Does the cosmos have a reason?

[Kamala Trump]

Agreed life appears to be very rare judging by the results. Why remains a mystery. Do other advanced civilizations kill themselves off before being able to move off world?

Again, not a physicist, but it seems that, without life, be it rare or common, the motions of the Universe were set at Big Bang in predictable ways. Life alters those motions in unpredictable ways.

Sure, we can predict that a bean sprouts roots will grow down, but exactly how it grows from there seems unpredictable. I'm not sure a math formula for that is achievable. If it was, then our entire lives could be reduced to a mathematical formula. A feat I strongly doubt it possible.

actually a good post........

I think this is a concept that goes along with the 'there's no fee will" concept that the nihilists also spout.

 

[Cypress]

Given there are a minimum of 100B stars in our galaxy and the odds of life evolving, literally, a million to one, then that leaves a 100,000 stars with life. Wipe out 99% of that life prior to achieving the ability to move off planet, and that still leaves 1,000 space-faring lifeforms

Life must be exceedingly rare, indeed, to not give a sign of existence as we've been doing for over 100 years.

Given that the Universe exists for a reason then it seems life exists for a reason. Following the Red Queen hypothesis, all life, if it survives, will eventually evolve sentient consciousness.

How Many Stars in the Milky Way? | NASA Blueshift

There are different models for estimating the number of stars in the Milky Way and the answers they give differ depending on what is used as the average mass of a star. The most common answer seems to be that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way on the low-end and 400 billion on the high end. But I’ve seen even higher numbers thrown around.

What Is the Red Queen Hypothesis?

Discover an explanation of the Red Queen hypothesis, how it relates to evolution, and in particular, coevolution of species in symbiotic relationships.

www.thoughtco.com

The “Red Queen” hypothesis in evolution is related to the coevolution of species. It states that species must continuously adapt and evolve to pass on genes to the next generation and also to keep from going extinct when other species within a symbiotic relationship are evolving.

I would challenge the 100 billion number.

One star is not equal to another star.

Large gas giants don't exist long enough for evolution to take hold on orbiting planets.

Only stars enriched in heavy elements could possibly host a solar system primed for life, aka carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, etc.

I think something like 80 percent of stars are M-class red dwarfs. It's debatable whether red dwarfs even put out enough solar radiation to be an energy source for planetary life.

If I had to guess, only ten or 20 percent of all stars in the galaxy even have the remotest possibility of hosting life, and even then one has to get down to other perfect storm parameters, like liquid water, magnetic fields, stable orbital dynamics, etc.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would challenge the 100 billion number.

One star is not equal to another star.
Large gas giants don't exist long enough for evolution to take hold on orbiting planets.

Only stars enriched in heavy elements could possibly host a solar system primed for life, aka carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, etc.

I think something like 80 percent of stars are M-class red dwarfs. It's debatable whether red dwarfs even put out enough solar radiation to be an energy source for planetary life.

If I had to guess, only ten or 20 percent of all stars in the galaxy even have the remotest possibility of hosting life, and even then one has to get down to other perfect storm parameters, like liquid water, magnetic fields, stable orbital dynamics, etc.

The 100B, per the link, was the low end with 400B on the high end.

Good point about heavy elements AKA Type I stars. Only about 2% of stars in our galaxy are Type I, about 2B to 8B stars. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Starlog/pop12.html

Most Type I stars in are in galactic arms. Something to consider about life being wiped out is that a supernova within 25 LY or less of Earth could kill everything on it. The closer to the galactic core, the more likely a supernova of an old Type II star would kill all life within that radius.

 

[Mason 22]

 

[Cypress]

When personal insults start it's just another way to deflect because you have nothing to say! Do better!

Let's be clear on which one of us first became belligerent.

You're failing miserably

 

[Kamala Trump]

No.

Newton's laws of motion are fixed and well known, and in principle if you know the momentum, acceleration, and mass of interacting macro-scale objects moving at less than relativistic speeds and the forces acting on them, you could predict their motion arbitrarily far into the future or the past.

That's why we know when there will be solar eclipses decades into the future.

That's why we know where Pluto will be in 15 years when we are designing exploratory space probes.

That's why ballistic analysis works for forensic criminal investigators - they know the laws of motion are fixed and well established.

That's why we know how to calculate the energy released by asteroid impacts.

but it's NOT determined at the point in time when the FIRST ball is struck. it's never "determined".

fact.

you're still wrong.

and then there's wind variables which aren't considered in your simplictic model.

 

[Mason 22]

Let's be clear on which one of us first became belligerent.

Deflection! You chose to avoid answering with your 8th grade nonsense!

 

[Mason 22]

Let's be clear on which one of us first became belligerent.

You did fail miserably! For some reason ,know only to you,you have a hard on for "The God of Abraham"!