A question | Page 4 | Unidentified Flying Objects | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
A question
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2495
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
22
May 14, 2009 - 9:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

K you can think about money but...not as a more important thing than your family or yourself...

Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...

Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 908
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
23
May 14, 2009 - 10:45 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Got it. 😉

N2TheBlack

Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2495
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
24
May 14, 2009 - 10:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

😆 :mrgreen:

Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...

Avatar
screamzero
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
25
May 15, 2009 - 5:54 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

..circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming...possibility of life elsewhere is a major probability; maybe definitely, with the Martian rock found at one of earth's (north I think) poles seeming to have fossilized microbes embedded in it......as for intelligent life elsewhere:

The Drake equation (also sometimes called the "Green Bank equation," the "Green Bank Formula," or erroneously labeled the "Sagan equation") is a famous result in the fields of exobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors that determine the number of such extraterrestrial civilizations.:

The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{ast} times f_p times n_e times f_{ell} times f_i times f_c times L !

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R* is the average rate of star formation per year 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.

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Having seen a lightless array of three disk shaped forms flying moderately slow (as compared with a small piper) and in a triangular formation without a sound at what seemed to be a relatively low altitude (Reese Air Force base is just outside of Lubbock...) - without audible or visual escort; shortly after dusk in Lubbock, Tx. air space; not far over Nashville Ave. and 20th street in 1973 (this capability with aerodynamic technology is obviously not in sync w/ the times) I dare say that in my mind some of the values in the Drake Equation are not zero...or I was experiencing a flash back.........................................................Not

Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 908
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
26
May 15, 2009 - 5:22 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

First, I don't think the Drake equation is 100% complete. There are other factors but I don't think the Drake equation is useless either. I can venture a guess at the numbers.

R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
This is a large number, really large.

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
This is fairly unknown but I'll bet its at least 1 in 100 to 1 in 10.

ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Looking at our star system this is roughly 1 in 9 (but actually lower when you consider life could exist on moons and planetoids).

fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
I would say this is nearly 1.0. If life can exist, it will exist.

fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
I would say this is close to 1.0 as well. No reason to think otherwise. Its only a matter of time.

fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
Also nearly 1.0. Intelligent life will get around to transmitting sooner or later.

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
My guess for this is 200 years. We have been transmitting for about a century. Within the next century we will likely develop technology to communicate in ways that don't involve broadcasting into space.

So:

      N = (large number) * (0.01 to 0.1) * 0.1111~ * (->1.0) * (->1.0) * (->1.0) * 200
N = (large number) * (0.2222~ to 2.222~)
N ~= large number

But the Drake equation does not take into account all of the factors for detection of signals from distant planets, like interference, signal strength vs. distance, etc.

N2TheBlack

Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 908
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
27
May 15, 2009 - 6:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wait, back up. I forgot that R* is per year. Why is it per year? See that's ignoring the built up history that covers nearly 14 billion years. Why is this a rate instead of a value? What we really need is a simulation of galaxy formation and I'll bet the rate of star formation is not a constant.

N2TheBlack

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online:
107
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10317
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
Todd
C
Murray
ninurta
ShannaCOdell
mark
Sunshine64
Maboo25
MadisonLynch
Rainabrainz
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9254
Posts: 124688

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25016
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault