Well, doesn't the big bang include that the universe, or at least the material for it has always existed; it was just in a very small space?

No time before big bang? Based on what? Time can't be measured if nothing happens? Isn't that just the measurer's problem?

How does something begin? We can trace the source of everything we see back to it's origins except the universe; the source of all sources. The universe always existing is easier to comprehend than some miraculous explosion story.

Do you think the universe would exist without the human mind observing it?

To question existence is an infinite regression question
No explanation is needed. Stop racking your brains out...

Existence exists. It always has and it always will.

The concluding statement from a Stephen Hawking lecture:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again."

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Well there ya go, noshit has figured it all out.

Read the Bible for all the answers you seek all conveniently put in one book.

Praise his holy name!

http://41.media.tumblr.com/8910326ba...rruo1_1280.jpg

No one can tell what happened so long ago... :) Those are all just theories and nothing else... :)

Just one question: where did you study the math, man? :1orglaugh

Based on a simple fact there was not time before the creation of the University (time and space can't exist one without the other). Even a kid knows that. Ah yeah, I forgot, we have a very shitty education here :winkwink:

Obviously where he got his B.Sc.Opine
lol

The CMB can say a lot, actually :2 cents:

Read up on it sometime: Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does it relate to the statement below?

What a argument; they say so, so it is so. :)

So, that very dense mass that did exist before big bang, didn't take any space? They say it was dense, but come on, it gotta have taken some space if all the shit around here is from it. :)

Time is by the way a measurement; measurement that measures and connects events. If nothing happens, you just can't measure time. Although I am quite sure there wasn't no one measuring time even after big bang, I mean for some time, and at least around here (if there is some another shit far away; like folks from older big bang, that is different matter).

Time exists as much as metre.

Who said there was a mass? Where did you learn physics, man? There was just energy which has created a mass after the explosion. The scientists blame it on Higgs boson. But with or without it, the mass can be produced from pure energy, as well as the energy can be produced from pure mass. A 9th grade of mandatory school in my country :)

P.S. Here is a simple formula for you that fully explains my post: m = E / c^2 (actually it was already posted in this thread). If you want, I can easily calculate the minimal amount of pure energy which was needed to create our University from nothing (no physical bodies with a mass).

You surely take somewhat uncertain things and take it as a granted. Have you no theoretical thinking? You just repeat things like a parrot.

But let me rephrase. That energy didn't take any space? Or whatever that did exist before big bang didn't take any space? You know, in volume, etc.?


And here, dear Ruski.

Mass | Define Mass at Dictionary.com

I'm not a scientist, so I accept the knowledge "as is". I think that Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are much smarter than me so I don't question their conclusions. The E=m/c^2 works just perfect, but I will accept any better formula if it will be invented.

Depends on what type of energy you are talking about. Kinetic? Potential? Gravitational? Internal? The energy of explosion? Dark energy?

LOL ))) I gave you a formula above. Don't you agree with it?

"Or whatever that did exist before big bang didn't take any space?"

Your superior Russian school books don't define it? You are the one who was talking about energy, so pick the one you meant.

Don't read Russian books because they will turn you into a communist human-eating vampire, or at least into Putin. I'd suggest you to start with something popular and easy to read like the Grand Design by Stephen Hawking.

I was not talking about the formula. I just referred what I meant with the mass.

I have no required experience valuating your formula; it can be anything between bullshit and work of a genius.

Or you could read what I wrote. It only costs 1000 000 euros and is collected retrospectively.

It's not mine. It's the most famous in the World formula created by Einstein :error Man, it's a mandatory school material and you "have no experience to evaluate it?" Is it a joke or you really live in a cave? :helpme :1orglaugh

I have no experience evaluating that neither. Besides, you wrote it differently or wrong.

What is mandatory school material? Evaluating the mathematical presentation or the formula itself? We didn't evaluate that much about Einstein's work. So, how it worked? Did you prove it right?

I will help you my Finnish friend. So here we go:

m = E / c^2 is the formula invented by Einstein and every kid here knows it. Let me explain it to you in the concept of the Big Bang Theory. We take pure energy (E in Joules) which has no mass ("no", means absolutely no), divide it by the light speed (c in meters per second) multiplied by itself and... get the mass outcome (m in kilograms) produced during the explosion.

Means that every citizen must learn it in the school. If a kid doesn't visit school, he will be taken out of family and will be forced (literally forced) to visit school in orphanage. The mandatory minimum in Russia is a 9 grade school and Einstein's theory of relativity is included into that education program. You may stay in school for more 2 years and then go to the university, but 9 grades is "a must". I feel a bit strange when explaining the basics of our education to such a serious expert of Russia like you.

See my explanation above.

Yes, his formula has been proven many times. For example, the nuclear bomb won't exist if it didn't work.

That's a stupid fucking question. I studied the math in university.

You're a miserable joke phoenix. I know the butthurt lingers in you.

Gofuckyourself fuckwad

Where did you study fermis paradox? Obviously nowhere.

Lolz.

"Learned"? :1orglaugh

OK, if that helps you, I'll rephrase the question-

Where did you learned fermis paradox?

It's not something you have to learn (I didn't "learn" it). It's just a theory you maybe familiar with. Anyways, what it has to do with your "math as shown that an entire galaxy can be colonized in a few 100 million yeas" statement? Go ahead and show your "math" then. Will be very interesting to discuss :)

That equation looks a tad different in wikipedia and in other sources.

