0
What else can I help you with?
What is more closely related to a human sea star a mollusc or a mushroom?
I have a sea star, a mollusc, and a mushroom. The sea star is most closely related to a human.
Did humans evolve from a star?
No. Humans are not made from stars. However, every element in the human body except hydrogen and perhaps lithium came from an exploding star. The human body contains carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, chlorine, sulphur, and a number of other elements, all made in stars. All became available for other uses when the stars exploded.
How does one culture explain the beginning of life on Earth?
Different cultures have their own explanations for the beginning of life on Earth. For example, some cultures believe in creation stories, while others attribute the origin of life to natural processes or mythological beings. These beliefs often vary based on storytelling traditions, religious teachings, and social customs within each culture.
What do most planets have?
Most planets have a solid surface, an atmosphere, and orbit a star. They also vary in size, composition, and distance from their star.
Is Human being most advanced and powerful species on earth?
Intelligent life may be in it's "very young" stage in the observable Universe. Its 200 billion galaxies show a clear potential to continue on as we see them today for hundreds of billions of years, if not much longer. Because planets and life are so young in our Universe, says Harvard's Dimitar Sasselov, perhaps "the human species are not late comers to the party. We may be among the early ones." That may explain why we see no evidence of "them" and may go a long way to explaining the famous Fermi Paradox, which asks if there's advanced intelligent life in the Universe, where are they? Why haven't we discovered any evidence of their existence?The story of the Universe according to Sasselov in is new study, The Life of Super-Earths, looks like this: generations of stars made enough iron and oxygen, silicon and carbon, and all the other elements from the original hydrogen and helium about 13 billion years ago to be able to form the Earth we live on and the planets the Kepler Mission is discovering today. Stable environments in galaxies that were enriched enough to have planets only became available some nine billion years ago and rocky Earth-like planets and larger super-Earths, only some 7 to 8 billion years ago. And Life had to wait until that time if not later to begin its emergence throughout the Universe. Between 7 and 9 billion years ago, enough heavy elements were available for the complex chemistry needed for life to emerge were in place along with the terrestrial planets with stable environments necessary for chemical concentration. Enrico Fermi argued that given the old age of the Universe and given the large number of stars and planetary systems and the incredibly short timescale it took humans to develop technology that other origins of life and civilizations in the Milky Way could have had a significant head start and should be significantly more advanced than we are. Sasselov concludes that the statistical argument for Fermi's Paradox "holds true only if the timescale for the emergence of life is much shorter than the age of the universe, but not so if the two are comparable." The future for life in the Universe looks excellent, says Sasselov. Planets may be just a tiny fraction of the Universe because of their small size, but there are so many of them that the probability of life grows exponentially. The Universe is passing through the stelliferous era --its peak of star formation--but appears to be still peaking in its formation of planets. There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth and there are an equal number of planets. There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way and 90% are small enough and old enough to have planets in orbit. And only 10% of these stars were formed with enough heavy elements to have Earth-like planets with 2% of these --or 100 million super-Earths and Earths-- will orbit within their star's habitable zone. Sasselov's argument in The Life of Super-Earths is compelling. But one has to wonder, however, that if another planet out there in the Milky Way (and billions of galaxies beyond) is only a million years older than Earth, how much more advanced and detectable would their technology be? As Arthur C. Clarke famously wrote, any advanced alien technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
compare your life to the life cycle of a star?
How does the life cycle of humans compare to the life cycle of a star? They both have stages where they are born and die which is in the main sequence and supernova and in a human they are born in a womb and die of old age.
What is the life cycle of the star capella?
What is capella star life cycle
Where is the earth on the star life cycle?
The "star life cycle" refers to stars. Earth is not a star.
How does the protostar stage of a star's life cycle compare with the main-sequence stage?
A protostar generates energy by friction whereas a main sequence star generates energy by fusion.
Will a protostar form near the end of a star's life cycle?
No, a protostar is basically the BEGINNING of a star's life cycle.
Who invented the life cycle of a star?
Nobody "invented" it, the life cycle of stars happens naturally.
What determines the life cycle of a star?
its mass
What has a life cycle similar to a star?
A dog.
What is the star life cycle of the sun?
Life cycle of a sun like star. A sun like star will start out as a nebula to a protostar to a main sequence star to a red giant and into a white dwarf and will simply fade out.
How does the protostar stage of a stars life cycle compare with the main sequence stage?
A protostar generates energy by friction whereas a main sequence star generates energy by fusion.
How can you describe the life cycle of a star?
size and diameter
What is Sirius star life cycle?
it will go BOOM
