Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #26 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Its not my maths, I didnt conduct the survey. Good grief, this is simple arithmetic. It is YOUR maths that is wrong. You said: Yes 400 billion divided by 100 million and you have the average amount of habitable planets revolving around each star. To get the number of habitable plants per star you have to divide the number of planets by the number of stars, which is 100 million divided by 400 billion which equals 1/4000 i.e 1 star in every four thousand. Your result gives 4000 habitable planets per star which is obviously wrong. Edited June 9, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf so busy laughing that I made a mistake myself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted June 9, 2014 #27 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Its not my maths, I didnt conduct the survey. Here is yr math again: Yes 400 billion divided by 100 million and you have the average amount of habitable planets revolving around each star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted June 9, 2014 #28 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Forget the 4k as this value is a product of a wrong formula by taniwha. But....hang on? Arent there estimated to be 400 billion stars in the milky way? Divide that by the guesstimated habitable planets and as you have already worked out the rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted June 9, 2014 #29 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Good grief, this is simple arithmetic. It is YOUR maths that is wrong. You said: To get the number of habitable plants per star you have to divide the number of planets by the number of stars, which is 100 million divided by 400 million which equals 1/4 i.e 1 star in four. Your result gives 4 habitable planets per star which is wrong. Oh jeepers! I need another coffee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #30 Share Posted June 9, 2014 But....hang on? Arent there estimated to be 400 billion stars in the milky way? Divide that by the guesstimated habitable planets and as you have already worked out the rest is history. If you can't work out how to do division there really is no hope for you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #31 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Oh jeepers! I need another coffee! Coffee isn't going to help you. You need to stop pretending that you know what you are talking about when the evidence is quite clear that even the most basic concepts are beyond you. Division is primary school stuff. Edited June 9, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted June 9, 2014 #32 Share Posted June 9, 2014 If you can't work out how to do division there really is no hope for you. I admire your encouragement. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted June 9, 2014 #33 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I admire your encouragement. it's these special moments that keep us coming back for more 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted June 9, 2014 #34 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Coffee isn't going to help you. You need to stop pretending that you know what you are talking about when the evidence is quite clear that even the most basic concepts are beyond you. Division is primary school stuff. Oh its ok at least at primary school they have pencils and paper...I had to do that in my head! which is hazy from an early start Edited June 9, 2014 by taniwha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted June 9, 2014 #35 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Oh its ok at least at primary school they have pencils and paper...I had to do that in my head! which is hazy from an early start Stars x (UFO/0,314) + Zack ------------------------------------------- = Habitalbe planets Mars Simulators + (Bigfoot*UM) Edited June 9, 2014 by toast 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted June 9, 2014 #36 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Stars x (UFO/0,314) + Zack ------------------------------------------- = Habitalbe planets Mars Simulators + (Bigfoot*UM) yeah uh this is how it looked in primary schoollol not 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 9, 2014 #37 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Stars x (UFO/0,314) + Zack ------------------------------------------- = Habitalbe planets Mars Simulators + (Bigfoot*UM) Move over Dr. Drake! (ie, Drake's Equation) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 9, 2014 #38 Share Posted June 9, 2014 100 million planets ready for expansion.... Now we just need to figure out how to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient astronaut Posted June 9, 2014 #39 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I sure hope we make contact in my lifetime. It would validate a lifetime of arguments on whether or not we are alone in the universe. (I believe we are not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #40 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Oh its ok at least at primary school they have pencils and paper...I had to do that in my head! which is hazy from an early start A result of 4,000 habitable stars around every planet should have got alarm bells ringing in even the haziest of heads. You don't need pencil and paper to see that that couldn't possibly be right, just a tiny piece of common-sense. Yet even after obviously, stupendously wrong result was pointed out to you by toast you continued to claim you were right. I'm not surprised by this, I've come to expect nothing else from you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted June 9, 2014 #41 Share Posted June 9, 2014 While I love the number, it's dissapointing knowing we are so far away with technology that it's still going to be a very long time before we