Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #558363 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-17 23:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 18:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 112 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-17 23:08 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-18 17:14 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-18 00:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:55 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 01:10 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:15 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 15:23 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:38 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 15:43 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:58 -0400
America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2021-07-19 11:38 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-19 23:50 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 07:08 +0000
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:27 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 11:30 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 10:10 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 12:35 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 11:07 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 14:21 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-24 18:39 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 12:08 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Webster Nusbaum <ehtcp1@wdedbcn.lc> - 2021-08-03 19:25 +0000
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 12:53 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 15:00 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 08:03 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:30 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 12:08 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-20 14:01 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:26 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-20 14:01 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:30 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Mainspring <MSpr@zeex.net> - 2021-07-21 00:05 -0400
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:09 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-21 19:45 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Unruh <unruh@sjrb.ca> - 2021-07-22 02:02 +0000
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 13:33 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:22 -0600
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-18 00:35 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Bud W Thacker <buwth8@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-18 13:38 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 15:44 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 22:27 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 23:17 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-22 23:46 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-23 10:47 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 03:22 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-26 01:10 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-26 21:31 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 13:08 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-27 16:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 14:27 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 22:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-28 10:36 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-28 10:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-28 14:47 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 14:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 14:30 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 23:51 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 03:59 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 10:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 20:41 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 14:05 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 14:04 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 18:39 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 17:22 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-07-21 20:52 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 14:12 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 22:58 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 23:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 23:36 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 13:39 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 23:15 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-23 17:22 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 08:43 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 13:20 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 15:58 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 20:50 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-24 19:11 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-24 22:30 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 19:02 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 15:17 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:50 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-26 21:38 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 19:00 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 15:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 19:03 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-28 22:12 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-29 10:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-31 13:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-31 16:03 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-31 20:18 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-01 00:02 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-02 13:34 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-02 13:40 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 11:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:49 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? Bud W Thacker <buwth8@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-18 11:03 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-22 11:48 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-18 10:21 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:58 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:34 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 12:02 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 10:57 -0700
Re: How stupid is starfucktard? Orni Thopter <flapping@wi.ngs> - 2021-07-18 13:48 -0700
What is the name of the 9th protester in Seattle ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2021-07-18 14:24 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:56 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 18:50 -0400
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <im447cFjc13U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #558653 |
On 7/24/2021 9:11 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: >> >> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . >> >> That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? >> >>> The Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. >> >> Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"... >> >> "The communicative lifetime L >> Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable >> trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the >> time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable >> advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not >> broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most >> advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the >> while. >> With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I >> could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?" >> >> So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > believe people are making it up. > >> >>>> the e next to the n stands for earth. >> >> No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier. > > > e is a postcript. > > > > > >> >>>>>> So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? >> >> You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference. > > > I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working > your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again! > > > There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left > back in the second grade??? How come you're still in the same seat after 53 attempts to achieve 3rd grade?