3 ms·

Hmm. i think you need a universe at least 10bn+ years for intelligent life as you need to have had cycle of earlier stars going supernovae to create the heavier

by retube 29d ago

Hmm. i think you need a universe at least 10bn+ years for intelligent life as you need to have had cycle of earlier stars going supernovae to create the heavier elements. That aside, 13bn years old is young. literally an instantaneous flash in the context of all time until heat death of the universe.

yipinwong 29d ago
You see red dots/monsters on hubble or JWT. Those are the ones fundamentally shifting theories about how early stars/blackholes/galaxies can form. (there are other factors like dark matters that can play a role but nobody knows for sure yet) 13bn years is not too young with that context in mind.
bombcar 29d ago
> That aside, 13bn years old is young. literally an instantaneous flash in the context of all time until heat death of the universe. That alone is sus, because if we have infinity billion trillion years until the end, and we're so close to the beginning as to be a rounding error, it's weird.
- subscribed 29d ago
  Why is that _weird_? That implies recorded data / measurements going against the proven and tested theories, or the _design_.
- _bernd 29d ago
  No we don't have that much time. Over time there will no longer be huge areas of new star formation. Most stars are also rather short lived and can not sup6a plane like planet Earth. Our sun, sol, has a neat live span so we can thrive for while if we don't **up this plants ecosystem. But as far as I understood astro physics we are rather quiet early in the game.
- Dylan16807 29d ago
  That activity is massively massively frontloaded. About 95% of all stars that will ever form, have already formed. And with typical main sequence stars lasting under 10 billion years, we're already well into the decline of the universe.
  - mr_toad 28d ago
    > And with typical main sequence stars lasting under 10 billion years For mid to large size stars, yes. But Red dwarf stars are expected to live for trillions of years.

by retube 29d ago

yipinwong 29d ago

You see red dots/monsters on hubble or JWT. Those are the ones fundamentally shifting theories about how early stars/blackholes/galaxies can form. (there are other factors like dark matters that can play a role but nobody knows for sure yet) 13bn years is not too young with that context in mind.

bombcar 29d ago

> That aside, 13bn years old is young. literally an instantaneous flash in the context of all time until heat death of the universe. That alone is sus, because if we have infinity billion trillion years until the end, and we're so close to the beginning as to be a rounding error, it's weird.

subscribed 29d ago
Why is that _weird_? That implies recorded data / measurements going against the proven and tested theories, or the _design_.
_bernd 29d ago
No we don't have that much time. Over time there will no longer be huge areas of new star formation. Most stars are also rather short lived and can not sup6a plane like planet Earth. Our sun, sol, has a neat live span so we can thrive for while if we don't **up this plants ecosystem. But as far as I understood astro physics we are rather quiet early in the game.
Dylan16807 29d ago
That activity is massively massively frontloaded. About 95% of all stars that will ever form, have already formed. And with typical main sequence stars lasting under 10 billion years, we're already well into the decline of the universe.
- mr_toad 28d ago
  > And with typical main sequence stars lasting under 10 billion years For mid to large size stars, yes. But Red dwarf stars are expected to live for trillions of years.