A question | Page 4 | Unidentified Flying Objects | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
A question
May 14, 2009
9:18 pm
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2494
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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...

May 14, 2009
10:45 pm
Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 907
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Got it. 😉

N2TheBlack

May 14, 2009
10:49 pm
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2494
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

😆 :mrgreen:

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

May 15, 2009
5:54 am
Avatar
screamzero
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 531
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

..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

May 15, 2009
5:22 pm
Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 907
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

May 15, 2009
6:20 pm
Avatar
CodeBlack
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 907
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: Dr. Richard Daystrom
49 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10278

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24710

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 9010

Posts: 124190

Newest Members:

Alan, Lozen, James, fredalonsojones, Peds, Skip Marks, ivafifed, eaglegene, Scott, [email protected]

Administrators: John Greenewald: 635, blackvault: 1776