'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

Saying what you mean is kinda important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tell me about it!

I think one flaw of being a man, is that man is open to mistakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or as the old saying goes, to err, is to be human.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It makes NO such prediction.
Indeed, the Drake equation only lists the various things that need to be understood to answer the question but we have no idea of the values for most of the variables.

But intelligent life didn't appear very quickly. Indeed it took well over 4 Billion years.

But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Nope, you jumped the gun by about 4 billion years.

You know, it helps to be consistent.

But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.

Interstellar travel is difficult enough within our Galaxy.
Travel over millions of light years to another Galaxy is really stretching it.
There might be life in other Galaxies but the chance of them coming to OUR Galaxy is extremely unlikely to start with. Coming to a unremarkable star like ours even less likely to the point of being absurd.

You are just making this BS up.
We have yet to find a single Earth Like planet with an ocean and atmosphere.
(of course we are just starting to look, but still, none have yet been found)

Actually, we haven't seen anything that indicates that life is not rare.

We are still at just one planet with life on it.

 

The Drake equation has now been modified. Without modification, the Drake equation has also been exponentially increased according to NASA scientists, with their discovery of life eating arsenic. (did I spell that right lol)

Anyway,

''But intelligent life didn't appear very quickly. Indeed it took well over 4 Billion years. ''

this is correct, or atleast with current understanding. Intelligent life, if my memory serves did not appear until very late on, atleast 190,000 years ago according to fossil records, to a woman born in Africa.

Life however, spread very quickly, very early, and through a success of five mass extinctions, which would make the Panspermia Theory unlikely, since all life is appreciated to be exterminated, unless throughout these five extinctions, life reamerged from five equidistant impacts from meteors.

But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.

Totally wrong. We have traced galaxy formations to much early standards than that. The real question is how long a galaxy should take to form. I have predicted we will find even earlier galaxies which will shake the foundations of Big Bang.

You know, it helps to be consistent.

But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.

Where do you get your information?

According to Michio Kaku, we have studied to a good degree, around 500 planets, out of which 5 planets could sustain life. The Goldilocks Planets, as they are called.

These are again, 5 out of 500. Figure the statistics I gave you. Atleast a good million planets should be habital in our galaxy alone.

I cannot be arsed retorting the rest of your post. Total rubbish!

 

By the way, life emerged 4 billion years ago, not intelligent life per se. You were also wrong on that account. All humans emerged from some shrew-like creature, 4 billion years ago.

 

The issue is you claimed that

But the Drake Equation itself makes NO such prediction.

No, it was the same original life.
As far as we know, life only formed ONCE on this planet, which considering it's age suggests that the conditions for abiogenesis are not the same as what are conducive to life itself. That the transition from life forming to live surviving is not a given.

Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.

As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.

Well from science articles mainly, and most recently from Kepler's findings.

http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/

Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/uk-space-planet-idUSLNE7B501D20111206

BUT, it still is highly improbable since Kepler 22b is nothing like earth, it's ~2.4 times the size and ~15 times as heavy, thus much too heavy for plate tectonics and releases of gasses that can form atmospheres/oceans.

 

Really?
That's your story and you are sticking to it?


If so you are totally bonkers.

 

Actually, the drake equation predicts our galaxy is teeming with life.

Stop wasting my time, please!

Go learn on these subjects before you talk about them.

The very fact you are arguing with me about the origin of life not being 4 billion years ago, give or take a few thousand years, is just an example of your stupidity!

GO AWAY!

 

Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.

Well that is a fascinating figure, considering we have only searched a small part of the universe, indeed, much less more than a corner of our own galaxy! If this figure is true, then it weighs in my favor, not yours! LOL

 

Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.

As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.

To have a galaxy is to have planetary formations. Stars ect. Even a black hole at their center.

Now, the habitability of these planets will be few and far between. Very early on, these planets where hostile and mostly barren to macroscopic life.

 

Nope, Stars are virtually all hydrogen.

Over very long periods of time they create the heavier elements necessary for planet formation and so the fact is Planets take MUCH longer to start forming than do Galaxies and Stars.

I gave you the link. Learn to actually READ.

 

wtf u talking about

 

Yeah stars are mostly hydrogen, actually a basis of about 5 elements.

But what has that got to do with our discussion?

 

No, it doesn't.

It simply lists the values one would consider for there to be other life we could communicate with, but makes NO PREDICTIONS about the actual values.

Indeed, back when Drake first came up with it he plugged in his GUESSES and came up with TEN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

You need to take your own advice because your reading comprehension SUCKS.

I didn't ever say that life didn't form about 4 billion years ago.

I said INTELLIGENT life took nearly 4 billion years to develop.
Remember we were talking about the Drake Equation, and one of the variables is fi:

 

Simple, you made this BOGUS claim:

Others pointed out that you added a billion years or so to the age of the Universe.

No biggy, but your big error was creating planets so fast.

I pointed out that planets didn't form for ~8 Billion years, not the 200 million years that you claimed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

You are embarrasing yourself

''50 million habitable-zone exoplanets in the Milky Way''

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapdki/numberofhabs.html

 

And give up with the galaxy formation. My information was extracted from NASA. I gave it about 4 billion years I think, when galaxies formed?

This one roughly estimates 5 billion years

''These galaxies started forming just 500 million years after the big bang''

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100105-earliest-galaxies-hubble-deep-universe/

 

It doesn't actually favor anything.

The going presumption has always been that planet formation isn't unlikely.

Indeed, in Drake's original assumptions that came up with 10 planets in our Galaxy that had intelligent communicating life, he guessed:

fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of developing life)

Well what Kepler is showing is that his guess on fp was way too high (still too early to tell what the number is, but remember we are looking at ~170,000 stars and so far have ~1,200 candidates and only 22 confirmed planets (while this number will go up, but it is not looking like it will be anywhere near the 80,000 you would need for fp to equal 0.5)

ne = 2 appears to be VASTLY over stated, indeed, the number remains at 0 and is looking to be more like .2

Now remember, Drake put in one value that is highly unlikely, that every planet that could sustain life WILL develop life.

fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)

So the net is that just with these two variables being over stated and even giving him the fl=1, his estimate of 10 shrinks down to maybe a chance of ~.01 that there is another communicating civilization within our Galaxy.

 

LOL, Except that's an extrapolation based on a lot of assumptions, not based on actual knowledge and more importantly wasn't a claim that I was disputing

You posted this:

To which I replied:

So NO, we have not studied 500 planets to a good degree and we certainly don't know of 5 that could sustain life.

And don't expect that all those candidates will be real.
Kepler generates a lot of false positives

http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/false_positives.html