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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #271339

Re: Earths

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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"????

Back to alt.astronomy | 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 Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-07-23 20:49 -0700
  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 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 Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 08:50 -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 Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 08:51 -0700
          Re: Earths Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-07-26 08:53 -0700
  Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 12:10 -0700
    Re: Earths Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-07-24 12:42 -0700
  Re: Earths The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-28 23:01 -0700
    Re: Earths 21blackswan@gmail.com - 2015-07-29 07:42 -0700

csiph-web