tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post3755426797748071108..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Illegal AliensTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-32457458556600385162014-09-03T16:57:05.318-04:002014-09-03T16:57:05.318-04:00This is awesome and hilarious, thanks.This is awesome and hilarious, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73755584297624287482012-11-04T22:18:35.742-05:002012-11-04T22:18:35.742-05:00It's a matter of competition. Here we have a u...It's a matter of competition. Here we have a universe with billions of galaxies and billions of stars per galaxy, even if we only have millions of star faring sophonts that still means lots of peoples to get involved with. We are, to put it simply, not interesting enough to out-compete our rivals.<br /><br />BTW, look up "myxobacteria" for multi prokaryote life. Would seem that multi-cellular life isn't that odd a thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3004040708380153742012-11-04T20:46:51.479-05:002012-11-04T20:46:51.479-05:00Of course Newton's law is much superior in dep...Of course Newton's law is much superior in depth to the Drake equation, and even without knowing G it tells us much more. The Drake equation is (mainly) a rather trivial counting type equation. But I still maintain it has the potential to give SOME useful information. For example, if n_e is around 10^{-4} (which Kepler might show) then on my analysis anyway the classical SETI search for radio signals is futile. If civilizations are long lived, they are here already; if short lived they are too few and far away.<br /><br />Baysian analysis of F1, F2, F3. Nice idea. F1 I don't see how to do, but for F2, F3 one could see if there arr parameter values which give them a chance. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03363121389375747604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-72055889426400533162012-11-04T19:02:44.125-05:002012-11-04T19:02:44.125-05:00After all, for the archetype of equations, Newton ...<i>After all, for the archetype of equations, Newton law of Gravitation, the key constant G was only determined 70 years after Newton's death.</i><br /><br />Not a valid analogy. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation lends itself to precisely-measured comparisons of the gravitation between different sets of objects, at which time G cancels out. The Drake Equation doesn't have any facility of comparison, even in principle, and besides there is little that is actually measurable therein; some of the terms are not even potentially measurable in any reasonable way. <br /><br />As for the supposed elusiveness of G, G is an artifact. Newton's Second Law would require a constant if the units of force, mass and length weren't defined the way they are; G is an artifact of our not using gravitation to define the units of force, mass and length.Not a wine critichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00962849509867116489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-22693128267426595122012-11-04T00:08:24.801-04:002012-11-04T00:08:24.801-04:00Just because something is an equation, doesn't...Just because something is an equation, doesn't mean it's of any use... it's a little like when I, as a kid, realized that Spock was wrong-- humans ARE logical. We're just using information that's not objective and/or can't be measured. <br /><br />My favorite response to the "what a waste!" type argument is to point out that I figure that, if God made other <i>people</i>, they're going to be a lot like us and we'll have to <i>work to convert them all!</i> (Yeah, I'm assuming they're fallen, too, but that's based on the lack of mention of non-fallen made-in-His-image folks.)Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-10405821660228435742012-11-03T23:07:24.899-04:002012-11-03T23:07:24.899-04:00They don't have eyes and never saw the stars t...They don't have eyes and never saw the stars to realize that there were other possible locations. Given that all eyes on Earth appear to descend from a single mutation. . . .<br /><br />"What a waste! All that great big universe and we're all there is?"<br /><br />I must point out that the universe is overwhelmingly hard vacuum, so plentiful life -- every single planet teeming with life -- would still be a "waste" by this definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-75571049137270084332012-11-03T21:47:24.702-04:002012-11-03T21:47:24.702-04:00Was not the plausibility of wide prevalence of Moo...Was not the plausibility of wide prevalence of Moons-our-size pretty conclusively established by Belbruno and Gott in 2004-2005?<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405372Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4367041771570569912012-11-03T20:55:29.730-04:002012-11-03T20:55:29.730-04:00But - none of this matters at all until we get som...But - none of this matters at all until we get some meaningful data, starting with second data points for 'life', 'intelligent life', 'detectable signals', 'civilizations' and so on - and, if and when we do, then we can maybe start to talk about backing into a few of the variable. Until then, the Drake Equation is purely speculation unencumbered by any relevant data whatsoever. <br /><br />Speculation unencumbered by meaningful data - in this case, those second data points mentioned above - stretches the definition of science well past the breaking point. It is mere fantasy. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-40054327007401695352012-11-03T20:23:31.012-04:002012-11-03T20:23:31.012-04:00Care to try a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood ...Care to try a Bayesian analysis of the likelihood of F1, 2 and 3??TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4395900974525463662012-11-03T19:20:16.917-04:002012-11-03T19:20:16.917-04:00Its quite reasonable to call the Drake equation an...Its quite reasonable to call the Drake equation an 'equation' even if we don't know most of the terms. After all, for the archetype of equations, Newton law of Gravitation, the key constant G was only determined 70 years after Newton's death. Further the equation is of some use even if we don't know all the terms:<br />(1) Data from the Kepler satellite is giving information on f_p and n_e, while R^* is known reasonably well. The terms f_l, f_i and f_c are all less than 1, so the Drake equation gives an upper bound on the number of civilisations arising per year. Equivalently and more usefully in my view, it gives a lower bound (100-1000 years) on the time T between civilisations arising in the galaxy.<br />(2) While we're unlikely to get much information on f_l, f_i and f_c in our lifetimes, in a few thousand years (if all goes well with us…) we might get better estimates of f_l via robotic star probes, and hence via Drake a really useful bound on T.<br /><br />I do not buy the 'the're coming' argument. If they exist at all then almost certainly the've been around long enough to reach us, unless they are so short lived that they never will reach us. For a more quantitative expression of this, you might be interested in a paper (by me):<br /> http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0953 (due to appear in Int. J. Astrobiology).<br /><br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03363121389375747604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-7809629198158453492012-11-03T14:26:16.137-04:002012-11-03T14:26:16.137-04:00I've long championed the Lex Luther Equations ...I've long championed the Lex Luther Equations as the answer to Fermi's Paradox: http://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/the-space-princess-equation/ which is a much more solid equation than Drake's, since I'm not making up absolutely everything in it.<br /><br />The Lex Luther Equation does fit under the first point under 'We're Last', but is more scientifilicious to require only one genius billionaire psychopath than imagining wars of total destruction due to it having fewer variables - or something. <br /><br />It is better to sound smart than to be smart. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com