posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:18 AM
The Drake equasion is not stupid, it's actually a fair beginning when trying to estimate the amount of life in the universe.
The table below shows the high and low estimates of the Drake variables, according to individual Wikipedia members' discussions on that variable (as
compiled by Wikipedia member "Securiger"):
en.wikipedia.org... [Click the 'discussion' link]
LOW EST. HIGH EST. RATIO
R* 10 20 2 [rate of star formation in galaxy]
f/p .1 .75 7.5 [stars which have planets in orbit]
n/e .5 5 10 [can potentially support life]
f/l .001 1 1000 [actually go on to develop life]
f/i 10^7 .5 .5 X 10^7 [actually go on to develop intelligent life]
f/c .01 .1 10 [willing and able to communicate]
L 66 10^9 1.5 X 10^7 [expected lifetime of such a civilization]
N 3.3 X10^-11 3.75 X10^9 1.5 X 10^7
...So the numbers discussed in Wikipedia itself lead to a difference of 20 orders of magnitude, as pointed out on the wiki discussion page in
Here is a Hubble Deep Field image:
I don't think the theory should be thrown out just because the individual ranges vary widely. We really don't know what's out there, but I'm not
willing to assume we are the dominant species of the universe. These dots in the Hubble picture represent galaxies. I understand the Drake equasion
is only meant to determine potential civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy. As this picture shows, there are lots more of them, and yes its possible
that A: there are intelligent beings, and B: they know about us already.
But then, perhaps this thread has run its course. I just wanted to comment.
[edit on 12-2-2006 by smallpeeps]