Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358436 > unrolled thread

Earths

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-23 11:22 -0700
    Re: Earths David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-07-23 18:32 -0500
      Re: Earths Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 19:46 -0500
      Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 00:44 -0700
    Re: Earths Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 19:41 -0500
    Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 00:42 -0700
      Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 22:46 -0700
        Re: Earths pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-25 10:38 -0700
          Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 18:28 -0700
            Re: Earths pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-25 20:31 -0700
              Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 20:59 -0700
                Re: Earths pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-25 21:37 -0700
                Re: Earths alber <invelid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-25 23:55 -0500
                  Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 23:37 -0700
                    Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 23:53 -0700
                      Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-26 00:13 -0700
                        Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-26 13:29 -0700
    Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 12:10 -0700
    Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-28 23:01 -0700

#358436 — Earths

NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492



I don't understand
this search
for another Earth.


There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.


There is simply
no Reason
for Life to
exist anywhere
else in the universe.

No reason whatsoever!


Yous cannot even give me one reason...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#358477

On 7/23/2015 1:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
>
>
>
> I don't understand
> this search
> for another Earth.
>
>
> There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
>
>
> There is simply
> no Reason
> for Life to
> exist anywhere
> else in the universe.
>
> No reason whatsoever!
>
>
> Yous cannot even give me one reason...
>
chuckle, there is much you do not understand.

you form your opinions, your beliefs, in some fantasy land where you are 
all knowing....

your statements attest to not only your ignorance but also indicates an 
extreme failure of imagination....

chuckle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358485

On 7/23/2015 6:32 PM, David Staup wrote:
> On 7/23/2015 1:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin
>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
>>
>>
>>

>> I don't understand
>> this search
>> for another Earth.
>>
>>
>> There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
>>

>> There is simply
>> no Reason
>> for Life to
>> exist anywhere
>> else in the universe.
>>
>> No reason whatsoever!
>>

>> Yous cannot even give me one reason...
>>
> chuckle, there is much you do not understand.
>
> you form your opinions, your beliefs, in some fantasy land where you are
> all knowing....
>
> your statements attest to not only your ignorance but also indicates an
> extreme failure of imagination....
>
> chuckle

Starmaker is OK, no need to personally attack him, he is a know quantity 
in sci.physics, and Uncle Al (UA) has an excellent writeup on Starmaker.

However, a poster that uses that lame word  'chuckle' in their post, 
like John Gabriel- the sick troll pushing a misleading NewCalculus is 
questionable,

Instead of 'chuckle'  use  'quack quack' OK?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358499

David Staup wrote:
> 
> On 7/23/2015 1:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin
> > http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand
> > this search
> > for another Earth.
> >
> >
> > There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
> >
> >
> > There is simply
> > no Reason
> > for Life to
> > exist anywhere
> > else in the universe.
> >
> > No reason whatsoever!
> >
> >
> > Yous cannot even give me one reason...
> >
> chuckle, there is much you do not understand.
> 
> you form your opinions, your beliefs, in some fantasy land where you are
> all knowing....
> 
> your statements attest to not only your ignorance but also indicates an
> extreme failure of imagination....
> 
> chuckle


Translation: You cannot even give me one reason.


I don't accept ...failure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358483

On 7/23/2015 1:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin

>
>
> I don't understand
> this search
> for another Earth.
>
>
> There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
>
>
> There is simply
> no Reason
> for Life to
> exist anywhere
> else in the universe.
>
> No reason whatsoever!
>
>
> Yous cannot even give me one reason...
>


There is another Earth, in the same orbit,
but on the opposite side of the sun where we cannot see it.
Their is even a movie out about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358498

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:22:19 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > NASA discovers Earth's bigger, older cousin
> > http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand
> > this search
> > for another Earth.
> >
> >
> > There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
> >
> >
> > There is simply
> > no Reason
> > for Life to
> > exist anywhere
> > else in the universe.
> >
> > No reason whatsoever!
> >
> >
> > Yous cannot even give me one reason...
> 
> The Drake Equation says you are probably wrong...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
> 
> ... unless you can prove that at least one of its parameters have a zero value... and good luck proving that.
> 
> According to your statement and your reasoning, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how there could ever be life on Earth!
> 
> \Paul A

Drake Equation is wrong. The numbers are wrong. It's based on the number
that Mars contains life.


didn't anybody tell you that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358581