E = mc2

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I didn't know that you blew out nukes in school. Besides "the nuclear bomb won't exist if it didn't work."- sounds a tad silly. Usually the equation is tested, not the other way around. You know; we observe things and make equations to model those things; not making some shit up and say: "my equation makes this and that possible". :)

have at it.


To arrive at their conclusion Dr Hair and Mr Hedman assumed that outer space is dotted with solar systems, about five light years apart. They then asked how quickly a single civilisation armed with the requisite technology would spread its tentacles, depending on the degree of colonising zeal, expressed as the probability that intelligent beings decide to hop from one planet to the next in 1,000 years (500 years for the trip, at a modest one-tenth of the speed of light, and another 500 years to prepare for the next hop).

All these numbers are necessarily moot. If the vast majority of planets is not suitable, for instance, the average distance for a successful expedition might be much more than five light years. And advanced beings might not need five Earth centuries to get up to speed before they redeploy. However, Dr Hair and Mr Hedman can tweak their probabilities to reflect a range of possible conditions. Using what they believe to be conservative assumptions (as low as one chance in four of embarking on a colonising mission in 1,000 years), they calculated that any galactic empire would have spread outwards from its home planet at about 0.25% of the speed of light. The result is that after 50m years it would extend over 130,000 light years, with zealous colonisers moving in a relatively uniform cloud and more reticent ones protruding from a central blob. Since the Milky Way is estimated to be 100,000-120,000 light years across, outposts would be sprinkled throughout the galaxy, even if the home planet were, like Earth, located on the periphery.

Crucially, even in slow-expansion scenario, the protrusions eventually coalesce. After 250,000 years, which the model has so far had the time to simulate, the biggest gaps are no larger than 30 light years across. Dr Hair thinks they should grow no bigger as his virtual colonisation progresses. That is easily small enough for man's first sufficiently powerful radio transmissions (in the early 20th century) to have been detected and for a reply to have reached Earth (which has been actively listening out for such messages since the 1960s). And though 50m years may sound a lot, if intelligent life did evolve more than once, it could easily have done so billions of years before this happened on Earth. All this suggests, Dr Hair and Mr Hedman fear, that humans really do have the Milky Way to themselves. Either that or the neighbours are a particularly timid bunch.

Sentient Developments: New mathematical study reveals that our Galaxy should have been colonized by now


maybe phoenix will do another drive by dickhead post and handwave off the math, since he took a math class once, yay!

In the context of a homogeneous universe, we note that the appearance of aggressively expanding advanced life is geometrically similar to the process of nucleation and bubble growth in a first-order cosmological phase transition. We exploit this similarity to describe the dynamics of life saturating the universe on a cosmic scale, adapting the phase transition model to incorporate probability distributions of expansion and resource consumption strategies. Through a series of numerical solutions covering several orders of magnitude in the input assumption parameters, the resulting cosmological model is used to address basic questions related to the intergalactic spreading of life, dealing with issues such as timescales, observability, competition between strategies, and first-mover advantage. Finally, we examine physical effects on the universe itself, such as reheating and the backreaction on the evolution of the scale factor, if such life is able to control and convert a significant fraction of the available pressureless matter into radiation. We conclude that the existence of life, if certain advanced technologies are practical, could have a significant influence on the future large-scale evolution of the universe

[1411.4359] Homogeneous cosmology with aggressively expanding civilizations


Olson set out to test the ambitious idea using a mathematical model. Not only does he show that intelligent life can theoretically come to fill the vast void of space in a fraction of the universe?s lifetime, but universe spanning civilizations may influence the evolution of the cosmos itself?a profound and entirely novel suggestion.


How Long Would It Take to Colonize the Universe? | Motherboard

fyi, i'm not a rookie at this gfy shit.

It's the same one (laterally: absolutely the same formula) - just believe me. What's wrong with you, man? Yet another victim of Finnish education? :helpme

*facepalm smile here*. Are you really that dumb or just kidding on me (I'm still can't believe it's for real)? Einstein said it clear: E = m/c^2 - the energy of explosive will be equal to the mass (Google for "critical mass" in case of nuclear reaction) multiplied by the speed of light in square. I can't believe you didn't learn it in the school... And you were talking something about education level here and there? OMFG :disgust

Abstract

If even a very small fraction of the hundred billion stars in the galaxy are home to technological civilizations which colonize over interstellar distances, the entire galaxy could be completely colonized in a few million years. The absence of such extraterrestrial civilizations visiting Earth is the Fermi paradox.

A model for interstellar colonization is proposed using the assumption that there is a maximum distance over which direct interstellar colonization is feasable. Due to the time lag involved in interstellar communications, it is assumed that an interstellar colony will rapidly develop a culture independent of the civilization that originally settled it.

Any given colony will have a probability P of developing a colonizing civilization, and a probability (1-P) that it will develop a non-colonizing civilization. These assumptions lead to the colonization of the galaxy occuring as a percolation problem. In a percolation problem, there will be a critical value of the percolation probability, Pc. For P<Pc, colonization will always terminate after a finite number of colonies. Growth will occur in "clusters," with the outside of each cluster consisting of non-colonizing civilizations. For P>Pc, small uncolonized voids will exist, bounded by non-colonizing civilizations. When P is on the order of Pc, arbitrarily large filled regions exist, and also arbitrarily large empty regions.

The Fermi Paradox: An Approach Based on Percolation Theory
NASA Lewis Research Center,

cyber, you and phoenix crunch those #s and get back to me after you've shot holes in the maths.

I haven't asked you for any abstractions. I've just asked you to show me the math. I'm not aka123 and I can read/evaluate formulas(I don't need the explanations etc). So please just go ahead and shoot it here.