Drake equation (I found this interesting)

Miscellaneous General
1

I like J. Diamonds assessment of intelligent life outside our universe and i think i paints a grim picture for NASA and government funding for such endeavors.

For example, we spend millions beaming radio signals into space hoping that intelligent life will receive, interpret and someday respond. Equations such as The Drake Equation tell us

The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{\ast} \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_{\ell} \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L !

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year inour galaxy

fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets

ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Such estimates make life on other planets appealing and probable–even intelligent life. Yet, this is not the point. The question is not whether there is intelligent life, but is there radio type technology to interpret these radio signals that we are beaming to them? Diamond stresses no…

Radio technology is a means of intelligence and mechanical dexterity. Yet, there are few animals that meet both requirements. There is simply no room/need in evolution for both (the dolphin has the former but not the latter, the spider has the latter but not the former).

Take into account that “only one of the billions of species that have existed on Earth showed any proclivities toward radios and this species failed to do so for 69,999/70,000th of our seven million year history”. Such concepts were unheard of as recent as 1800.

2

The Drake equation is pseudo-science. It just multiplies a bunch of unknowns and calls it science because it’s an equation. But it doesn’t actualy tell us anything new. The assessment that extraterrestrial life is “likely” is inserted by our prejudge, because we can’t comprehend large numbers.

3

^

Also, the uncertainty in measuring low probability events is very very high.

4

We sent just 17 radio messages to the stars (excluding the tongue-in-cheek Across the Universe and Hello from Earth). It’s pretty much like shooting in the ocean at random with a bolt action rifle hoping to hit a fish. Even then I agree with your point: can the message be interpreted? I am not entirely sure. Can the message be interpreted as coming from an artificial source harnessed by intelligent beings? Perhaps, though we are still hotly debating whatever the Wow! Signal came from an artificial source or not. Can the message be picked up by recieving equipment? To maximize chance all messages are usually sent around 1420 MHz, the hydrogen resonating frequence. Since hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe that makes sense, though it assumes somebody else has initiated (or will initiate, given the transit time) something akin to SETI.

5

Common sense

6

Jeremiah: I’m sure you’ve seen Cosmos. Carl Sagan had a great explanation of the Drake Equation:

7

I love Sagans voice. The Cosmos is now available through Netflix

8

[quoteuser=“Jeremiah Dyke”]
I love Sagans voice. The Cosmos is now available through Netflix.
[/quote]

It’s on Hulu as well, though it had periodical ads that play during each episode.