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 12:42:43 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:22:19 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > NASA discovers Earth's bigger, older cousin
> > > > http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand
> > > > this search
> > > > for another Earth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is simply
> > > > no Reason
> > > > for Life to
> > > > exist anywhere
> > > > else in the universe.
> > > >
> > > > No reason whatsoever!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yous cannot even give me one reason...
> > >
> > > The Drake Equation says you are probably wrong...
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
> > >
> > > ... unless you can prove that at least one of its parameters have a zero value... and good luck proving that.
> > >
> > > According to your statement and your reasoning, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how there could ever be life on Earth!
> > >
> > > \Paul A
> >
> > Drake Equation is wrong. The numbers are wrong. It's based on the number
> > that Mars contains life.
> >
> >
> > didn't anybody tell you that?
> 
> The Drake Equation has no numbers other than the probabilities YOU provide for each component. The Drake Equation ALWAYS produces an answer, unless any one of its parameters is zero, and there is no way you or anyone else can prove any of them to be zero.
> 
> The Drake Equation has nothing whatsoever to do with Mars...


I see...no one told you.

this is drake's equation
N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L


the value of  "ne" is 2


planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358626

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

> this is drake's equation
> N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> 
> 
> the value of  "ne" is 2
> 
> 
> planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?

Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. Where did you get the notion that "ne" is 2? I would suspect that "ne" is much less than 2, probably closer to zero (bot NOT zero) than it is to 2.

Every parameter of the Drake Equation is highly uncertain and can have wildly different values. The only way for this equation to show that there is no other life in the universe is to prove that any element within it has a value of zero, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that.

From the link I provided;

ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[23][24] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.[25] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies fp*ne is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone may be as little as 12 light-years away, according to the scientists.[23][24]
Even if planets are in the habitable zone, however, the number of planets with the right proportion of elements is difficult to estimate.[26] Brad Gibson, Yeshe Fenner, and Charley Lineweaver determined that about 10% of star systems in the Milky Way galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable for a sufficient time.[27] Also, the rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare, has advanced a set of arguments based on the Drake equation that the number of planets or satellites that could support life is small, and quite possibly limited to Earth alone; if Earth is the only habitable planet in the galaxy, the estimate of ne would be around 1×10-11 or less.
The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere.
On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[28] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358656

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > this is drake's equation
> > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> >
> >
> > the value of  "ne" is 2
> >
> >
> > planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?
> 
> Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. Where did you get the notion that "ne" is 2? I would suspect that "ne" is much less than 2, probably closer to zero (bot NOT zero) than it is to 2.
> 
> Every parameter of the Drake Equation is highly uncertain and can have wildly different values. The only way for this equation to show that there is no other life in the universe is to prove that any element within it has a value of zero, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that.
> 
> From the link I provided;
> 
> ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> 
> In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[23][24] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.[25] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies fp*ne is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone may be as little as 12 light-years away, according
> 
> The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere.
> On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[28] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.


I was bringing you up to speed with Drake's Equation because you brought it up first and you seem to lack
accurate information with what Drake had on his mind.

I'm not interested in 'NASA's Equations'. 

There are a lot of science fiction books on life on other planets and other earth's you might be interested in..
go the book store...it's called The Science Fiction section.

If you have children, have them read science fiction books...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358662

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 6:28:14 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > > this is drake's equation
> > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > >
> > >
> > > the value of  "ne" is 2
> > >
> > >
> > > planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?
> > 
> > Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. Where did you get the notion that "ne" is 2? I would suspect that "ne" is much less than 2, probably closer to zero (bot NOT zero) than it is to 2.
> > 
> > Every parameter of the Drake Equation is highly uncertain and can have wildly different values. The only way for this equation to show that there is no other life in the universe is to prove that any element within it has a value of zero, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that.
> > 
> > From the link I provided;
> > 
> > ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> > 
> > In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[23][24] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.[25] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies fp*ne is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone may be as little as 12 light-years away, according
> > 
> > The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere.
> > On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[28] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
> 
> 
> I was bringing you up to speed with Drake's Equation because you brought it up first and you seem to lack
> accurate information with what Drake had on his mind.

