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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aade2a4-6eac-4fea-b68a-d397310975dan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829171 |
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > 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. As far as I know, radio telescopes see lots of stuff much farther away than the limits of our solar system...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <imgr11FqaulU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #829174 |
On 7/29/2021 6:05 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >> 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. > > As far as I know, radio telescopes see lots of stuff much farther away than the limits of our solar system... "With the help of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (ESO's VLT), astronomers have discovered and studied in detail the most distant source of radio emission known to date. The source is a "radio-loud" quasar -- a bright object with powerful jets emitting at radio wavelengths -- that is so far away its light has taken 13 billion years to reach us. The discovery could provide important clues to help astronomers understand the early Universe." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210308084222.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sdvghk$1dnf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829176 |
On 7/29/2021 6:13 PM, whodat wrote: > On 7/29/2021 6:05 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >>> 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. >> >> As far as I know, radio telescopes see lots of stuff much farther away >> than the limits of our solar system... > > > > "With the help of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large > Telescope (ESO's VLT), astronomers have discovered and studied in detail > the most distant source of radio emission known to date. The source is a > "radio-loud" quasar -- a bright object with powerful jets emitting at > radio wavelengths -- that is so far away its light has taken 13 billion > years to reach us. The discovery could provide important clues to help > astronomers understand the early Universe." > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210308084222.htm the power source in that case is huge, not just one transmitter on a planet, but billions of suns emitting energy. try running the equations with a million watts (possable to generate) and see how far you can go, assume a bandwidth of 1 mhz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 23:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <imhccdFtiodU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #829184 |
On 7/29/2021 7:18 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 7/29/2021 6:13 PM, whodat wrote: >> On 7/29/2021 6:05 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> As far as I know, radio telescopes see lots of stuff much farther away >>> than the limits of our solar system... >> >> >> >> "With the help of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large >> Telescope (ESO's VLT), astronomers have discovered and studied in detail >> the most distant source of radio emission known to date. The source is a >> "radio-loud" quasar -- a bright object with powerful jets emitting at >> radio wavelengths -- that is so far away its light has taken 13 billion >> years to reach us. The discovery could provide important clues to help >> astronomers understand the early Universe." >> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210308084222.htm > > the power source in that case is huge, not just one transmitter on a > planet, but billions of suns emitting energy. > > try running the equations with a million watts (possable to generate) > and see how far you can go, assume a bandwidth of 1 mhz This is called "moving the goalposts." since you wrote, "we cannot pickup signals outside of our solar system." I do agree that there is a matter of power level to be considered, and also that this is a science newsgroup where statements couched in terms of absolutes will generally fail, as has yours. I have no argument with your modified rendition. My purpose was not to demean, but to steer the discussion (along with Paul) back to the things we know to work. Godspeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76ubth-84e2.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #829174 |
Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >> 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. > > As far as I know, radio telescopes see lots of stuff much farther away than the limits of our solar system... That come from sources with energies far beyond what we are capable of producing and far beyond what an intelligent species would need for communications given the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 01:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <se01m5$tih$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829171 |
On 7/29/2021 6:46 PM, Sergio wrote: > try it, we cannot pickup signals outside of our solar system. > We are still successfully receiving signals from (and transmitting to) Voyager 1 and 2. I don't know the power of their transmitters but the total power available (at launch) was 470 watts. It's less now.
[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 | #829107 |
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 | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 15:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sduvef$f53$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829138 |
On 7/29/2021 1:23 PM, 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. It's actually a subscript, not a postscript. > >> 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 No, it means earthlike, or habitable by life. > > 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. > And ne (or nₑ as Drake wrote it) is different from n, they both have two different meanings. > > N is the answer, n is any number, can be changed. And nₑ is the particular number for earthlike planets per stellar system. > > > n = 2 You mean nₑ = 2, of course. > > > 2 planets. That's one possibility.
[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 | #829138 |
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 | #829296 |
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 | #829296 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90ad41c1-9d14-47f0-82cb-70ae461095c4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829314 |
On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 8:17:36 PM UTC-7, 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, 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???? Starfaker, you just don't get it, so you should probably just retire before your head explodes. You just don't have a clue... the planets of our solar system have nothing to do with the Drake Equation...
