<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/24/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">John K Clark</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>>From the light spectrum of the very oldest stars, stars that are almost as<br>old as the Big Bang itself.</blockquote><div><br>Point 1: Have you personally *ever* been to an "oldest star'?<br>If you have not, and you are choosing to "trust" the data is valid, can you make a case that there is no way, given "valid" laws of physics, that the data,
e.g. the photons at specific frequencies, cannot be "rigged"? I.e. instead of there being "oldest" stars there are a bunch of carefully arranged light sources surrounding our solar system that are arranged to look like oldest stars? I'm not asking if you think this is probable. I'm asking if you think it is *impossible*?
<br><br>if it is *not* "impossible" *and* you accept Lineweaver's conclusions, you have to completely invert the foundation upon almost all astrophysics, and even a lot of basic physics is based. I.e. instead of assuming with
99.999999...% probability that the Universe is dead and *all* observations should be based *only* upon natural laws you have to assume with ~70% probability that the observations could be "rigged" and the observations should be giving equal time to "natural" and "artificial" explanations. (
i.e We do *not* have exoplanets, we have "thingys" which seem to be producing wavelength or magnitude shifts due to their large masses.)<br><br>Whether the observations are "rigged" or not is an interesting discussion and involves getting inside the 'minds' of brains operating at the limits of physics, with lifetimes of trillions of years who might very well become "bored" and want to play with the Universe.
<br><br>(In some respects this gets into Seth Lloyd's perspective that the Universe is nothing but a big computer -- the question comes down to whether or not there are 'minds' which use it as a substrate to run programs.)
<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> If dark Matter is made up of Jupiter Brains<br>then it's made up of ordinary baryonic matter, then the early universe
<br>must have been much denser than we though and nearly all the deuterium<br>would have been converted into Helium 4 in the first few seconds of the<br>Big Bang. Instead we find lots of deuterium in those ancient stars,<br>
just the amount you'd expect to see if Dark Matter were not normal matter.</blockquote><div><br>You are assuming that I believe the observations are "natural". But even assuming that are you are also assuming things like an unbiased use of stellar material as resources. If MBrains happen to have a preference for stars with He4 (perhaps for making Nbrains) then our observed element abundances are going to be biased in that high deuterium stars are those which they leave behind as having been unworthy of energy expenditure for harvesting at this time.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">And some of the stars we look at are so old, formed just a few hundred<br>million years after the Big Bang, that it's difficult to believe any sort
<br>of life could exist on them much less a civilization that's building Jupiter<br>Brains. For one thing there was very little carbon or metals back then,<br>they came later from supernovas.</blockquote><div><br>I didn't say that life evolved in the first few hundred million years. I am aware that in classical nucleosynthesis you are going to need time for the heavy elements to build up by going through the S- or R- nucleosynthesis pathways. But as I pointed out to Eugen, current theory argues that position in the galaxy and proximity to the right supernovas to seed a solar nebula are viewed as being more important -- particularly when we are talking 6-8 billion years *after* the evolution of those elements, of which carbon is probably the most essential, to play around with the mix before you start the ~4 billion years to "intelligent civilization" clocks ticking.
<br></div><br>But at 0.01c it only takes 10 million years to take a galaxy dark. If you assume a mixed population of "natural", partially-engineered and "completely-engineered" galaxies you get a universe which is much more explainable than hand waving involving "dark matter" that the best explanations involve *undetectable* particles. Now what seems more like "fantasy" -- undetectable particles or a universe semi-developed by intelligent civilizations? We *have* evidence that intelligent civilizations can exist -- we have little or no evidence that undetectable particles can or do.