Discussion in 'The Pub' started by rh, May 2, 2016.
Quoting from the paper:
So are you saying you agree, disagree, or are you convinced the universe is all about us?
Just keep in mind that in our short lifetime official scientific opinion, or at least published opinion has morphed from impossible, to possible to probable.
The problem as I see it is that science only measures and observes what it knows to measure or observe. If we didn't someone collide with some other life science would have no way of determining its existence (or lack thereof).
The possibility that they exist is one thing...The possibility of running into them is another.
Just keep in mind how much may be lost in stories re-told.
Every civilization capable of recording their history has implied in some way, by what ever name they chose, that our existence here is being overseen by some undefinable other worldly force.
This is a very broad and often times arbitrary assumption.
We often forget that it's not only about where we are in the universe, but When we are in the universe in relationship to other celestial bodies and their relative state of development.
What if radio waves are so primitive that that aren't being heard?
I would think if you had the capability to communicate vast distances, it would be using some sort of light spectrum?
There are too many unknowns to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. My own hunch is that there is life out there - there are simply too many stars with too many planets round them for some number not to sustain life. Whether it's life we would recognize as such, and whether we'd ever be able to communicate with them is another matter. Even if life is a fluke accident in the universe, there are so many planets out there that I think it more likely than not that such an accident would happen more than once. But it is just a hunch
i wonder what their fast food is like?
Dark Matter Communications
Now seeking intergalactic sponsors.
Ah, the Drake equation again ...
You gotta hand it to them for taking a wild ass guess and turning it into a scholarly looking research paper.
I think that generally summarizes the new paper very well. The Drake equation started with a set of variables thought of as critical to measuring the probability of other technological civilizations in the universe, with the constraint that the uncertainty in some variables was stupid-big. As findings in cosmology / astrophysics inform astrobiology, the Drake equation gets tighter.
And yes, given what seem to intrinsic barriers due to the distances and time scales involved, the odds are vanishingly small that we're going to bump into any of them (at least while we're both still alive).
Imagine though, stumbling onto some distant planet and finding the ruins of a complex, non-human society. An amazing thing to consider.
Yeah imagine how thick their accents would be.
As long as we're talking What If....
What if, the earth itself is actually The Ark of legend? Or one of many?
0.000000000000000000000001 (Just wanted to type out 10^-24, but not sure I counted right)
Cool read - thanks for posting.
I always thought of the DE as saying "these are the things we'd need to measure in order to make the best possible guess."
The rigor is in the breakdown of things we'd need to know.
While we're at it, "what if" we didn't consider this thread an extension to the blogs over on The Discovery Channel site ?
I was trying to take myself back 5000 years trying to somehow explain "All This" or at least all they understood or assumed
to a population of complete illiterates.
The part that confused me was the 1/100 adjustment for the probability of Earth leading to life under the same conditions. Where did that figure come from?