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FD9EEF.1074@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558653 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . > > > > That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? > > > > > The Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. > > > > Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"... > > > > "The communicative lifetime L > > Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable > > trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the > > time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable > > advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not > > broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most > > advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the > > while. > > With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I > > could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?" > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not b > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > the e next to the n stands for earth. > > > > No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier. > > e is a postcript. > > > > > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? > > > > You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference. > > I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working > your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again! > > There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left > back in the second grade??? Okay, I'll try to make it easier for you...( i barely made it past the second grade also...) How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37a48112-052a-4ece-a4ae-0e2d3ea8fa9bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558674 |
On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? Who cares? This has zero to do with the Drake Equation. ZERO!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF3490.70C9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558686 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > Who cares? This has zero to do with the Drake Equation. ZERO! That is an insane answer! You wrote: "No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like"." So I asked referin to n = How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? Is this stuff too hard for you???? YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU'RE UNABLE TO ANSWER THW QUESTION: How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? Paul is insAling (insane) Why didn't you guys warn me?? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF65D5.587@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558754 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:17:33 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > > > > > Who cares? This has zero to do with the Drake Equation. ZERO! > > > > That is an insane answer! > > No, you don't understand, that's all... the Drake Equation does not require knowing how many habitable planets are in the solar system, it asks *you* to guess what percentage of all planets in the galaxy are capable of sustaining life, that is to say, are habitable. It is just a guess and your guess cannot be wrong. > > > You wrote: > > > > "No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like"." > > > > > > > > So I asked referin to n = > > > > How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > > multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > Is this stuff too hard for you???? > > > > > > YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU'RE UNABLE TO ANSWER THW QUESTION: How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > Sure, right now there is 1... but in the past, there may have been more, and in the future, there may be more or none. So what? This has nothing to do with the Drake Equation. But, but, ...but...Drake didn't use the number one 1...so you pick number one 1 and Drake didn't. One of yous is wrong. The original question is What was Drake's input, What number did he pick???? What was the value for ne = that Drake used? it wasn't zero like you mentioned before, and it isn't one !, but you're getting warm....try again -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF666A.7732@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558754 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > On 7/26/2021 8:03 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:17:33 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Paul Alsing wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> > >>>> How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > >>> > >>> Who cares? This has zero to do with the Drake Equation. ZERO! > >> > >> That is an insane answer! > > > > No, you don't understand, that's all... the Drake Equation does not require knowing how many habitable planets are in the solar system, it asks *you* to guess what percentage of all planets in the galaxy are capable of sustaining life, that is to say, are habitable. It is just a guess and your guess cannot be wrong. > > > >> You wrote: > >> > >> "No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like"." > >> > >> > >> > >> So I asked referin to n = > >> > >> How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > > >> multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > The Drake Equation does not depend on our solar system. The ne term is > an estimate of how many earthlike planets there are, on average, per > planetary system. I may choose 0.1 for ne, for the reason that out of > every 10 stellar systems with planets, on average only 1 will have 1 > earthlike planet. But Drake didn't choose number 1, so... what number did he choose? multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? come on, already...yous are gettin soooo warm...you almost got it ! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 21:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <im99suF95ndU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #558754 |
On 7/26/2021 5:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: >> >> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? >> >> Who cares? This has zero to do with the Drake Equation. ZERO! > > That is an insane answer! > > > You wrote: > > "No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like"." > > > > So I asked referin to n = > > How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > > multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > Is this stuff too hard for you???? > > > YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU'RE UNABLE TO ANSWER THW QUESTION: How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system? > > > > > > Paul is insAling (insane) > > > > Why didn't you guys warn me?? Because in the entire universe no person or other type of being thought you to be worthy of a discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b6aaeab-d5c6-4ab3-ad4f-ffa559be88a2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #558653 |
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > believe people are making it up. So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF35E8.E5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558685 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > believe people are making it up. > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! You're telling me Drake is...retarded? I wrote: "the Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." it is right here: https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! THIS IS INSANE!!!! another nut in a science newsgroups! bunch of mad scientists here... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF698C.82C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558755 |
Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you
> > > > believe people are making it up.
> > >
> > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned.
> >
> >
> > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!!
> >
> > You're telling me Drake is...retarded?
> >
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s."
> >
> > it is right here:
> > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/
>
> That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion.
THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes.
Now, you want "definition of a "civilization""
There is no end to your...MADNESS!!
Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ...
"As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And
so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And
looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of
detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms."
—Frank Drake
Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3?
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! THIS IS INSANE!!!!
>
> Sure, but radio telescopes were never mentioned in the original Drake Equation, and that is a fact. Look here...
>
> https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index
>
> >
> >
> > another nut in a science newsgroups!
> >
> >
> > bunch of mad scientists here...
