Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #827984 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-17 23:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-08-12 03:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 11:35 -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. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:43 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:05 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:50 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 20:25 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 19:31 -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. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:13 -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. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 12:44 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0700
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. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:06 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 12:13 -0500
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. 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. 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? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 15:44 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 16:22 -0700
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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 17:31 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 12:04 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 14:35 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 23:07 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 10:39 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 23:49 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 00:06 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 08:43 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 12:20 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:18 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 21:24 -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? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:37 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 17:03 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-26 20:55 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:50 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-27 19:08 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 18:54 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-26 21:38 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 15:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 17:09 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 23:14 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 09:39 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 09:51 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 15:08 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> - 2021-07-29 17:46 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 16:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-29 18:13 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> - 2021-07-29 19:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-29 23:09 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-07-29 17:36 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-30 01:11 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-29 10:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 15:27 -0400
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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 20:34 -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? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 15:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-31 23:38 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-23 09:07 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 12:59 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-23 17:22 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? Jackson Sprat <jacksprat@kewlmail.com> - 2021-07-23 11:13 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 11:18 -0500
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? Jackson Sprat <jacksprat@kewlmail.com> - 2021-07-23 11:13 -0400
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? 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? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 17:56 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-16 22:39 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:49 +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 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
Re: How many planets are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 11:14 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Mi Na <ya12983@mail.com> - 2021-07-22 02:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:58 -0700
many He Llo <rob999999999@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-12 03:00 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FD9EEF.1074@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828765 |
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 | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edd30738-c9a9-483a-a061-d1a605e2029cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828800 |
Pluto is not a plane-et as it is not in the Solar plane.. Mitchell Raemsch
[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 | #828800 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c307c257-fb99-4ebe-bd53-35d406333c00n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828904 |
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. > > > > > > Paul is insAling (insane) I don't think that I'm the insane one here... > > > > Why didn't you guys warn me??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 20:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sdnlht$199m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828910 |
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.
[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 | #828915 |
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 | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 19:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sdq3le$14fk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828926 |
On 7/26/2021 9:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > 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? Doesn't matter, there are no wrong answers. > > multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3? > > come on, already...yous are gettin soooo warm...you almost got it ! > I may want to see what happens if earthlike planets are super common, so I'll choose 1.25. Or if earthlike planets are super rare, let's say 0.00001. Drake can pick his own numbers. > >
[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 | #828910 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05c067af-a848-4806-90c2-8274b64626c5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828925 |
On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:47:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > 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 makes no difference what Drake might have used for ne. You can use any number you like, there is no wrong number, just like there is no wrong number for ANY of the factors. That was the whole point of the exercise. Anyone can use any number they like and get an answer... and every answer is just as correct as any other answer. OK, I give up. What number did Drake use for ne? I can tell you that it was MUCH smaller than 1! > > > > it wasn't zero like you mentioned before, and it isn't one !, but you're getting warm....try again
[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 | #828904 |
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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FF35E8.E5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828765 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b680908-caf3-4ed5-883e-503f42127d2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828905 |
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 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/ 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. > > > > 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.
[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 | #828911 |
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 | #828930 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a957144-1661-4b8f-945d-260c218779e1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829107 |
