21 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe Drake equation states that:
Which one of the factors is that?
I don't think any of its factors are 0 or 1 only.
Some of the factors are a value between 0 and 1 though
N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate;
and
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Those who dispute the existence of extraterrestrial life put fl at 0 making N = 0. I think the equation is circular. Attaching a value above 0 to fl assumes what the equation sets out to ascertain ie the existence of alien life.
21 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Green PaladinIf you set fl to exactly zero, then you are completely wrong. Why? Because we know that there are life in universe already. We, the human civilization, here on Earth, is one in our galaxy.
The Drake equation states that:
N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate;
and
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potent ...[text shortened]... ue above 0 to fl assumes what the equation sets out to ascertain ie the existence of alien life.
The result of the Drake equation is N and N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate. N = 1 or above, therefore fl cannot be =zero.
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas"...the fact that there is at least one civilization in our galaxy doesn't mean that this was a likely outcome. This is an excellent example of anthropic bias. No civilization can use itself to estimate the average number of civilizations in a galaxy, since if there was not at least one civilization the question could not arise."
If you set fl to exactly zero, then you are completely wrong. Why? Because we know that there are life in universe already. We, the human civilization, here on Earth, is one in our galaxy.
The result of the Drake equation is N and N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate. N = 1 or above, therefore fl cannot be =zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by Green PaladinThe Drake equation was never meant by Drace to give a definitive measure of the number of civilizations in our galaxy. Only to show what factors that are involved.
"...the fact that there is at least one civilization in our galaxy doesn't mean that this was a likely outcome. This is an excellent example of anthropic bias. [b]No civilization can use itself to estimate the average number of civilizations in a galaxy, since if there was not at least one civilization the question could not arise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox[/b]
fl > 0
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhousedont you agree that its presumptious to think that we're intelligent,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416110124.htm Bottom line for him is a 0.01 percent chance of intelligent life evolving in 5 billion years. So if there were 40,000 planets in the galaxy with life on them, only 4 will go all the way to intelligence. Still, there must be billions of planets in the galaxy.....
how do we know we're not really stupid? evidence please
:'(
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by Green Paladinwhat? theres civilisation out there somewhere? thank god, i'd just about given up on finding it 😲
"...the fact that there is at least one civilization in our galaxy doesn't mean that this was a likely outcome. This is an excellent example of anthropic bias. [b]No civilization can use itself to estimate the average number of civilizations in a galaxy, since if there was not at least one civilization the question could not arise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox[/b]
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseYou do not have an issue with that; you cannot separate science from
It must be very tiring for you to continually disparage science like you do. I get the feeling the reason is if life does not need a god to make it, you will be like a little boy lost in the dark of a strange bedroom.
the people!? You assume if it is "science" people cannot error that are
telling you these things! You honesty do not find it assuming that
someone who does not know how to do something, does not know
what is required, does not know the timing needed, can without all
of that knowledge tell you the odds are it occurring? You think my
laughing at them is laughing at science? You are mistaken, I’m
laughing at the people who think they pull those odds out of the thin
air, and people like you who just accept it, because some how they
attached the word science to it so it must be true. Good science is
not something to laugh at but embrace; that is on par with looking at
chicken bones being thrown on an animal skin and making a prediction.
Kelly
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by Tera''It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero.''
I once read a book stating that the total population of the universe is 0. Quite accurate aswell.
hmm...
Douglas Adams - A Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Was it this one?
--- Penguin.
"Any people you happen to meet from time to time are merely the figments of a deranged imagination"
22 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo for you 'science' has an independent existance outside of people?
You do not have an issue with that; you cannot separate science from
the people!? You assume if it is "science" people cannot error that are
telling you these things! You honesty do not find it assuming that
someone who does not know how to do something, does not know
what is required, does not know the timing needed, can without all
of that knowledge ...[text shortened]... with looking at
chicken bones being thrown on an animal skin and making a prediction.
Kelly
I would have sworn it took people to make science. Go figure.
You love to obfuscate, that must be your favorite hobby.
Just because I made the post doesn't mean I agree with the assesment, where did you get that idea? Did you actually read the article in question and see what the rational is? If not, read it first before you give blanket condemnation.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by PenguinAnd that little conclusion is false. A subset of an infinite set is not necessarily finite.
''It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds."
And yes, the universe isn't infinite either.
And yes, I know it is Douglas Adams and therefore not meant to be particularly logical or accurate.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you seem to have missed is that they are talking about probability and estimates and therefore it is meant to be based solely on what little we (or they) know and they do not necessarily to claim to know more.
You honesty do not find it assuming that someone who does not know how to do something, does not know what is required, does not know the timing needed, can without all of that knowledge tell you the odds are it occurring?
Every probability claim is based on another probability claim and as long as that is clearly stated in the claim then the claim is correct.