> > --
> > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 22:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <610238AF.7178@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558762 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it wi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > it is right here: > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > —Frank Drake > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) R = 10 fp = 0.5 ne = 2.0 fl = 1.0 fi = 0.01 fc = 0.01 L = 10000 N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy fp = Fraction of stars that form planets ne = Average number of habitable planets per star fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication L = Years a civilization remains detectable (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... but Fred Drake put down the number 2 so, What is the name of the second one???? Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? Earth is one. What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6102E426.21AB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558849 |
Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) I'll explain: A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > L = Years a civilization remains detectable the p in fp is planets the e in ne is Earth/earths the l in fl is life the i on fi is intelligent the c in fc is communication Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. n = 2 2 planets. Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? Can yous people get pass the second grade???? the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. the c in fc is communication (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > R = 10 > fp = 0.5 > ne = 2.0 > fl = 1.0 > fi = 0.01 > fc = 0.01 > L = 10000 > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > Earth is one. > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > -- > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6105AD18.4385@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558885 |
Okay, just a little re-cap... Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets and made the letter p of planets a subscript. That's how Drake got the the p in fp . He did the same thing with all the others.. but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 is....Earth and Mars. Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. The Starmaker wrote: > > Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... > > ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) > > I'll explain: > > A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > the p in fp is planets > > the e in ne is Earth/earths > > the l in fl is life > > the i on fi is intelligent > > the c in fc is communication > > Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. > > n = 2 > > 2 planets. > > Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? > > Can yous people get pass the second grade???? > > the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! > > If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. > > the c in fc is communication > > (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) > > Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and i > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > > > R = 10 > > fp = 0.5 > > ne = 2.0 > > fl = 1.0 > > fi = 0.01 > > fc = 0.01 > > L = 10000 > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > > > Earth is one. > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > > > -- > > 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. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 16:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <imls5hFrcq6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #558985 |
I do believe this is the first time I've seen a pile of shit on top of another pile of shit. Perhaps I just never noticed before. Whatever... On 7/31/2021 3:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Okay, just a little re-cap... > > Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... > > a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals > > the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > and made the letter p of planets a subscript. > > That's how Drake got the > > the p in fp . > > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. > > But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. > > > So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? > > > Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) > > the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 > > is....Earth and Mars. > > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! > > > In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. > > As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... >> >> ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) >> >> I'll explain: >> >> A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. >> >>> N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. >>> R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy >>> fp = Fraction of stars that form planets >>> ne = Average number of habitable planets per star >>> fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges >>> fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves >>> fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication >>> L = Years a civilization remains detectable >> >> the p in fp is planets >> >> the e in ne is Earth/earths >> >> the l in fl is life >> >> the i on fi is intelligent >> >> the c in fc is communication >> >> Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. >> >> N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. >> >> n = 2 >> >> 2 planets. >> >> Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? >> >> Can yous people get pass the second grade???? >> >> the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! >> >> If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. >> >> the c in fc is communication >> >> (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) >> >> Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... >> >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and i >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you >>>>>>>> believe people are making it up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> You're telling me Drake is...retarded? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." >>>>>> >>>>>> it is right here: >>>>>> https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ >>>>> >>>>> That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. >>>> >>>> THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. >>>> >>>> Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" >>>> >>>> There is no end to your...MADNESS!! >>>> >>>> Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... >>>> >>>> "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And >>>> so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And >>>> looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of >>>> detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." >>>> >>>> —Frank Drake >>>> >>>> Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? >>> >>> Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = >>> because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. >>> >>> That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. >>> (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) >>> >>> I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. >>> >>> So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: >>> >>> https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png >>> >>> http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html >>> >>> (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) >>> (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) >>> >>> R = 10 >>> fp = 0.5 >>> ne = 2.0 >>> fl = 1.0 >>> fi = 0.01 >>> fc = 0.01 >>> L = 10000 >>> >>> N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. >>> R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy >>> fp = Fraction of stars that form planets >>> ne = Average number of habitable planets per star >>> fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges >>> fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves >>> fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication >>> L = Years a civilization remains detectable >>> >>> (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) >>> >>> So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) >>> >>> Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... >>> >>> but Fred Drake put down the number 2 >>> >>> so, What is the name of the second one???? >>> >>> Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, >>> >>> then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? >>> >>> In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. >>> >>> So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? >>> >>> Earth is one. >>> >>> What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 20:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61061272.4BEC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558985 |
