[Appolinaria]

I never understood this equation. It's too simple... Something's not right. Hah.

[dimreepr]

Appolinaria, on 14 January 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

I never understood this equation. It's too simple... Something's not right. Hah.

I would never say simple it's function's pretty much cover it and may still do but it's deffinately not laughable.

[Airbrush]

How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity.

[Tres Juicy]

Airbrush, on 14 January 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity.

We haven't though

[dimreepr]

Airbrush, on 14 January 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity.

sort of my point please read the last post of page 1 this guy has almost hyjacked the post by pushing it into a 2nd page.
(edit) Sorry airbrush I thought I was replying to appolinaria

This post has been edited by dimreepr: 14 January 2012 - 06:07 PM

[dimreepr]

dimreepr, on 14 January 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

So isn't this the extra function the equation needs. Time in terms of the intellegent life to have time to devolope technology to send the signal and the disconect of the relative time frame?

I'm sorry to bang on about this and yes when all is said and done it's not really important, it won't help seti in any way at all, but its been bugging me all day. IF this is the extra filter needed for a more realistic number, and thus lessen the fermi question's importance, then what number can we assign to it???

[iNow]

ajb, on 13 January 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

As a point of interest, does anyone know what numbers have been proposed?

The wiki has a summary, and some references for each: http://en.wikipedia...._the_parameters


You might also check out the Drake Matrix to get a quick overview of what characteristics feed those values: http://www.lpi.usra....03/pdf/1114.pdf

[Airbrush]

The reason why I think the Drake Equation will always be too vague for science, is because no matter how much you know about solar systems and planets in the habitable zone, we will never know if life became intelligent, unless it broadcasts something. We will someday be able to say how many planets have life on them by analyzing atmospheres for oxygen and other indicators, but our telescopes will never be able to see intelligence, unless they detect waste gases in their atmospheres that indicate industry.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

"Values based on the above estimates:

R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2,[citation needed] fl = 0.33,[citation needed] fi = 0.01,[citation needed] fc = 0.01,[citation needed] and L = 10000 years[citation needed]
result in

N = 7 × 0.5 × 2 × 0.33 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10000 = 2.31

"Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind.

"...Another objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead.

"...One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference."

This post has been edited by Airbrush: 17 January 2012 - 07:09 PM