[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 | #829314 |
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 | #829332 |
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 | #829487 |
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 | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc06c734-a1a5-4869-b171-ae1ba5daa03an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #829489 |
On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > i don't get it? Correct, you don't get it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <se54vs$1j1v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #829296 |
On 7/31/2021 4:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Okay, just a little re-cap... ... > He did the same thing with all the others.. > > but with ne = 2 He didn't want to name the second planet. There is no second (or first) planet. ne is an average. > > 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? It is an average. For whatever reason, he used 2.0 as the average. Again there are no wrong answers (except 0) so he could have use 1.1, or .0000001 if he thought they were extra rare or 5.6 if common or whatever. > > > 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. No, it is an average of 2 earthlike planets per stellar system. Our own solar system, with only one earthlike planet, is below that average. Being an average, there are no names for anything. > > > Now, *Mars* is the Fraudulent answer in Drake's Equation. > > > "Mars" makes the whole entire Drake's Equation a complete FRAUD! You are the fraud for your false claims. > > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 09:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sdeev7$1h2v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #828619 |
On 7/23/2021 2:49 AM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. >> >> >> n = >> >> Drake put in a value for n = >> >> and that value he used is fraud. >> >> Look up what number he put for n = >> >> and you will see the fraud. > Drake's Equation is cool because you come up with an interesting and useful answer even if some of the inputs are off by an order of magnitude or two. It shows that almost certainly there's intelligent life "out there". And yes, unless one of the terms is 0, the estimate is going to be nonzero. (and if it is 0, how/why are we here?) An interesting sort-of equivalent is what Google does or did to job seekers applying to work there. They'd ask a question like "How many ping pong balls would be needed to fill a school bus?" They were not interested in an exact answer, they were interested in seeing the thought process of the applicant to see if they would come up with a Drake Equation like estimate. Like "A ping pong ball is about 2" in diameter and a school bus is about 40' long and...so it should be able to hold X ping pong balls" even if the estimates of 40' or 2" are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sdf029$omh$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #828628 |
On 7/23/2021 8:07 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Like "A ping pong ball is about 2" in diameter and a school bus is about > 40' long and...so it should be able to hold X ping pong balls" even if > the estimates of 40' or 2" are wrong. It is that kind of estimate that leads one to think of you as a dung beetle :) -- 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 | 2021-07-23 17:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ilv90pFjj72U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #828616 |
On 23-Jul-21 4:15 pm, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Paul Alsing wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: >>>>>>>>>>> Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Word salad... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wiki (the facuci science website) reads: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I doubt that anyone would argue about this... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never mentioned anything about planets... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... is this enough for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy  and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg >>>>>> >>>>>> and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. >>>>>> >>>>>> An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's Fake Science! >>>>>> >>>>>> Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg >>>>>> >>>>>> and then you multiply it by a million???? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is 'fauci science'... >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... >>>>>> >>>>>> If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >>>>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge >>>>>> the unchallengeable. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: >>>>> >>>>> “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. >>>>> Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s >>>>> extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.†>>>>> >>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ >>>>> >>>>> The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... >>>>> >>>>> Data???? wat those dat mean? >>>>> >>>>> "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? >>>>> >>>>> "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? >>>>> >>>>> That means, some fauci guy got a calculator >>>>> took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! >>>>> >>>>> I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! >>>>> >>>> about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations: >>>> >>>> "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. >>>> The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. >>>> Nor can there be “informed guesses.†If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice. >>>> As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions†to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. >>>> Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. >>>> I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. >>>> The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." >>>> -- >>> The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be >>> >>> The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true. >>> >>> Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise. >> >> I understand yous people...if the information is not in your head then it doesn't exist anywhere else..limited intelligence they call it. Know your limits. >> >> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifq6nLv_fxAhWBAp0JHTrCALQQxfQBMAJ6BAgJEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fscience%2Fastronomy-exoplanets-kepler.html&usg=AOvVaw1HR650WjY-flEnpnUWn8Wp >> >> ""Dr. Batalha said that young scientists in the future might yet find a way to improve the value of eta-Earth: “Until then, this will be the de facto standard.” >> >> The value of eta-Earth is an important and hitherto unknown factor in a mathematical expression known as the Drake Equation. >> It is used by astronomers to estimate how many technological civilizations might exist in the galaxy, and that we might be able to contact by radio or other means some cosmic day."" >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=kepler-186f+planet+drake&sxsrf=ALeKk016_iSLqLuI10PrW1-ItBmGu63UWw:1626985228884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PykwPfxAhXBZc0KHRJVCQYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=1067 > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > n = > > Drake put in a value for n = > > and that value he used is fraud. > > Look up what number he put for n = > > and you will see the fraud. Drake's equation is useless anyway, because we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will evolve when conditions are suitable. It may be pretty much inevitable, or Earth may be a truly freak occurrence that has happened nowhere else in the observable universe. Until we have some handle on that, Drake's equation is nothing more than a curiosity - if that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web