You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you, but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned, you are on your own, and good riddance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358663

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 6:28:14 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > this is drake's equation
> > > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the value of  "ne" is 2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. Where did you get the notion that "ne" is 2? I would suspect that "ne" is much less than 2, probably closer to zero (bot NOT zero) than it is to 2.
> > >
> > > Every parameter of the Drake Equation is highly uncertain and can have wildly different values. The only way for this equation to show that there is no other life in the universe is to prove that any element within it has a value of zero, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that.
> > >
> > > From the link I provided;
> > >
> > > ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> > >
> > > In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[23][24] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.[25] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies fp*ne is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone may be as little as 12 light-years away, accor
> > >
> > > The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere.
> > > On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[28] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
> >
> >
> > I was bringing you up to speed with Drake's Equation because you brought it up first and you seem to lack
> > accurate information with what Drake had on his mind.
> 
> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you, but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned, you are on your own, and good riddance.


Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor blades at walmart...hurry.)

N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
value of  "ne" is 2 (according to Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)

now, supose that number is wrong...


ne =
,
the
number
of
planets
in
a
given
system
that
are
ecologically
suitable
for
life


Any 'fool' can answer this question.

Now, what number is that?

How many planets do you know that are 

"ecologically suitable for life"????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358665

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 8:59:40 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 6:28:14 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:45:35 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > this is drake's equation
> > > > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the value of  "ne" is 2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > planet Earth is one of them, what planet is the second one?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. Where did you get the notion that "ne" is 2? I would suspect that "ne" is much less than 2, probably closer to zero (bot NOT zero) than it is to 2.
> > > >
> > > > Every parameter of the Drake Equation is highly uncertain and can have wildly different values. The only way for this equation to show that there is no other life in the universe is to prove that any element within it has a value of zero, and I doubt anyone could ever prove that.
> > > >
> > > > From the link I provided;
> > > >
> > > > ne = the average number of planets (satellites may perhaps sometimes be just as good candidates) that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> > > >
> > > > In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[23][24] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.[25] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies fp*ne is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone may be as little as 12 light-years away, accor
> > > >
> > > > The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays, a property not conducive to life as we know it. Simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmosphere.
> > > > On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets; it is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarfs might have habitable zones.[28] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was bringing you up to speed with Drake's Equation because you brought it up first and you seem to lack
> > > accurate information with what Drake had on his mind.
> > 
> > You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you, but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned, you are on your own, and good riddance.
> 
> 
> Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor blades at walmart...hurry.)
> 
> N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> value of  "ne" is 2 (according to Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
> 
> now, supose that number is wrong...
> 
> 
> ne =
> ,
> the
> number
> of
> planets
> in
> a
> given
> system
> that
> are
> ecologically
> suitable
> for
> life
> 
> 
> Any 'fool' can answer this question.
> 
> Now, what number is that?
> 
> How many planets do you know that are 
> 
> "ecologically suitable for life"????

I'm sorry, you really don't understand at all, you don't have a clue... do you have any concerp at all about the definition of 'estimate"? I didn't think so...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358666

On 7/25/2015 10:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>>>>> this is drake's equation N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
>>>>>

>>
>> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to
>> be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the
>> simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't
>> have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you,
>> but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned,
>> you are on your own, and good riddance.
>

> Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor
> blades at walmart...hurry.)
>
> N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L value of  "ne" is 2 (according to
> Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
>
> now, supose that number is wrong...
>


>
> How many planets do you know that are
>
> "ecologically suitable for life"????
>

Lots, they have something like McDonald, and Wall marts, and Air
Condition places.  Also they must have cars to get around the surface.
OR swim fins if it is all water.
  Actually How could I know, I have only been on one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358670

alber wrote:
> 
> On 7/25/2015 10:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>>> this is drake's equation N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> >>>>>
> 
> >>
> >> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to
> >> be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the
> >> simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't
> >> have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you,
> >> but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned,
> >> you are on your own, and good riddance.
> >
> 
> > Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor
> > blades at walmart...hurry.)
> >
> > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L value of  "ne" is 2 (according to
> > Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
> >
> > now, supose that number is wrong...
> >
> 
> >
> > How many planets do you know that are
> >
> > "ecologically suitable for life"????
> >
> 
> Lots, they have something like McDonald, and Wall marts, and Air
> Condition places.  Also they must have cars to get around the surface.
> OR swim fins if it is all water.
>   Actually How could I know, I have only been on one.


