state for planets as well as stars. This is likely to be due to the accumulated energy deposited by gravitons, which produce continual excess heat flows from large bodies. But this means that no civilization's "home world" can last indefinitely. More importantly, although these advanced civilizations can send visitors to explore anywhere, there is little incentive to establish permanent civilizations there, as opposed to small colonies for resource mining for transportation back to the home world.

The key factor seems to be that the number of individuals required to maintain a technologically advanced civilization is variously estimated to be between one million and 100 million because so much knowledge is highly specialized. (Could you go to another planet and build a computer or set up a phone network? Do you know anybody who could? Think of the thousands of other specialized skills needed just to survive, let alone thrive.) And that refers to a civilization at our level, not one considerable more advanced than us. So these colonists would lose the ability to maintain their technology and would regress into basic survival mode within a few hundred generations after all contact with a home planet was severed. This necessarily limits how advanced and long-lasting any civilization can become.

Moreover, the number of civilization-setback hazards may be much greater than we now appreciate. We have only in the last few years come to appreciate the setback effects of large asteroid impacts. The last few months have reminded us that giant solar flares may be a similar hazard in the long run. Nearby nova and supernova explosions are bad news too. And explosions of any planet in the system around a star sets back and drives any civilization in that system toward the brink of extinction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">given that MM considers the galaxy to be much older than SM, do you believe that there are many, some, few, or no other inhabited planets in our galaxy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I expect there are many, and that exploration is an active process. But in the long run, dominant civilizations come and go. Our own ancient legends speak of a "golden age". It is entirely possible that we are developed from a "set-back" civilization rather than experiencing our first shot at high-tech living. The silence around us and the discovery of possible artifacts on Mars should be sobering reminders that civilization is precious and probably fleeting from a cosmic perspective.

We have only to consider the hypothetical advanced civilizations now living on the quantum planets inside our little finger and learning to explore the universe as they know it to "see the larger picture": In the span of a single human lifetime to us (a comparative eternity to them), their entire visible universe is doomed. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Why does the ancient East Indian culture maintain that the longest cycle known is 311.040 trillion years? Is one of the oldest cultures on earth, simply ignorant?

And if this cycle is called the Day of Brahma, then the universe must be at least 311.040 trillion years` old, not 13.7 million years.

Meta

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />Why does the ancient East Indian culture maintain that the longest cycle known is 311.040 trillion years? Is one of the oldest cultures on earth, simply ignorant?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would depend on the source of this information. If it is merely legend, then the odds are against it corresponding to reality. Most cultures are simply ignorant, including our own.

But it would be a form of mysticism to give credence to an alleged fact whose specific origin we did not know. We must judge the credibility of each source to prevent being loaded with false information.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if this cycle is called the Day of Brahma, then the universe must be at least 311.040 trillion years` old, not 13.7 million years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And the universe is infinitely old in MM. So what's your point? -|Tom|-

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>So MM requires us to rethink the entire Drake/Fermi argument, since infinite time is available and travel and communication speeds are not limiting factors. The first new conclusion that emerges is that, despite our newly emerged awareness of the Galactic neighborhood, we aren't smart enough yet to listen to the ongoing "adult" conversations. That is because no advanced civilization would conceivably use pony express to send long distance messages when instantaneous email is available. So our searches of the electromagnetic spectrum (SETI) should continue to be fruitless. We must learn to monitor graviton signals just to advance to the point of listening in. Understanding is another matter.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: It occurs to me hat herein lies the problem with your "Eternal" existance view. If one considers an infinite amount of time and any minor oddis of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe with a capacity to travel interteller space the Drake formula then results in every planet in the universe capable of sustaining life as having life.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,

For any given civilization there will be limiting processes. Most civilizations, perhaps all, will reach equilibrium and/or fail after a finite amount of time.

If the universe is infinite, there will be an infinite number of limiting processes to check the infinite number of civilizations.

Try again.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />It occurs to me hat herein lies the problem with your "Eternal" existance view. If one considers an infinite amount of time and any minor oddis of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe with a capacity to travel interteller space the Drake formula then results in every planet in the universe capable of sustaining life as having life.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would say "good point" if I hadn't already answered it a few paragraphs further along in the same message. The problem is that you didn't "rethink the Drake equation".

We must jettison our anthropomorphic perspective and visualize the larger picture, as in my example at the end. In an infinite and eternal universe, things change but do not "evolve". Momentum, energy, entropy, substance, species, intelligence ... are all conserved in the big picture. Everything is fundamentally the same at every place, at every time, and on every scale -- including the probable numbers of intelligent civilizations.

Who was it that said "The more things change, the more they stay the same?" [] -|Tom|-