Then Drake wanted to change the number 2 to 3 because he thinks Venus is a habitable planet... kooks everywhere. The Starmaker wrote: > > Okay, just a little re-cap... > > Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... > > a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals > > the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > and made the letter p of planets a subscript. > > That's how Drake got the > > the p in fp . > > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. > > But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. > > So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? > > Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) > > the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 > > is....Earth and Mars. > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! > > In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. > > As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... > > > > ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) > > > > I'll explain: > > > > A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > the p in fp is planets > > > > the e in ne is Earth/earths > > > > the l in fl is life > > > > the i on fi is intelligent > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. > > > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. > > > > n = 2 > > > > 2 planets. > > > > Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? > > > > Can yous people get pass the second grade???? > > > > the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! > > > > If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) > > > > Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > > > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > > > > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > > > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > > > > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > > > > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > > > > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > > > > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > > > > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > > > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > > > > > R = 10 > > > fp = 0.5 > > > ne = 2.0 > > > fl = 1.0 > > > fi = 0.01 > > > fc = 0.01 > > > L = 10000 > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > > > > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > > > > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > > > > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > > > > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > > > > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > > > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > > > > > Earth is one. > > > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > -- > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 00:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <610646F3.5CD5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #558998 |
Since the real number for ne= is not 3, not 2 but just only one n = 1 only one habitable planet called earth... then you don't even have what amounts to a 'pattern' (2 or more). You don't have a sample pattern to go by. Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake pattern! But, even there that doesn't exist. No pattern. no other earths. It's that simple. The Starmaker wrote: > > Then Drake wanted to change the number 2 to 3 because he thinks Venus is > a habitable planet... > > kooks everywhere. > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Okay, just a little re-cap... > > > > Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... > > > > a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals > > > > the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > and made the letter p of planets a subscript. > > > > That's how Drake got the > > > > the p in fp . > > > > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. > > > > But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. > > > > So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? > > > > Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) > > > > the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 > > > > is....Earth and Mars. > > > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! > > > > In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. > > > > As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... > > > > > > ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) > > > > > > I'll explain: > > > > > > A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > the p in fp is planets > > > > > > the e in ne is Earth/earths > > > > > > the l in fl is life > > > > > > the i on fi is intelligent > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. > > > > > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. > > > > > > n = 2 > > > > > > 2 planets. > > > > > > Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? > > > > > > Can yous people get pass the second grade???? > > > > > > the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! > > > > > > If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) > > > > > > Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > > > > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > > > > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > > > > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > > > > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > > > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > > > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > > > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > > > > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > > > > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > > > > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > > > > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > > > > > > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > > > > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > > > > > > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > > > > > > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > > > > > > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > > > > > > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > > > > > > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > > > > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > > > > > > > R = 10 > > > > fp = 0.5 > > > > ne = 2.0 > > > > fl = 1.0 > > > > fi = 0.01 > > > > fc = 0.01 > > > > L = 10000 > > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > > > > > > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > > > > > > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > > > > > > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > > > > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > > > > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > > > > > > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > > > > > > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > > > > > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > > > > > > > Earth is one. > > > > > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > 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. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <610856E2.5B5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #559003 |
