Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
| Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,12:25) | | Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55) | | Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16) | | Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge. |
The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us. The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks. Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.
rossum |
Maybe. But the point is that any universe that can produce life must be able to produce rocks. And our universe, it would (at least at the moment) appear, just barely produces rocks. That gives it a shot at supporting life. Whether life is improbable in such a universe I couldn't say--but without the rocks, there will be no life. |
all right heddle you don't know that any universe producing life must produce rocks. there are probably forms of life that don't resemble anything anyone has ever seen. but rocks don't have anything to do with it.
you could restate that as anything. "bollocks". any universe capable of producing life must also be capable of producing bollocks. i decided.
THAT'S ID SCEINCE BOYS AND RICH
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