Here is how Drake thought:

"In our own solar system there are several bodies 
that may be suitable for life of some sort: the Earth 
certainly, and perhaps Mars, Titan and Jupiter. Once 
life originates, it tends to be very adaptable and 
tenacious. There must be many different environments 
suitable for life in a given planetary system. But 
conservatively we choose ne=2."



Now,  Mars, Titan and Jupiter don't have a McDonald's....
so that means ne=2 is incorrect.

Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358672

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> alber wrote:
> >
> > On 7/25/2015 10:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >>>>> this is drake's equation N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > >>>>>
> >
> > >>
> > >> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to
> > >> be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the
> > >> simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't
> > >> have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you,
> > >> but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned,
> > >> you are on your own, and good riddance.
> > >
> >
> > > Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor
> > > blades at walmart...hurry.)
> > >
> > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L value of  "ne" is 2 (according to
> > > Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
> > >
> > > now, supose that number is wrong...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > How many planets do you know that are
> > >
> > > "ecologically suitable for life"????
> > >
> >
> > Lots, they have something like McDonald, and Wall marts, and Air
> > Condition places.  Also they must have cars to get around the surface.
> > OR swim fins if it is all water.
> >   Actually How could I know, I have only been on one.
> 
> Here is how Drake thought:
> 
> "In our own solar system there are several bodies
> that may be suitable for life of some sort: the Earth
> certainly, and perhaps Mars, Titan and Jupiter. Once
> life originates, it tends to be very adaptable and
> tenacious. There must be many different environments
> suitable for life in a given planetary system. But
> conservatively we choose ne=2."
> 
> Now,  Mars, Titan and Jupiter don't have a McDonald's....
> so that means ne=2 is incorrect.
> 
> Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!

The next Drake random variable is the number
ne of ‘‘Earth-type’’ planets in a given star system. Taking
example from the Solar System, since only the Earth is
truly ‘‘Earth-type’’, the mean value of
ne is clearly 1, but the standard deviation is not zero if we assume that Mars
also may be regarded as Earth-type. Since there are thus
two Earth-type planets in the Solar System, we must
assume a standard deviation of 1 =2 Earth and Mars.



Now, does anybody here think Mars is "ecologically suitable for life"?



Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!


Trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358676

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > alber wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/25/2015 10:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >>>>> this is drake's equation N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to
> > > >> be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the
> > > >> simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't
> > > >> have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you,
> > > >> but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned,
> > > >> you are on your own, and good riddance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor
> > > > blades at walmart...hurry.)
> > > >
> > > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L value of  "ne" is 2 (according to
> > > > Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
> > > >
> > > > now, supose that number is wrong...
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How many planets do you know that are
> > > >
> > > > "ecologically suitable for life"????
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lots, they have something like McDonald, and Wall marts, and Air
> > > Condition places.  Also they must have cars to get around the surface.
> > > OR swim fins if it is all water.
> > >   Actually How could I know, I have only been on one.
> >
> > Here is how Drake thought:
> >
> > "In our own solar system there are several bodies
> > that may be suitable for life of some sort: the Earth
> > certainly, and perhaps Mars, Titan and Jupiter. Once
> > life originates, it tends to be very adaptable and
> > tenacious. There must be many different environments
> > suitable for life in a given planetary system. But
> > conservatively we choose ne=2."
> >
> > Now,  Mars, Titan and Jupiter don't have a McDonald's....
> > so that means ne=2 is incorrect.
> >
> > Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!
> 
> The next Drake random variable is the number
> ne of ‘‘Earth-type’’ planets in a given star system. Taking
> example from the Solar System, since only the Earth is
> truly ‘‘Earth-type’’, the mean value of
> ne is clearly 1, but the standard deviation is not zero if we assume that Mars
> also may be regarded as Earth-type. Since there are thus
> two Earth-type planets in the Solar System, we must
> assume a standard deviation of 1 =2 Earth and Mars.
> 
> Now, does anybody here think Mars is "ecologically suitable for life"?
> 
> Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!
> 
> Trash.



