[removed]

Hi /u/Pristine_Pop_7818!

The answer is simply, that energy is not conserved in our expanding universe.

Noether's theorem tells us that any quantity which has a continuous differentiable symmetry in the action has an associated conservation law. That is, for example, the translational symmetry of the universe is associated in a one-to-one correspondence with conservation of momentum.
This also tells us, that time-symmetry is associated with conservation of energy. As our universe is expanding, time-symmetry is broken. Thus, Noether's Theorem tells us, that energy is not conserved in our universe. In practice, this means that dark-energy density is constant. Hence, as space(time) expands, dark energy is created.

true enough, although it is a bit simplistic to say "Plenty of pairs of species with the same number of chromosomes can't breed" Generally if they are in the same genus and often the same family and have the same number of chromosome pairs, they can have offspring. Obviously, a reptile and a mammal with the same number of chromosomes will not be able to have offspring.

While it's true energy is always conserved, kinetic energy is only conserved in perfectly elastic collisions. So, you are on the correct path at the end- inelastic collisions kinetic energy is converted into other types of energy, like heat, sound, deforming the bodies, etc.

If kinetic energy was conserved in the collision, then you would have the situation where the two objects bounced off of each other, and went in the opposite direction, at the same speed they came in.

[removed]

Fewer chromosome doesnt mean less genes or genetic material, it just means the chromosome are all joined up together. Species with more chromosomes have smaller chromosomes.

Yes, in fact there are plenty of species which have differing numbers of chromosomes within that species. All different chromosome numbers mean (if everything else is the same) is that there is slightly higher chance of genetic abnormalities and the offspring is slightly higher likelihood of being infertile.

Species is just an arbitrary classification. Interbreeding is only one factor used to determine what is a species. Its thought that only female neanderthal human hybrids were fertile and not males, so that one justification for considering us seperate species. Just how likely an offspring is to be fertile could also be taken into account. If two species have to breed a million times to produce 1 fertile offspring, it doesnt mean the two are the same species, there is never going to be considerable gene flow between those two groups.

Chromosome number is just one measure of compatibility and its not a particularly good one. Some species have wildly different chromosome numbers within the same species and yet breed fine. Plenty of pairs of species with the same number of chromosomes can't breed.

All you can really say is that chromosomal number differences and rearrangements tends to reduce the fitness of offspring and reduces the likelihood of fertile offspring.

[removed]

I guess that's essentially what my question came down to, whether or not there was another species that did these things without there being a practical purpose to it, but just because they like the way it looks.

I didn't really think there would be, but I was curious. Still, I appreciate the answer.

As someone with relatively recent ASD and ADHD diagnoses, is this why sometimes music can sound slightly too fast? (Same effect whatever device it's playing on, very familiar tracks)

It's kind of intriguing figuring out if some things about me are due to either/both of those or 'regular' neurotypical preferences - I actually just had a discussion about sensory input and how much we tune out with my psychologist the other day. Brains are fascinating.

Taking the pill or pregnancy or anything else has no impact on the rate at which your body processes and kills off eggs. They are constantly recruited and start developing, but are only ovulated if the hormone balance is right. Otherwise they are just reabsorbed by the body.

[removed]

Good question, tbh, those numbers are from memory from my geology classes back when I studied Geo Science. I may have remembered wrong or those numbers where wrong back then.

Edit: searching a bit more I found this (unverified) answer that might explain the huge difference:

>As the present temperature of the inner core is estimated to be around 5000∘C, this is going to take tens of billions of years.

>The magnetic fields are generated by eddy currents in the outer core, which is a liquid layer about 2,300 km thickness. The inner core is growing at the rate of about 1 mm per year, so it is going to 'freeze over' (i.e. solidify) in about 2.3 billion years. Without its liquid outer core, the Earth's magnetic field shuts down,

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/7036/how-long-would-it-take-for-earths-core-to-cool-down-and-solidify

If this is correct, the whole process of cooling down will take ~90 Billion years, but the magnetic field will collapse much earlier, making complex life on earth impossible (which will be the case anyway due to increased sun luminosity, but that's another question.)

[removed]

Yep! As a gardener, I frequently sow sweet peas and vetch (both legumes) into my lawn and unused beds to generate nitrogen. I simply let these plants decompose in place once the season is over. This is how you build healthy soil, in addition to the sporadic addition of compost.

Your second paragraph is also the basis for helminth therapy - that is, deliberate infection with helminths to tame a rampaging or dysfunctional immune system, as in autoimmune disease. Infection with certain helminths makes developing certain autoimmune diseases such as Crohn's or UC less likely, and in trials has shown to alleviate symptoms of already established autoimmune disease.

[removed]

I'm interested as to where you found that number as all the sources I found indicated 91 billion years.

Yes. As far as we know according to the laws of physics as we understand them, rocky bodies like the Earth do not have a lifespan like stars do, and unless they are consumed by something else, they are likely to drift around forever.

Well this is very dependent on the specific details of the body.

We've seen that bodies with a large deviation on their surface tend to become tidally locked with what they're orbiting. Ex. The moon became tidally locked with earth and Venus became tidally locked with the sun. Earth and other large planets will probably also eventually become tidally locked as the deviations in their surface slow down their spin and turn a specific face towards the object they're orbiting.

There's always the chance of collisions especially for larger bodies like planets

The sun the body is orbiting will continue growing and for objects close like the earth they'll probably get consumed by it or have their atmosphere shredded off by intense solar radiation as it grows

In most simulations objects orbits tend to get more and more chaotic with time usually ending in them being launched from system

And of course eventually our sun will die. If our star was MUCH more massive it might make a supernova, maybe even a black hole. But for smaller stars like ours it'd probably just release a burst of hot cosmic gas and die.

Basically eventually rocky bodies if not consumed by their star, ejected from the system, or collided with another body, it'll probably sit boringly orbiting a dead star; it also dead with no atmosphere spin or magnetic field.

[removed]

It's always fascinating to watch orbital systems in simulations that seem stable become chaotic over very long timespans and basically fall apart.

[removed]