can visit even the nearest star. With current technology Iit would take what? 70,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted June 9, 2014 #42 Share Posted June 9, 2014 It is not necessary to count every single planet, nor is it necessary to "guestimate" in order to make an estimation. Knowing how many stars there are in the galaxy, knowing what percentage of those stars have been surveyed, knowing what percentage of those stars have planets and knowing what percentage of those planets are suitable for life enables extrapolation. Is this number an estimate... yes. Is it a guestimate... no, it's more than that. I see where you're coming from. The goal is to find planets like earth. Me personally, if it's a planet where I can walk outside with a t-shirt, shorts and bare feet and sit in my lawn chair and drink a cold one, then it's earth like. But if I have to wear protective gear to protect me from radiation and carry my own oxygen supply then to me it's not earth like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #43 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I see where you're coming from. The goal is to find planets like earth. Me personally, if it's a planet where I can walk outside with a t-shirt, shorts and bare feet and sit in my lawn chair and drink a cold one, then it's earth like. But if I have to wear protective gear to protect me from radiation and carry my own oxygen supply then to me it's not earth like. Since we have no technology that can get you to any of these planets then what your personal definition of Earth like is is a bit academic. However let's assume that we find such planets as you define Earth like. The fact that it has an Earth like atmosphere almost certainly means the planet already has life (oxygen is a by product of life). You sitting on such a planet drinking a cold one would throw up all sorts of moral dilemmas. However by the time we have a realistic interstellar capability there is a good chance that we will have the ability to terraform. The very planets that you reject may be our best targets as we can change them into new habitable worlds with out an danger to existing ecosystems. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 9, 2014 #44 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think some of the cryogenic technology they are perfecting today could very well lead to suspended animation of humans, which could lead to long term missions with a good chance of the astronaut making it to the destination. There was an UM news thread about this not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jroman Posted June 9, 2014 #45 Share Posted June 9, 2014 How to get there? I heard NASA are working on warp drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted June 9, 2014 #46 Share Posted June 9, 2014 However by the time we have a realistic interstellar capability there is a good chance that we will have the ability to terraform. The very planets that you reject may be our best targets as we can change them into new habitable worlds with out an danger to existing ecosystems. If we terraform another planet and it has an ecosystem on it with life, and the human race is desperate to make a world to suit our needs because our world is in peril, then the ecosystem of that planet isn't going to be of no concern because our survival is what's important. Basically, we'd be the alien invaders taking over a planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted June 9, 2014 #47 Share Posted June 9, 2014 100 million planets ready for expansion.... Now we just need to figure out how to get there. We managed to get to our moon and that's been over 40 years ago and now looking towards Mars. Comparing that to the vastness of space, We're still crawling on all 4's... if that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 9, 2014 #48 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I think some of the cryogenic technology they are perfecting today could very well lead to suspended animation of humans, which could lead to long term missions with a good chance of the astronaut making it to the destination. There was an UM news thread about this not too long ago. Without considerable advances in propulsion technology suspended animation is unlikely to be the answer to interstellar travel. Suspended animation may work for years, decades or even centuries but do you really think that there is any possibility of a crew surviving in suspended animation for tens of thousands of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 10, 2014 #49 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Without considerable advances in propulsion technology suspended animation is unlikely to be the answer to interstellar travel. Suspended animation may work for years, decades or even centuries but do you really think that there is any possibility of a crew surviving in suspended animation for tens of thousands of years? Not with current technology, but maybe in 100 years the suspension may be total, and the preservation 100% for 1000 years. Unless humanity miraculously invents some kind of FTL technology, like wormholes (Which technically is FLT, if not an engine.), then freeze and revive may be the only way we'll get out among the stars. I think generation ships simply will not happen, so suspended animation may be the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 10, 2014 #50 Share Posted June 10, 2014 We managed to get to our moon and that's been over 40 years ago and now looking towards Mars. Comparing that to the vastness of space, We're still crawling on all 4's... if that. 100 years ago we barely had planes that got off the ground, yet today we have civilian spacecraft. What might happen in the next 100 years? I don't think warp drive, or FTL engines, but I do think we'll have manned missions going out to the stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now