Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
seeder

Drake Equation on Alien Life Has Been Revised

60 posts in this topic

Drake Equation For Alien Life Has Been Revised

selected quotes:

"In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed an equation that summarizes the main factors to contemplate in the question of radio-communicative alien life. These factors include the number of stars in our galaxy that have planets and the length of time advanced alien civilizations would be releasing radio signals into space.

http://www.space.com...ife-seager.html

we shall see then ...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, completely hypothetical as the Drake thingy may be, it's good to see that even that favorite fall-back of the Skeptic is having to adjust to the inevitable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, completely hypothetical as the Drake thingy may be, it's good to see that even that favorite fall-back of the Skeptic is having to adjust to the inevitable.

Well as per the article:

"Spotting signs of life on those planets will be possible because of progress in detecting not only planets, but their atmospheres as well. When a planet passes in front of its host star, atmospheric gases reveal their presence by absorbing some of the starlight. Oxygen, water vapor or other gases that do not belong on dead worlds could very well provide the first evidence of life elsewhere"

So with this in mind, yes we could find a planet with simple life, like microbes and plants. But even if that type is found - which will be a massive boost.... people will still want super advanced little green/grey men and flying saucers.

Besides detecting a possible planet with all the signs of 'life', still leaves us with the current inability to explore it up close

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life Finds a way ! Remember that Quote ! We Will Find Life out there maybe before it finds Us ! :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will soon be able to detect water vapor in the atmospheres of extra-solar planets. On Earth, this amounts to only about 1 part in 400 of the total atmosphere. One wonders if some technologically produced gases or vapors might be abundant enough to eventually be detected on other worlds. If so, extraterrestrial 'smog' might be the first evidence of intelligent life in space.

Edited by bison
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life Finds a way ! Remember that Quote ! We Will Find Life out there maybe before it finds Us ! :tu:

I don't think I would trust basing my opinions on famous saying or quotes or slogans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, completely hypothetical as the Drake thingy may be, it's good to see that even that favorite fall-back of the Skeptic is having to adjust to the inevitable.

I take it calling something the "fall-back of the Skeptic" is your way of engaging in the fallacy of dismissal by naming.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Spotting signs of life on those planets will be possible because of progress in detecting not only planets, but their atmospheres as well. When a planet passes in front of its host star, atmospheric gases reveal their presence by absorbing some of the starlight. Oxygen, water vapor or other gases that do not belong on dead worlds could very well provide the first evidence of life elsewhere"

So oxygen and water vapor are evidence of life and "do not belong" on planets that have no life? I wasn't aware that these could only be produced by living organisms.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So oxygen and water vapor are evidence of life and "do not belong" on planets that have no life? I wasn't aware that these could only be produced by living organisms.

Oxygen is extremely reactive. For this reason any free oxygen in an atmosphere soon reacts with something. For there to be free oxygen then requires something that constantly replenishes it, and the only thing we can figure it might be would be life (photosynthesis). I agree with you about water vapor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post removed, as it duplicates information in the previous post.

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxygen is extremely reactive. For this reason any free oxygen in an atmosphere soon reacts with something. For there to be free oxygen then requires something that constantly replenishes it, and the only thing we can figure it might be would be life (photosynthesis). I agree with you about water vapor.

they're in orion...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/herschel/news/herschel20110801.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you refer to is not in the atmosphere of a planet. I have to say to be "corrected" with such ignorance is frustrating. Oxygen is a common element found in interstellar space because the molecules and atoms (if the gas is ionized) are too far apart for much chemistry (although fairly complex molecules have been found).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, completely hypothetical as the Drake thingy may be, it's good to see that even that favorite fall-back of the Skeptic is having to adjust to the inevitable.

Yes it smells with the idea that man is master of the universe and only he decides how many aliens there are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxygen is extremely reactive. For this reason any free oxygen in an atmosphere soon reacts with something. For there to be free oxygen then requires something that constantly replenishes it, and the only thing we can figure it might be would be life (photosynthesis).

That assumes that there is always something on the surface of every planet for the oxygen to bind with. It's possible that the static surface of a planet has been fully oxidized leaving the rest of the oxygen trapped in the atmosphere. Chemical reactions on planets tend to run their course and stop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it smells with the idea that man is master of the universe and only he decides how many aliens there are out there.

Now that approaches absurdity. All it does is give us a handle for predicting the odds.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that there is always something on the surface of every planet for the oxygen to bind with. It's possible that the static surface of a planet has been fully oxidized leaving the rest of the oxygen trapped in the atmosphere. Chemical reactions on planets tend to run their course and stop.

