by johnnydeep » Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:41 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:27 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:14 pm
Ann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:29 pm
Really???
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the
Mayflower, or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is
important to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
Ann
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O
could have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.
[quote="Chris Peterson" post_id=330026 time=1679855251 user_id=117706]
[quote=johnnydeep post_id=330025 time=1679854479 user_id=132061]
[quote=Ann post_id=330023 time=1679851752 user_id=129702]
Really??? :shock:
Well. Some believe that red is a prettier color than blue (unbelievable, isn't it?). Others believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke, or that the wrong team won the Super Bowl, or that their ancestors were on board the [i]Mayflower[/i], or that you can learn the secrets of the Universe by smoking a particular kind of weed, or that God must have created the Universe since it is so fine-tuned.
People believe all sorts of things. Some believe that life may have emerged in the Universe when the Universe was only 15 million years old. Others think it is [b][i]important[/i][/b] to hold on to the belief that there may have been life in the Universe only 15 million years after the Big Bang, even though we don't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to ever prove whether or not there was life back then.
You can believe what you want to. Its a free country.
Ann
[/quote]
Come on, Ann, of course I know that people believe all sorts of things. But since this video had been presenting well-accepted facts about the origin of the universe, stars, and life "as we know it", I was making the assumption that - just perhaps - there was some theory that could explain how life might have evolved without the need for the heavy elements created by the first generation of stars. If the implication was instead that life could have evolved without the need for elements heavier than lithium, then that, I suppose, MIGHT be possible somehow, but it would certainly be "life as we don't know it", just as life COULD have evolved on the surface of a neutron star (though not until there actually were neutron stars obviously).
[/quote]
The position is misstated here. What has been pointed out is that when the Universe was about 15 million years old, its average temperature would have allowed for liquid water. Without any stars at all, it met the current definition of "habitable". I don't know anybody who actually suggests that the first life formed then, only that the conditions of the Universe would have made it possible... given rocky bodies for it to form on. But there is no presumption that such bodies (or heavy elements in general) actually existed then.
[/quote]
Ok. Sure, given the supposed ambient temperature, H2O [i][b]could [/b][/i]have existed in a liquid state when the universe was 15 My old, but without any O to bond with the H, the theory - if there is one - has a lot of explaining left to do! All right then, I'll chalk this up to someone's wild imagination. A shame it made it into the otherwise pretty reasonable video.