I keep seeing the number 2 value for ne

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54a472ad6da81119318b4569-960/drake%20equation%20table.png



Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358751

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > alber wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 7/25/2015 10:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>> this is drake's equation N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You don't have a scientific bone in your body and show yourself to
> > > > >> be an idiot over and over again. The Drake Equation is one of the
> > > > >> simplest concepts in all of science, and yet you apparently don't
> > > > >> have any chance to understand it. I was only trying to help you,
> > > > >> but that is like talking to a mud fence. As far as I am concerned,
> > > > >> you are on your own, and good riddance.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Okay...get ready to commit suicide...(there is a sale of blue razor
> > > > > blades at walmart...hurry.)
> > > > >
> > > > > N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L value of  "ne" is 2 (according to
> > > > > Drake himself, and he was thinking of earth and mars)
> > > > >
> > > > > now, suppose that number is wrong...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How many planets do you know that are
> > > > >
> > > > > "ecologically suitable for life"????
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lots, they have something like McDonald, and Wall marts, and Air
> > > > Condition places.  Also they must have cars to get around the surface.
> > > > OR swim fins if it is all water.
> > > >   Actually How could I know, I have only been on one.
> > >
> > > Here is how Drake thought:
> > >
> > > "In our own solar system there are several bodies
> > > that may be suitable for life of some sort: the Earth
> > > certainly, and perhaps Mars, Titan and Jupiter. Once
> > > life originates, it tends to be very adaptable and
> > > tenacious. There must be many different environments
> > > suitable for life in a given planetary system. But
> > > conservatively we choose ne=2."
> > >
> > > Now,  Mars, Titan and Jupiter don't have a McDonald's....
> > > so that means ne=2 is incorrect.
> > >
> > > Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!
> >
> > The next Drake random variable is the number
> > ne of ‘‘Earth-type’’ planets in a given star system. Taking
> > example from the Solar System, since only the Earth is
> > truly ‘‘Earth-type’’, the mean value of
> > ne is clearly 1, but the standard deviation is not zero if we assume that Mars
> > also may be regarded as Earth-type. Since there are thus
> > two Earth-type planets in the Solar System, we must
> > assume a standard deviation of 1 =2 Earth and Mars.
> >
> > Now, does anybody here think Mars is "ecologically suitable for life"?
> >
> > Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!
> >
> > Trash.
> 
> I keep seeing the number 2 value for ne
> 
> http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54a472ad6da81119318b4569-960/drake%20equation%20table.png
> 
> Throw The Drake Equation into the garbage can where it belongs. It's garbage!



In other words...The Drake Equation is mathematicaly a fraud. Drake is a fraud.

That also means...the SETI Institute is which was founded and based on The Drake Equation,
the whole entire SETI Institute project is a fraud.

There are no other earths, there are no other life elsewhere in the universe.


There is no reason why there should be.

(and please, no more fradulent reasons...I will not put up with it.)


There are no other earths, there are no other life elsewhere in the universe.


 There is simply
 no Reason
 for Life or other earths to
 exist anywhere
 else in the universe.
 
 No reason whatsoever!
 
 
 Yous cannot even give me one reason...




The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358524

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> NASA discovers Earth’s bigger, older cousin
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
> 
> I don't understand
> this search
> for another Earth.
> 
> There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
> 
> There is simply
> no Reason
> for Life to
> exist anywhere
> else in the universe.
> 
> No reason whatsoever!
> 
> Yous cannot even give me one reason...


NASA estimates 1 billion ‘Earths’ in our galaxy alone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/24/nasa-estimates-1-billion-earths-in-our-galaxy-alone/



What does "estimates" mean?



People don't understand what NASA is..

NASA is simply a...company
whose mission is
to search for
Earth and Life
in the universe...

regardless of the
truth that 
other earths and life
don't exist.



In other words, their mantra is:

"We don't give a fuck if earths and life don't exist elsewhere, we got nothin else to do."



They are a fruadelant company.



I don't mind exploring..
just to discover
new things...
but i don't make up
what i will find..
i just see what pops up.

If NASA wants to explore..
they should just
see what is out there
instead of making up
stuff of whats out there.

Yous insult my intelligence.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358982

pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 11:22:19 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > NASA discovers Earth's bigger, older cousin
> > http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/nasa-discovers-earths-bigger-older-cousin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227454755492
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand
> > this search
> > for another Earth.
> >
> >
> > There is simply no Reason for another Earth to exist.
> >
> >
> > There is simply
> > no Reason
> > for Life to
> > exist anywhere
> > else in the universe.
> >
> > No reason whatsoever!
> >
> >
> > Yous cannot even give me one reason...
> 
> The reason for life to exist on another planet is exactly the same as the reason for life to exist here.



and what reason is that may i ask?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web