Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Drake Equation on Alien Life Has Been Revised


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#31    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,551 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:13 AM

i love the Drake Equation and discussion about it, since it's one big assumption based on a whole string of assumptions, and yet people build the most extraordinarily enormous assumptions (such as the one above) based on it. And people base their enormous castles of assumption on it as if it's irrefutable scientific fact.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#32    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:37 AM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 18 September 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

i love the Drake Equation and discussion about it, since it's one big assumption based on a whole string of assumptions, and yet people build the most extraordinarily enormous assumptions (such as the one above) based on it. And people base their enormous castles of assumption on it as if it's irrefutable scientific fact.

are you referring to my post?


#33    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,507 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:37 AM

Drake's Equation! Fermi's Paradox! The curse of Klass! Schrodinger's dead/alive cat!

Godammit! I need a drink!


Posted Image



:lol:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#34    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,215 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:44 AM

Looks like Canadian Club!!

Pour another for me mate! Ambrosia of the God's that stuff.

View Postmcrom901, on 18 September 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

are you referring to my post?

Hard to say, there are a number of posts "above" isn't there.

Edited by psyche101, 18 September 2013 - 08:46 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#35    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,551 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 09:04 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 18 September 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

are you referring to my post?
No, i meant the one you quoted, well, not just that, but all the assumptions that people make as shown in this thread.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#36    Asadora

Asadora

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:TN -> Leeds, UK

Posted 18 September 2013 - 09:31 AM

I found this after reading more about the Drake Equation:

http://www.as.utexas...rake/drake.html

It's a Drake Equation Calculator, which is cool in itself; however, I am not sure if scientists have the numbers to put into the boxes on that page. I certainly don't. I think that the only numbers we have (so far) would be to fill the first box of that calculator? We haven't come anywhere close enough to determine any of the other numbers needed... maybe... I am not sure.

Anyway, it's a cool thing to fiddle with for all you numbers people!

Kind Regards :)

"From time to time there appear on the face of the earth men of rare and consummate excellence, who dazzle us by their virtue, and whose outstanding qualities shed a stupendous light. Like those extraordinary stars of whose origins we are ignorant, and of whose fate, once they have vanished, we know even less, such men have neither forebears nor descendants: they are the whole of their race."  -- Jean de la Bruyere 1645-1696.

#37    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,551 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:18 PM

From what that chap from SETI was saying, it seems to be thought quite likely that 70-80% of Stars would have Planets, but everything from the third box onwards is just guesswork based on our knowledge of this one solar system, isn't it. our solar system may be typical, in which case perhaps there might be one planet per system that ticks all those boxes, or it might be untypical or atypical, and Life might be more common than it is in this system or it may be less common. Really all we can do is guess from what we know, and that's not nearly enough to be able to make anything like an adequate guess.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#38    Asadora

Asadora

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:TN -> Leeds, UK

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:36 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 18 September 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

From what that chap from SETI was saying, it seems to be thought quite likely that 70-80% of Stars would have Planets, but everything from the third box onwards is just guesswork based on our knowledge of this one solar system, isn't it. our solar system may be typical, in which case perhaps there might be one planet per system that ticks all those boxes, or it might be untypical or atypical, and Life might be more common than it is in this system or it may be less common. Really all we can do is guess from what we know, and that's not nearly enough to be able to make anything like an adequate guess.

You know what I find absolutely interesting? What exactly -is- typical (not based on science already known), but what is universally typical? Do we know that?I don't think we do. And who knows, the universal typical might very well be untypical enough to be considered atypical yet that in itself could be typical?

Great times to be alive! :clap:

Edited to add something I forgot to type.

Edited by Asadora, 18 September 2013 - 01:36 PM.

"From time to time there appear on the face of the earth men of rare and consummate excellence, who dazzle us by their virtue, and whose outstanding qualities shed a stupendous light. Like those extraordinary stars of whose origins we are ignorant, and of whose fate, once they have vanished, we know even less, such men have neither forebears nor descendants: they are the whole of their race."  -- Jean de la Bruyere 1645-1696.

#39    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:01 PM

View Postmcrom901, on 18 September 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

why is that?

Because the more we discover about early life, the more complicated and fragile we discover it was. The conditions for it happening get increasingly restrictive and the conditions for it surviving for long periods of time get increasingly unlikely. We haven't discovered much that has made life appear more likely to happen.


#40    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:03 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 18 September 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Hard to say, there are a number of posts "above" isn't there.

yeps, a bit of paranoia from me there... ^_^

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 18 September 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

No, i meant the one you quoted, well, not just that, but all the assumptions that people make as shown in this thread.

couldn't agree more and that's what ticks me off; certainty...



View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Because the more we discover about early life, the more complicated and fragile we discover it was.


which specific hypothesis are you referring to re the origins?

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

The conditions for it happening get increasingly restrictive and the conditions for it surviving for long periods of time get increasingly unlikely.

based on what model? earth?

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

We haven't discovered much that has made life appear more likely to happen.

is the curiosity rover able to dig deep in the martian soil to search for potential methane producing bacteria? that's only in our own solar system.... and then there's the unobservable observable universe...


#41    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:54 PM

View Postmcrom901, on 18 September 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

which specific hypothesis are you referring to re the origins?

All that I have read. Name one.

Quote

based on what model? earth?

Do you have any other models? ;)

Quote

is the curiosity rover able to dig deep in the martian soil to search for potential methane producing bacteria?

Bacteria in subfreezing temperatures? Surviving with no food source?

Quote

that's only in our own solar system.... and then there's the unobservable observable universe...

Which is the domain of science fiction writers, not scientists.


#42    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,333 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 19 September 2013 - 12:51 AM

Scowl, its estimated that life could thrive in the subsurface of Mars as much as 7 times deeper than life does here on Earth. And what do you mean by saying no food source?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#43    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:11 AM

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

All that I have read. Name one.

i don't know what you've read, please be my guest...

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Do you have any other models? ;)

that's the whole point, isn't it?

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Bacteria in subfreezing temperatures?

methanogens are classed as archaea....

http://www.pnas.org/...nt/102/51/18292

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1690475/

View Postscowl, on 18 September 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Which is the domain of science fiction writers, not scientists.

science is not about proving a negative

Edited by mcrom901, 19 September 2013 - 06:28 AM.


#44    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,054 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 19 September 2013 - 06:27 AM

I think life will turn out to be common, but in forms toxic to us (almost any chemical system other than one based on DNA and amino acids would likely be toxic).

I am doubtful about multi-cellular life and extremely doubtful about technological civilizations.  You can't prove a something does not exist by its absence when it could always turn up tomorrow, but you can ask why not by now.


#45    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 September 2013 - 05:01 PM

View Postmcrom901, on 19 September 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

that's the whole point, isn't it?

Yes, the point is that we only have one model of life. The rest is science fiction.

Quote


Yeah, the second paper made a big splash years ago but has been rejected. If you add up the "if"s you end up with an extremely low probability of being true yet the author uses the false assumptions to actually calculate how much life in on Mars right now. The author wasn't aware that Greenland and Mars are very different in many other ways and instead assumes they're exactly the same. The author calculates a Martian temperature far warmer than any other estimate, probably because his theory needed to start with 0C otherwise it completely falls apart.

Quote

science is not about proving a negative

Science is not about proving false theories correct. Sometimes there are negatives and we just have to deal with them.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users