Now, I wrote: "Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake pattern!" It appears to me that some of yous have no idea what a sample pattern means... If, you take one snowflake on Earth (if you never seen a snowflake before) you will have no idea what a snowflake pattern looks like. You will need a 'second' snowflake from earth in order to determine what pattern it has. In other words, you need 2 snowflakes to figure out if a pattern exist. If you compare 2 snowflakes on earth, you begin to see a ...pattern. Now you got to find somewhere in the snow on another planet a snowflake. Compare that snowflake with the one you have on earth and see if there is a pattern like the one on earth. "Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake *pattern*!" The Starmaker wrote: > > Since the real number for ne= is not 3, not 2 but just only one n = 1 > > only one habitable planet called earth... > then you don't even have what amounts to a 'pattern' (2 or more). > > You don't have a sample pattern to go by. > > Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake pattern! > > But, even there that doesn't exist. > > No pattern. no other earths. It's that simple. > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Then Drake wanted to change the number 2 to 3 because he thinks Venus is > > a habitable planet... > > > > kooks everywhere. > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Okay, just a little re-cap... > > > > > > Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... > > > > > > a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals > > > > > > the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > and made the letter p of planets a subscript. > > > > > > That's how Drake got the > > > > > > the p in fp . > > > > > > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > > > > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. > > > > > > But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. > > > > > > So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? > > > > > > Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) > > > > > > the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 > > > > > > is....Earth and Mars. > > > > > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! > > > > > > In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. > > > > > > As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... > > > > > > > > ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) > > > > > > > > I'll explain: > > > > > > > > A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > > > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > > > the p in fp is planets > > > > > > > > the e in ne is Earth/earths > > > > > > > > the l in fl is life > > > > > > > > the i on fi is intelligent > > > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > > > Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. > > > > > > > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. > > > > > > > > n = 2 > > > > > > > > 2 planets. > > > > > > > > Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? > > > > > > > > Can yous people get pass the second grade???? > > > > > > > > the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! > > > > > > > > If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. > > > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > > > (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) > > > > > > > > Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > > > > > > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > > > > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > > > > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > > > > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > > > > > > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > > > > > > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > > > > > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > > > > > > > > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > > > > > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > > > > > > > > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > > > > > > > > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > > > > > > > > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > > > > > > > > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > > > > > > > > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > > > > > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > > > > > > > > > R = 10 > > > > > fp = 0.5 > > > > > ne = 2.0 > > > > > fl = 1.0 > > > > > fi = 0.01 > > > > > fc = 0.01 > > > > > L = 10000 > > > > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > > > > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > > > > > > > > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > > > > > > > > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > > > > > > > > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > > > > > > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > > > > > > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > > > > > > > > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > > > > > > > > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > > > > > > > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > > > > > > > > > Earth is one. > > > > > > > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > -- > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61085851.7232@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #559082 |
on a different note... Is there 'snow" on the north pole???? Here on earth or any other planet?? Is there 'snow' *on the* north pole???? Here on earth, I should be able to google earth and 'see' the north pole... for some reason there is no snow on the north pole.. on earth or any other planet or moons. Strange... i don't get it? The Starmaker wrote: > > Now, I wrote: "Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake pattern!" > > It appears to me that some of yous have no idea what a sample pattern means... > > If, you take one snowflake on Earth > (if you never seen a snowflake before) > you will have no idea what a snowflake pattern looks like. > > You will need a 'second' snowflake from earth in order > to determine what pattern it has. > > In other words, you need 2 snowflakes to figure out > if a pattern exist. > > If you compare 2 snowflakes on earth, you begin to see a ...pattern. > > Now you got to find > somewhere in the snow > on another planet > a snowflake. > > Compare that snowflake with the one you have on earth and see > if there is a pattern like the one on earth. > > "Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake *pattern*!" > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Since the real number for ne= is not 3, not 2 but just only one n = 1 > > > > only one habitable planet called earth... > > then you don't even have what amounts to a 'pattern' (2 or more). > > > > You don't have a sample pattern to go by. > > > > Hell, I'll accept one snowflake on any other planet 'as proof of life on other planets' if it resembles our snowflake pattern! > > > > But, even there that doesn't exist. > > > > No pattern. no other earths. It's that simple. > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Then Drake wanted to change the number 2 to 3 because he thinks Venus is > > > a habitable planet... > > > > > > kooks everywhere. > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Okay, just a little re-cap... > > > > > > > > Those of you who have no idea how to recognize patterns or know what is a pattern... > > > > > > > > a closer look at what the "subscripts" reveals > > > > > > > > the p in fp is planets because Drake took the subscript :fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > and made the letter p of planets a subscript. > > > > > > > > That's how Drake got the > > > > > > > > the p in fp . > > > > > > > > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > > > > > > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. > > > > > > > > But here is a clue..habitable planets (ne) where life