“The simple biochemistry of the notion that life is inevitable is absurd.”
Indeed, I agree.
“We haven’t even found a single planet anything like Earth.”
It’s worse than that. We haven’t even found another stellar system that resembles our own, which has effectively thrown their “nebular hypothesis” for planetary evolution into the trash bin.
“We are in the exact center and the exact oldest part of the universe.”
Correct, although most scientists refuse to acknowledge this and cling to the “cosmological principle”, an assumption that contradicts the evidence.
“I don’t mean that’s because it took light 3.6 billion years to get here. I mean that as an effect of temporal distortion of high-speed travel, there’s been less time for stuff to happen.”
Interesting. I hadn’t considered that myself, but you may be right. The only thing I’m wondering is, does temporal distortion kick in if the motion is due to the expansion of space itself? I’m not sure one way or the other, I have never really thought about it...
“Years ago, I calculated the Drake equation and estimated less than 10^1 (in other words, less than ten) worlds with intelligent life in the universe. I had badly underestimated the number of planets in a typical galaxy, but I also badly overestimated the likely habitability of life on a given planet.”
Seems like an optimistic estimate to me even so. If we didn’t know there was life on at least one planet, I would say the probability was effectively zero. Since there is life on at least one planet, then either it’s due to some extraordinary circumstance (like divine intervention), or we hit the biggest lottery drawing ever held.
“It’s worse than that. We haven’t even found another stellar system that resembles our own, which has effectively thrown their “nebular hypothesis” for planetary evolution into the trash bin.”
Actually, there are computer models which do show solar systems relatively like ours forming. The problem is that gas giants tend to shred such systems to bits. Something ... and this is more plausible than the use of vague language may suggest ... stopped Jupiter from descending into a very short orbit and pulled it back to a wider orbit. This knocks a few zeroes off any estimate acquired using Drake’s equation, but in no way disproves the nebular hypothesis.
>> Correct, although most scientists refuse to acknowledge this and cling to the “cosmological principle”, an assumption that contradicts the evidence. <<
Well, the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall apparently contradicts the cosmological principle, but that’s actually irrelevant. It’s a quirk of relativity that no matter where you are, you are at the center of the universe. Not that you seem to be relatively in the middlish region of the universe, but the exact center to as precise a degree as can ever be measured. So it’s not coincidental that we’re at the oldest part of the universe, but it’s not meaningless, either. Further portions of the universe are shown to have galaxies composed mostly of star systems with very low levels of heavy elements, demonstrating that they are younger, and therefore lack the prerequisites of life.
>> The only thing I’m wondering is, does temporal distortion kick in if the motion is due to the expansion of space itself? <<
Wow... I have to retrace all my thinking on this. (Which is based purely on following the logic of the physics; I don’t have near the math skills to know any real, math-based physics.) The quick, sloppy answer, which I’m not sure is right, is that to catch up the matter, you’d have to go travel faster than light, which would mean you’d go backwards in time. If you simply always were at a distant part of the universe, you’d be going closer to the speed of light, relative to earth, and so you’d be age slower, and so again, the universe would be younger. But if you warped time-space, I guess you’d be on a time-space island of old universe surrounded by younger universe? But any light (or any form of entropy) reaching you would be the same light reaching the younger universe, so you’d still appear to be at the center of the universe, with nothing but your advanced age to suggest otherwise?
>> Seems like an optimistic estimate to me even so. If we didn’t know there was life on at least one planet, I would say the probability was effectively zero. Since there is life on at least one planet, then either it’s due to some extraordinary circumstance (like divine intervention), or we hit the biggest lottery drawing ever held. <<
Well, the anthropological principle would say that if there’s going to be life on any planet in the universe, and you’re life, you’re going to be on that planet. I think applying the anthropological principle to the multiverse is a copout, until the dimensions past four are somehow proven to be substantially thick... but it’s not like you’re going to pop into sentience on the wrong planet and then say, “Oh no! Wrong planet!” and die.
Another factor not in the Drake equation:
You need tides for life. That means you need a massive moon, relative to the host planet. Earth, so far, has the only such massive moon. There are moons on Jupiter larger than ours, but Jupiter is so much massive, that they are puny relative to Jupiter, and as such were simple for Jupiter to catch. Earth catching the moon by gravity might be something like sinking a hole in one from 10,000 yards without hitting the grass. The present theory for the existence of such a massive moon around such a modestly-sized planet is that it’s the result of a direct (yet glancing) collision.
But a collision with what?