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

Groups > sci.physics > #509307

Re: Earths

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

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?

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-23 11:22 -0700
  Re: Earths "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-23 13:11 -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 pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-23 17:48 -0700
      Re: Earths Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 20:53 -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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 18:28 -0700
        Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-25 20:59 -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 gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-26 16:01 -0500
  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

csiph-web