emerges = Earth/Earths or what you call today Earth-Like. > > > > > > > > So, since Frank Drake wrote n = 2, then what two are Earth-Like planets? > > > > > > > > Since most of yous have difficulty getting that answer because of attempts by the 'scientific community' to (hide Drake Fraud) > > > > > > > > the answer that Fred Drake 'had in mind' for what two (2) habitable planets (ne) where life emerges n=2 > > > > > > > > is....Earth and Mars. > > > > > > > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! > > > > > > > > In other words, in Drake's feeble mind he felt the only planets that were habitable where life emerges is were Earth and Mars. > > > > > > > > As they say...if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Okay, it seems that some of yous dont understand what a "postscript" is... > > > > > > > > > > ( i get it, what you don't know you don't know) > > > > > > > > > > I'll explain: > > > > > > > > > > A Postscript is and after thought after a letter. > > > > > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > > > > > the p in fp is planets > > > > > > > > > > the e in ne is Earth/earths > > > > > > > > > > the l in fl is life > > > > > > > > > > the i on fi is intelligent > > > > > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > > > > > Upper case N is different from lower case n , they both have to different meanings. > > > > > > > > > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. > > > > > > > > > > n = 2 > > > > > > > > > > 2 planets. > > > > > > > > > > Are yous going to ask me Why is the sky Blue? > > > > > > > > > > Can yous people get pass the second grade???? > > > > > > > > > > the p in fp is planets (Fraction of stars that form planets) IT'S A POSTSCRIPT!!!!! This is lunacy!! > > > > > > > > > > If you're unable to get past the postscript then there is no hopes for yous. > > > > > > > > > > the c in fc is communication > > > > > > > > > > (you don't need to be a math whiz to figure that got....) > > > > > > > > > > Go back to the first grade! No school September for yous... > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > > > > > > > > > > > believe people are making it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, show me to be wrong. Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. Put up or shut up. Otherwise, I say you are making it up. You don't get to say stuff that you cannot confirm as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean "where Drake mentioned radio telescopes"???? Drake was working as a radio astronomer...he used radio telecopes!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're telling me Drake is...retarded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is right here: > > > > > > > > > https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/02/16/mistakes-in-the-drake-equation/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice article, but nowhere does it give that definition of a "civilization", you have made that up... and besides, we are talking about the original Drake Equation, not some fellow's critique of it, or his modern update of it. That is all fine and dandy but is >definitely not part of this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS IS INSANITY!!!! You first wrote: Show me where Drake mentioned radio telescopes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, you want "definition of a "civilization"" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no end to your...MADNESS!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here ia a quote directly from Fraud Drake ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And > > > > > > > so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And > > > > > > > looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of > > > > > > > detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —Frank Drake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, it appears to me everyone is afraid to say the number that Frank Drake used for n = > > > > > > because it would pinpoint exactly where he intentionally committed fraud with his equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is also the reason Why his peers are trying to 'erase' that number from the Internet. > > > > > > (cannot be erased from books that was published in the past that contained his equation and original numbers numbers he used) > > > > > > > > > > > > I am simply pointing to everyone where exactly the intentional fraud occurred. > > > > > > > > > > > > So here are a some examples of the actual values Drake used in his equation: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/89b98132414723.5605bc5d1a80f.png > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html > > > > > > > > > > > > (you will notice a link :According to the Wikipedia entry for the Drake Equation, the following values were those used in the original formulation of the Drake Equation:) > > > > > > (but of course they fraudulent changed the original values Drake used in Wiki and called it Original estimates) > > > > > > > > > > > > R = 10 > > > > > > fp = 0.5 > > > > > > ne = 2.0 > > > > > > fl = 1.0 > > > > > > fi = 0.01 > > > > > > fc = 0.01 > > > > > > L = 10000 > > > > > > > > > > > > N = The number of broadcasting civilizations. > > > > > > R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy > > > > > > fp = Fraction of stars that form planets > > > > > > ne = Average number of habitable planets per star > > > > > > fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges > > > > > > fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves > > > > > > fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication > > > > > > L = Years a civilization remains detectable > > > > > > > > > > > > (But they cannot change it in books in the past, only online) > > > > > > > > > > > > So, now you know n = 2 (Average number of habitable planets per star) > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, Some of yous (not all of yous) have guessed Earth is one of the habitable planets... > > > > > > > > > > > > but Fred Drake put down the number 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > > > > > > > > > > > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > In Order for Frank Drake to use a sample for his equation, it would have to have a pattern, a sequence...meaning two or more planets. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > > > > > > > > > > > > Earth is one. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > 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. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 11:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sdc5on$8v3$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #558542 |
On 7/22/2021 12:58 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. In USA of today he'd be working in a warehouse. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 10:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ilp99jFck5kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #558367 |
On 18-Jul-21 5:35 pm, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 18-Jul-21 4:08 pm, The Starmaker wrote: >>> How many planets are there in the universe? >>> >>> okay...according to fausi science.. >>> >>> Here is a list of 8 planets I found on a google seach.. >>> >>> Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune... >>> >>> so what is the name of the 9th planet? >>> >>> >>> If you don't know the name then there are only 8 planets that exist in >>> our universe, the whole universe...all of outer space. >>> >>> If you believe in fausi science then you must believe there are billions >>> of planets in space...so what then is the name of the 9th one? >>> >>> I mean, you got ten fingers so you should be able to count >>> to ten. >>> >> >> An entirely uninteresting question based on a disputed meaning of the >> word "planet". >> >> Sylvia. > > Okay, I'll re-phrase the question...so what then is the name of the 9th planet from out sun? > Same issue. The word "planet" means different things to different people, and in different contexts. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web