Well it wouldn't have to be on the surface. Any free hydrogen would quickly become water, etc. I just can't imagine a situation where free oxygen would indicate anything other than life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if this article is suggesting that there are many more planets out there than we previously thought then all it does is deepen the conundrum i.e. more planets should mean a greater chance of alien life so it comes back around to the obvious point.....where are they! Why haven't they arrived yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if this article is suggesting that there are many more planets out there than we previously thought then all it does is deepen the conundrum i.e. more planets should mean a greater chance of alien life so it comes back around to the obvious point.....where are they! Why haven't they arrived yet?

Obviously there are lots of planets, but that is only one factor in the equation. I learned early on that there is no point in multiplying out a long line of factors if any of them is zero, no matter how big the others are.

Now we can be sure, because we exist, that none of the factors is zero, but that is a statistical sample of just one, so it is entirely possible that one or more of the factors is very, very close to zero, making "our" existence elsewhere unlikely or maybe even outrageously unlikely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are lots of planets, but that is only one factor in the equation. I learned early on that there is no point in multiplying out a long line of factors if any of them is zero, no matter how big the others are.

Now we can be sure, because we exist, that none of the factors is zero, but that is a statistical sample of just one, so it is entirely possible that one or more of the factors is very, very close to zero, making "our" existence elsewhere unlikely or maybe even outrageously unlikely.

The equation is certianly viable as you say, it describes ourselves. Im curious if you or Scowl or anyone would like to take the time to work the equation out based on what we know to equal just 1 (ourselves)?

Now I have to point out some factors only relate to our ability to detect Intelligent life. So lets modify the equation and only solve it to the factor fl and exclude the latter factors. How do you solve that equation to only equal 1 ( ourselves on Earth)?

Anyone feel like working that out real quick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to give the maths a miss just now, its 10.30 am after a heavy Friday night, its all I can do to remember how many beers i shouldn't have had! groan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to give the maths a miss just now, its 10.30 am after a heavy Friday night, its all I can do to remember how many beers i shouldn't have had! groan...

Obviously M=bc^2 where M is memory b is Beer and c is 300,000km per second!!! This explains Time dialation perfectly!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is of course possible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. We don't have good information for all the known variables that are believed to determine the odds for the existence of such life.

Even so, it is worth considering a recurring problem in the history of human knowledge. Whenever we have supposed ourselves to be uniquely situated in some way, further learning has eventually refuted such ideas.

The Earth was once considered to be at the center of the physical universe. We saw this give way to a Sun centered universe a few centuries ago.

Once it was understood that the Milky Way was a huge collection of stars like our own Sun, it was imagined that we were at the center of it, and that our galaxy was unique in the universe. We eventually realized that we are far from being at the center of our galaxy, and that our galaxy was one of billions, strewn throughout an immense expanse of space.

It was once thought that planets were the result of exceptional cosmic accidents and must be extremely rare. We now see that planets are common, wherever we care to look.

Again and again, the assumption that we enjoy unique or exceptional circumstances in the universe has come to nothing. If I am asked now to believe that the conditions necessary for intelligent life to arise are unique to our planet, or so exceptional as to effectively isolate us from whatever other intelligent life may exist, at some vast distance, I must respectfully decline.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it wouldn't have to be on the surface. Any free hydrogen would quickly become water, etc. I just can't imagine a situation where free oxygen would indicate anything other than life.

You can't imagine an oxidized planet surface? Who said anything about free hydrogen?

I'm always amazed when people say that extraterrestrial life is the simplest explanation for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The equation is certianly viable as you say, it describes ourselves. Im curious if you or Scowl or anyone would like to take the time to work the equation out based on what we know to equal just 1 (ourselves)?

Now I have to point out some factors only relate to our ability to detect Intelligent life. So lets modify the equation and only solve it to the factor fl and exclude the latter factors. How do you solve that equation to only equal 1 ( ourselves on Earth)?

Anyone feel like working that out real quick?

You don't understand: in a probability, "1" is certainty and "0" is certainty negative. You don't put ones in based on our existence. That would be using some sort of count, but since each factor is dependent on all the preceding factors being above zero, that would be pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again and again, the assumption that we enjoy unique or exceptional circumstances in the universe has come to nothing.

Only because these incorrect assumptions were based on incomplete or false information.

We now know a lot more about our planet and the life on it and all of it strongly suggests that life was the result of a series of unique and exceptional circumstances. The more we learn about life on Earth, the less likely it appears that something like it would happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.