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.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I have already listed the evidence that we know beyond conjecture.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again you lie. I never said anything about Drake equation being law. Please quote me where I said Drake equation is law.
You do this silly nonsense in every thread you get on. You debate against a point that was never made.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Mathematically we can weigh the probability simply based on the billions of earth like planets, extremophiles, liquid water on Mars, amino acids in the dust clouds of comets and signs of microbial life on Mars.
You can do this by simply imputing new values into Drakes equation based on current knowledge.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Drake's equation is a helpful tool to look at the probability of extraterrestrial life based on new discoveries.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Many of these cases have been investigated for years and based on the available evidence you can draw a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You have made your feelings known. You don't think you can weigh the probababilities. Other folks don't feel the same.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If uou don't feel you can weigh the probabilities and you said that, then what are you debating?
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Now can we please debate the subject at hand and not your pseudoskepticism.
You are right, you never explicitly said it was law. However, while it may not be what you said, your behavior is different. You have treated the Drake Equation as something it is not...
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
...We can look at the available evidence and weigh it as to what's the most likely explanation based on abduction cases, radar reports, mass sightings, trace evidence, videos, pictures and more.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course you read something into it that I never said. This is what pseudoskeptics do. They try to debate against a point that was never made because they can't debate the issue.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Drake's equation is a good tool to weigh the probabilities of extraterrestrial civilizations. I already told you that I'm not trying to get an exact number...
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is not a debate that asked can you weigh the probabilities. Did you read the title of the thread? If you don't think you can do this, then that's fine.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What you are doing is trying to convince other people that they can't weigh the probabilities.
This is what pseudoskeptics do.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Others can and we don't need to hear your pseudoskepticism as to why you can't.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The thread is not about debating Drake's equation
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The thread is not about your pseudoskepticism
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you can't weigh the evidence, then what's your point in this thread? You already said you can't and that's fine. We are not on this thread to debate why you can't.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So again, you already said you can't weigh the evidence.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course you read something into it that I never said. This is what pseudoskeptics do. They try to debate against a point that was never made because they can't debate the issue.
Matrix, I posted your quotes were you were treating the Drake Equation as something other than what it was intended to be. There was no reading this. You were clear about what you think it to be. Now you are claiming you never did that.
The bottom line is that rather than the probability for extraterrestrial intelligent life being 1 as Aczel claims, very conservatively from a naturalistic perspective it is much less than 10500 + 22 -1054 -100,000,000,000 -24,000,000. That is, it is less than 10-100,024,000,532. In longhand notation it would be 0.00 … 001 with 100,024,000,531 zeros between the decimal point and the 1.
Abstract
In my computational science project, the question was asked, "What is the probability of finding extraterrestrial life?". The main equation to try to answer this question has already been developed, and it is the Drake Equation. The Drake Equation can give a close estimate of the number of advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. Part of this equation includes the probability of the right planet forming around the right type of star with the right conditions for life to develop. This was the part I tried to model. The probability includes several factors, such as star luminosity, the planet's size, the planet's density, the planet's gravity, and the velocity of the planet. These factors were multiplied together and graphed. I made nine graphs based on several different conditions, although many more could have been made. Basically, I graphed the possibility of finding planets with life that were approximately the size of Mars, Earth, and Jupiter, which were orbiting certain types of stars. These types of stars included the Class-G star, ( which is category Sol is placed in), the Class-M star, (which is larger than the sun, but has a surface temperature of about 2,000 K, where Sol has a temperature of 6,000 K), and the Class-A star, ( which is smaller than Sol and has a temperature of about 10,000 K). However, these graphs were to scale because of the enormous masses of planets. The mass of the planet should be multiplied by 1*1020 . The end results showed that there was an increase in the probability of finding a Jupiter-sized planet with life than the other tow planets. the graphs also showed that there was a greater probability of finding a planet with life around a Class-M star.
We think the probability of finding extraterrestrial life would be best on Earth-like planets.
To address this problem, Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis of the University of New South Wales in Sydney looked at the implications of the rapid beginning of life on Earth for the probability of it evolving elsewhere.
Most Earthlike Planet Yet Found May Have Liquid Oceans
It probably wouldn't feel exactly like home. But the planet known as Gliese 581d has a lot more in common with Earth than astronomers first thought.
New measurements of the planet's orbit place it firmly in a region where conditions would be right for liquid water, and thus life as we know it, astronomer Michel Mayor, from Geneva University in Switzerland, announced today.
"It lies in the [life-supporting] habitable zone, and it could have an ocean at its surface," Mayor said during the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science conference, being held this week at the University of Hertfordshire in the U.K.
First discovered in 2007, Gliese 581d was originally calculated to be too far away from its host star—and therefore too cold—to support an ocean.
But Mayor and colleagues now show that the extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, orbits its host in 66.8 days, putting it just inside the cool star's habitable zone.
At the same time, Mayor and colleagues announced that they have spotted a fourth planet orbiting in the Gliese 581 star system—and it's the lightest exoplanet found so far.
Dozens of "Earth Like Planets Discovered Outside Solar System
WASHINGTON — European astronomers have found 32 new planets outside our solar system, adding evidence to the theory that the universe has many places where life could develop. Scientists using the European Southern Observatory telescope didn't find any planets quite the size of Earth or any that seemed habitable or even unusual. But their announcement increased the number of planets discovered outside the solar system to more than 400.