you know Zx30!
the crappier the picture the less clear the evidence of it being a fake. haha
-
Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.
The Universe! and Extraterrestrial Life!
- Thread starter pcstalljr
- Start date
you know Zx30!
the crappier the picture the less clear the evidence of it being a fake. haha
Freshmilk
is Over 9000
Well, let me put it this way...
If there arn't any alien life forms out there, only then would I be surprised. It's already been pointed out many times in this thread that, given the vast amount of space, it's very highly probable there are more intelligent creatures out there. It's almost certain in my mind.
If there arn't any alien life forms out there, only then would I be surprised. It's already been pointed out many times in this thread that, given the vast amount of space, it's very highly probable there are more intelligent creatures out there. It's almost certain in my mind.
ServerPlague
Member
I wasn't using the Drake equation in the same manner as the way it was originally used, I used it in a similar way as it was taught to me by a modern university lecturer. I was, unlike the original users of the equation, willing to accept that I am not speaking about all intelligent life but rather life that is similar to that found on our planet, within our parameters.
If we just abandon a theory because it's subject to speculation then we'd have a very small basis for science. If something comes along with stronger scientific backing then I will accept it but as such the Adapted Drake equation seems to be the most solid when people realise the context in which it is used (not the same as the original).
---------- Post added at 09:40 PM EST ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM EST ----------
Although I do personally believe that there is most probably another form of life out there, whether it is intelligent or similar to us is a different matter.
Pardon me for not fully understanding this debate, but this is coming from someone who hasn't really supplied scientific evidence to back up their own points.
At least ServerPlague is doing so.
ServerPlague
Member
And please when replying to that ^ post don't say that my equation is obsolete as the equation has been heavily adapted from the original and some of the points that make it obsolete aren't in that one.
I am currently contemplating further adaption to account for the reemergance factor, the time that civilisations use RF to communicate, the distance between planets potentially being too great to cover for the civilisations lifetime and the fact that there could have been communications travelling around a long time before our judgements.
If you want to really help then perhaps you could highlight other flaws, within context, that may need to be accounted for.
Remember the bit that says "within context".
I am currently contemplating further adaption to account for the reemergance factor, the time that civilisations use RF to communicate, the distance between planets potentially being too great to cover for the civilisations lifetime and the fact that there could have been communications travelling around a long time before our judgements.
If you want to really help then perhaps you could highlight other flaws, within context, that may need to be accounted for.
Remember the bit that says "within context".
Slasher's right. Drake equation is pretty damn obsolete and inaccurate. When I first saw it I was like, "they use this stupid equation to find the possibility of intelligent life?" The equation is full of estimates that are different in the opinions of different scientists. A conservative one could say that the possibility of intelligent life being able to communicate via radio communications is like .0001 and the probability of intelligent life out there could be like .000001%. A really optimistic one would probably say that 20% of planets that have life forms who can communicate via radio. The fact is, nobody knows. Do scientists know better than we do? Probably. Are they 100% right? Hell no. And like you said, radio waves = slow and isn't great to use to communicate to others millions of light years away. The fact that the Drake equation uses radio as one of the possibilities really shows you how old it is (1960).
ServerPlague
Member
I'll admit that the variable you stated is highly debatable but if they do use radio waves then accidental leakage is likely to occur as it did when we first used it. If they don't use radio waves at all then it's stumped but a huge amount of science originates from speculation and develops from there.
That's why instead of declaring it obsolete outright i think that there is a fairly large amount of optimisation and some of the variables may even be omitted if the context is changed. In fact the adapted version of the Drake equation is probably gonna be hugely different in the variables used and the context in which it is used.
But that's how science develops, we can only continue to update the theory as more and more information about the cosmos is obtained...
well i do hate to disagree with my best friend. but just because it hasnt happenedyet, doesn't mean it wont happen. for instance, theres no cure for the common cold yet, theres just medicine to help hide it, but theres no cure yet. now there inst much that i can honestly say to prove that they exist. but theres even less evidence that they dont.
ServerPlague
Member
Actually there isn't much evidence either way, just developing theories and the occasional news report squawking about some random thing that we might or might not have found that might or might not show that there's life on mars.
But we can only be hopeful right now.
the problem with anything of this sort. is its extremely hard for people to disprove something rather then prove it. to prove there are always people that will believe almost any photo/story/claim and the much smaller amount of skeptics attempting to disprove the same thing.
for most people, its much easier to believe then it is not to believe.
ServerPlague
Member
I have to agree there, it's a parallel to religion. People prefer to hope for something rather than trying to prove it.
Zx30
Beto
Which kind of slows our progress as a human race in ways as well.
ServerPlague
Member
True, it looks like we've managed to show that saying "I believe" really doesn't help anything. Maybe a greater concentration on reality would help.
Zx30
Beto
ServerPlague
Member
People don't want to see the reality of things. It's too scary for them.
It's only scary if people let it scare them. Reality's a wonderful thing if you look at it from the right direction.
Zx30
Beto
Damn right. But I was referring to that people get scared of dying so they turn towards beliefs.
exactly.
two of the smartest people on this forum if you ask me. back to the topic at hand, just as ServerPlague said. saying "I Believe" doesn't do a dang thing. talking about such things doesnt call for belief, it calls for proof and hard facts... and a realy big estimated number here and there haha. but you get the point
ServerPlague
Member
Yeah, we can't argue over things we don't understand. We'll just end up going round in circles.