It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adding to the Drake Equation?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Hey I am not that great at Math but I am wondering is it within the realm of probability to add stats onto the Drake equation to attempt to state that a civilization could have advanced to our stage of technology so long ago (the scale of Billions of years) that it could conceivably achieve omnipotence? Or would I get stoned to death with calculators for thinking it.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

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

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

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

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

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

As a former high achiever of the Stanford Mathmatic Program, the Drake Equation still makes no sense to me.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


I guess you would have to ask yourself first this question. Do you really think it would take "billions" of years?

How many generations of your own family line can you recount backwards?

Parents, grandparents, great grand parents...those are the most you could know in your body. How many more further back then that? Really anything further back then you can know...you don't really know. Make sense? For all we know, history could be completely made up. It only takes 3 generations to break the chain of absolute memory...very easy to manipulate and people multiply fast. Slow at first, but if you consider in the 60's the world was only around 2 Billion and now we are close to 7...that is fast. I don't think it takes as long as they tell us...I gotta hunch.

Peace



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
What I mean is if this is the drake equation...

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

Equals

R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
Times
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
Times
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Times
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
Times
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Times
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
Times
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[2]



Can I just throw something onto the end like

Times

Tp is the number of years previous to our own civilization to achieve the same level of technology

and change the N at the beginning to number of civilizations to have achieved omnipotence



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pokémon
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

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

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

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

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

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

As a former high achiever of the Stanford Mathmatic Program, the Drake Equation still makes no sense to me.


Right I do not understand some things like "Number that go on to develope life at some point" and basically every single one after that. I can understand some like our theory based off of fact finding of the number of planets that could harbor life being based off our own planets ability to sustain life and looking for similiar planets but the rest just seem like they should be a 50/50 either yes or no



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
You dont need an equasion the answer is in front of your eyes in the sky.
There are trillions of stars in our galaxy there are trillions of galaxies. and all those add up to the universe . that then is multiplied by the number of hypothetical infinite parralell universes thus creates one answer
There are an infinite amount of planets with life on it and possibly an infinite amount of your exact duplicate



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pokémon
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

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

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

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

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

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

As a former high achiever of the Stanford Mathmatic Program, the Drake Equation still makes no sense to me.

It would be bad if it did. The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake of SETI. Up to these days, the only parameter in the equation that can be computed with some accuracy is R*. The rest of the parameters rely on your estimates wildly derived from . . . whatever. The equation is the most useless tool science has ever come up with -- it was prematuraly born. But if the technical aspects of the search for exoplanets gets much better and more advanced yet, a representative sample will be accumulated and some of the other parameters may find their application, or the equation may be modified with respect to the obtained data on the exoplanets.



[edit on 5/18/2009 by stander]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


I agree, however this equation would be worth a lot if there where some more accurate numbers for these variables. Inserting unknown amounts to variables is faulty. This equation is however exactly what you would need to serve it's purpose.(if we knew more of the numbers we are really talking about)



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Who needs an equation when a thousand sightings equals a UFO, or when a hundred blurry pictures equals an alien?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
If the universe is perceived a s fractal does this mean that infinity may not be so infinite?
That reality will simply repeat the pattern, "fractaly", and that there is a finite perspective to an infinite universe, or rather as the universe would repeat itself, it transfers to another dimension where the physics and variables may or may not be slightly different?

Would this also apply to the Drake equation?

If so, the implications are truly staggering.
The potential is there, no doubt, but do we have the potential to understand it?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join