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 10:11:34 PM UTC-7, 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 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???? This whole time you kept saying n, but what you really meant was ne. There is a huge difference between theese to symbols, since n is the symbol used for the dang answer! You need to understand that in the world of math n and N are the same thing! If you mean ne then you need to say ne because to say n is just wrong! If Drake used ne = 2 you need to understand that he was NOT talking specifically about our solar system. Remember that ne stands for your guess as to how many planets there might be, on average, in other solar systems that can support life, as per the chart in your link. Not intelligent life, just plain life. Like perhaps even a single-celled animal or plant, that counts as life. Drake guessed 2 per planetary system. His answer is perfectly valid because the entire exercise is hypothetical and there are no wrong answers!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 09:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sdub38$94t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829107 |
On 7/29/2021 1:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > 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. N is the answer, not an estimate of habitable planets. > 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 See? ne, not n. N is the computed value of broadcasting civilizations. > 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) Nope, that's ne, not n. N is the answer. Drake estimated 2. There are no wrong answers. > > > > 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???? ne is the average number of habitable planets per stellar system. Nothing to do with earth. Some stellar systems may have 2 habitable planets, others 0, others 4, others such as our own 1. > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, Only as a starting point.> > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? It is an average for all stellar systems, not specific to our own solar system so the question isn't applicable. Do you even know what "example" means? > > > 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. Not two or more, but an average of 2. Sometimes 3, sometimes 0, sometimes 1 etc. > > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? It is an estimate, no specific planets involved. > > > Earth is one. > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? Wrong. ne is an estimate and he estimated 2. The only actual example he had was our own solar system with 1 habitable planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9303c5c-2ad5-4949-aeb6-519f3565bfa5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829121 |
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:40:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/29/2021 1:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > N is the answer, not an estimate of habitable planets. > > 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 > See? ne, not n. N is the computed value of broadcasting civilizations. > > 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) > Nope, that's ne, not n. N is the answer. Drake estimated 2. There are no > wrong answers. > > > > > > > > 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 That man's name was Frank... > > > > > > so, What is the name of the second one???? > ne is the average number of habitable planets per stellar system. > Nothing to do with earth. Some stellar systems may have 2 habitable > planets, others 0, others 4, others such as our own 1. > > > > > > > > Since Frank Drake obviously is *using* our star as an example/sample of habitable planets, > Only as a starting point.> > > then what is the name of the habitable planet besides Earth? > It is an average for all stellar systems, not specific to our own solar > system so the question isn't applicable. Do you even know what > "example" means? > > > > > > 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. > Not two or more, but an average of 2. Sometimes 3, sometimes 0, sometimes 1 etc... Actually, zero is never an option for any term because that would always result in an answer of N = 0 > > So, ne = 2.0 What two planets did he used in his equation? > It is an estimate, no specific planets involved. > > > > > > Earth is one. > > > > What's the second one he used for a sample? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or Pluto???? > Wrong. ne is an estimate and he estimated 2. The only actual example he > had was our own solar system with 1 habitable planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 15:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sduuai$1u6s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829136 |
On 7/29/2021 12:51 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:40:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 7/29/2021 1:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>> 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. >> Not two or more, but an average of 2. Sometimes 3, sometimes 0, sometimes 1 etc... > > Actually, zero is never an option for any term because that would always result in an answer of N = 0 No, nₑ is an average. Different stellar systems have more or fewer earthlike planets, and some stellar systems will have 0 earthlike planets. nₑ doesn't have to be an integer, either. If half the stellar systems have 1 earthlike planet and the other half have none, and none have more, then nₑ = 0.5. It's only when the average is 0 (meaning no earthlike planets at all, anywhere), that makes N = 0 and the equation trivial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <455d4505-9f30-48e6-9a40-93f45fde532en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829142 |
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 7/29/2021 12:51 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:40:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 7/29/2021 1:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> 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. > >> Not two or more, but an average of 2. Sometimes 3, sometimes 0, sometimes 1 etc... > > > > Actually, zero is never an option for any term because that would always result in an answer of N = 0 > No, nₑ is an average. Different stellar systems have more or fewer > earthlike planets, and some stellar systems will have 0 earthlike > planets. nₑ doesn't have to be an integer, either. If half the stellar > systems have 1 earthlike planet and the other half have none, and none > have more, then nₑ = 0.5. It's only when the average is 0 (meaning no > earthlike planets at all, anywhere), that makes N = 0 and the equation > trivial. Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sdvb4d$1eu2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829145 |
On 7/29/2021 2:28 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 7/29/2021 12:51 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:40:00 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 7/29/2021 1:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >>>> Not two or more, but an average of 2. Sometimes 3, sometimes 0, sometimes 1 etc... >>> >>> Actually, zero is never an option for any term because that would always result in an answer of N = 0 >> No, nₑ is an average. Different stellar systems have more or fewer >> earthlike planets, and some stellar systems will have 0 earthlike >> planets. nₑ doesn't have to be an integer, either. If half the stellar >> systems have 1 earthlike planet and the other half have none, and none >> have more, then nₑ = 0.5. It's only when the average is 0 (meaning no >> earthlike planets at all, anywhere), that makes N = 0 and the equation >> trivial. > > Agreed. > another fact *left out of Drakes* is how far a radio signal can travel called free space path loss, it is only about the size of our solar system. you will want to use a frequency between 1 and 2 Ghz, lowest attenuation frequincy for RF say your reciever can detect signals at -140 Dbw, and has a dish gain of 50 db and the Alien transmitter can transmit at 100kW (50dBW) so you have 140 + 50 + 50 = 240 db you can loose in losses. transmitter gain in dB of 100 (omni directional) reciever gain in dB of 1000 (high gain antenna) https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calculators/free-space-path-loss-calculator try it, we cannot pickup signals outside of our solar system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web