Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:49:40 -0500 Message-ID: <60FB8DFD.79EE@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:50:21 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: How many planets are there? References: <60F3C55A.5AA9@ix.netcom.com> <60F3D9BA.6C34@ix.netcom.com> <60F751B2.285A@ix.netcom.com> <60F8533B.3B4B@ix.netcom.com> <04eadbae-3b11-442d-9f23-ddaeaea44a5dn@googlegroups.com> <60F88DD6.76F9@ix.netcom.com> <60c0fc09-42b0-497e-a122-890b2cc2c763n@googlegroups.com> <60F9091F.5A8A@ix.netcom.com> <60F90DF8.3AA6@ix.netcom.com> <60F911EF.1FB6@ix.netcom.com> <60F9D764.2929@ix.netcom.com> <60FA5E71.1EAD@ix.netcom.com> <44f60f6b-27d7-4940-908e-62abbda8d747n@googlegroups.com> <60FAE39A.1FA3@ix.netcom.com> <31dc725e-9897-4d1e-8694-fe6c53b8736an@googlegroups.com> <60FB2474.6338@ix.netcom.com> <621ca8c4-74f6-4d0a-8f11-0617903ac2a3n@googlegroups.com> <60FB4989.14C8@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 210723-12, 07/23/2021), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Lines: 186 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-7vMRwtikmLKxCxVjveKlFWx6QjSKwy5PFcKlhKYqI740RVkkWFWn/hXR7EKqCHmOcPbopZOj7lp++jB!YF8PTOoaHqD4KM/bLRnngaRfl7V/zpg9QxTxwmNelEr3HjJ5/X9XTWogoZN0tsHOFVV6hgDof5kF!BsE5S7c14+w= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 8434 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:828699 sci.physics.relativity:558618 The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > > > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > > > > > > > > > "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. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > > > > > > > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? > > > > > > > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. > > > > > > > > The Drake equation is: > > > > > > > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) > > > > > > > > where: > > > > > > > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); > > > > and > > > > > > > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy > > > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets > > > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets > > > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point > > > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) > > > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space > > > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space > > > > > > > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N! > > > > > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5 > > > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > > > It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point! > > > > > > > > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > > > > > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.) > > > > Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960... > > > > https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf > > > > ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce. > > I was was specifically requesting Drake's original inputs..the value he gave n. > > > > > > > > > > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud) > > > > > > > > > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version. > > > > > > > > > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.) > > > > > > > > > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet) > > > > > > cancel culture been around a long time... > > > > I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > > > > multible choice > > > > > > > > > a) 0 > > > > > > b) 1 > > > > > > c) 2 > > > > > > d) 3 > > > > > > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand > > > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations... > > > > > > > > > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life. > > > > Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today? I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. > > the e next to the n stands for earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.