Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Pottsey]

In order to use the Drake equation as a prediction it's necessary to have solved it. Saying the result is an estimate merely means solving the equation with a margin of error.

Otherwise all you're doing is holding it up as a false appeal to authority in order to pretend that whatever number you make up is "scientific". On top of that, it requires either being completely ignorant of what the Drake equation is (a spur to debate, not a true equation with predictive value) or knowing what it is and lying about it.

Estimate x estimate x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown does not equal 100,000,000. The result is unknown.

You've picked a number you like from faith and falsely claimed science as an authority. That's neither more nor less reliable than the other poster who's claiming to know the number from mystical knowledge. Or gods or aliens. Or something. It's all the same thing.

You are reading too much into my post and implying things I never said or meant. So I am not lying about it. I never said it was solved or accurate and if that's how it comes across it was not my intent. If I wanted to make it have more authority I wouldn't have said its an estimation and might not be right. How are you turning estimation and "might not be right" into solved? If you prefer replace "might no be right", with "highly likely not right". Furthermore I didn't pick a number I like on faith. I picked one of the numbers the equation was famous for from the original meeting.

The Drake equation is just one model used for approximating the chance of life on other planets and its the most well known model.

"Saying the result is an estimate merely means solving the equation with a margin of error."
Technically that's correctly. As I understand it the equation has an extremely wide margin of error at the moment based on our understanding of planet and star formation and chance of life. The equation itself is pretty much correct its the inputs to the equation that are based on estimated data formed from our understanding of galaxies. As we the human race explore and gather more data we can use narrow down the inputs to more accurate numbers. Feed those inputs into the equation and get more accurate results. No one is saying its accurate and solved in its current form. Our understanding of galaxies and planet formation is growing year by year but still very limited.

"That's neither more nor less reliable than the other poster who's claiming to know the number from mystical knowledge. Or gods or aliens. Or something. It's all the same thing."
I disagree as the inputs to the equation are being refined every year based on scientific data. That makes it a little more reliably although there is still a long way to go.

For example astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data that the data implies fp · ne is roughly 0.4.

Analysis of microlensing surveys, in 2012, has found that fp may approach 1.

This is not faith, mystical knowledge, or gods and aliens. Over time the input data will be refined more and more and in turn the output will get more accurate. The equation itself seems pretty solid to me, it just needs more accurate input data to get better approximations from the output. Something we have already seen since the equation was first shared.

 

[visibleman]

I just wanna know what those super fast drones are and how they work.

that will be a no and in another 50 pages it will still be a no.

I'll make it 100 before asking again, although given the rate the tin foil hat cats are posting in here that might only be next week...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I'll make it 100 before asking again, although given the rate the tin foil hat cats are posting in here that might only be next week...

We have a new kid on the block Geoman who is going that extra mile of tin foil hatting like I've never seen before.
He's read all lthe data and his analysis is FACT.

 

[Angilion]

You are reading too much into my post and implying things I never said or meant. So I am not lying about it. I never said it was solved or accurate and if that's how it comes across it was not my intent. If I wanted to make it have more authority I wouldn't have said its an estimation and might not be right. How are you turning estimation and "might not be right" into solved? If you prefer replace "might no be right", with "highly likely not right". Furthermore I didn't pick a number I like on faith. I picked one of the numbers the equation was famous for from the original meeting.

The Drake equation is just one model used for approximating the chance of life on other planets and its the most well known model.

i) The Drake equation is not a model. It's an encouragement for debate on the issue of how difficult it would be to communicate with aliens.
ii) The Drake equation has nothing to do with approximating the chance of life on other planets. It's about communicating with aliens, or at least about detecting aliens communicating with each other.

"Saying the result is an estimate merely means solving the equation with a margin of error."
Technically that's correctly. As I understand it the equation has an extremely wide margin of error at the moment based on our understanding of planet and star formation and chance of life. The equation itself is pretty much correct its the inputs to the equation that are based on estimated data formed from our understanding of galaxies. As we the human race explore and gather more data we can use narrow down the inputs to more accurate numbers. Feed those inputs into the equation and get more accurate results. No one is saying its accurate and solved in its current form. Our understanding of galaxies and planet formation is growing year by year but still very limited.

It's correct, not technically correct. Claiming a result from an equation means claiming a solution. Since none of the terms in the Drake equation are known and most aren't even estimated to any reasonable extent, picking a number and claiming it's a solution of the Drake equation is nothing more than an attempt to attach the authority of science to the chosen number.

If we knew the terms of the Drake equation with any vaguely reasonable degree of accuracy we'd already know the solution. It has no predictive value at all. It's not even really an equation. It was never intended as such. It was created as an encouragement to debate at a SETI conference.

In addition to that, it's worth repeating that the Drake equation is specifically about communicating with aliens. Not about how many planets have life of some sort on them.

"That's neither more nor less reliable than the other poster who's claiming to know the number from mystical knowledge. Or gods or aliens. Or something. It's all the same thing."
I disagree as the inputs to the equation are being refined every year based on scientific data. That makes it a little more reliably although there is still a long way to go.

For example astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data that the data implies fp · ne is roughly 0.4.

Analysis of microlensing surveys, in 2012, has found that fp may approach 1.

This is not faith, mystical knowledge, or gods and aliens. Over time the input data will be refined more and more and in turn the output will get more accurate. The equation itself seems pretty solid to me, it just needs more accurate input data to get better approximations from the output. Something we have already seen since the equation was first shared.

Out of the 7 terms, 2 have some basis for reasonable estimates. The other 5 don't.

0.4 (estimate) x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown = 100,000,000 is not science. Or maths. It's a false appeal to authority.

If you think that there are 100,000,000 civilisations in this galaxy alone that have a high enough level of technology to communicate with us, why have none of them done so? Why have we not detected any evidence of any communications between any of those 100,000,000 civilisations?

 

[Screeeech]

glhf, @Angilion

 

[Pottsey]

“ii) The Drake equation has nothing to do with approximating the chance of life on other planets. It's about communicating with aliens, or at least about detecting aliens communicating with each other.”

How can you say the Drake equation has nothing to do with approximating chance of life on other planets when that’s a core part of the equation? Before you can approx. the chance to communicate with aliens. First you need to approx. as best you can on current data how many planets there are around stars, how many are likely to be habitable, how many are suitable to evolve life on them. Along with the fraction of planets that could support life that could actually develop life at some point. Which are all parts of the equation and are all data points that are being refined as time goes on. With data like K2-18b, analysis of microlensing surveys and Kepler space mission data we can approximate and keep refining those data inputs for the Drake equation.

“If you think that there are 100,000,000 civilisations in this galaxy alone that have a high enough level of technology to communicate with us, why have none of them done so? Why have we not detected any evidence of any communications between any of those 100,000,000 civilisations?”

That’s not what I said or what I think, you seem to be misreading my posts. The 100,000,000 planets that could fit the requirements to potentially have life evolve on them. Life doesn’t have to mean intelligent life. I never said 100,000,000 advanced civilisations or 100,000,000 intelligent life. I was just talking about life at is most basic level. 100,000,000 that could potentially have the right conditions for basic life.

If we want to say there is intelligent life out there, the answer of why they might not have communicated with us could come down to something as simple as time or distance. Perhaps they are too far away, perhaps their civilization flourished and died out 1+million years before or after us so there was no chance of a communication cross over. But that doesn’t matter as I never claimed anything about advanced civilisations. You added advanced civilisations into my posts which is not something I was talking about.

“0.4 (estimate) x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown x unknown = 100,000,000 is not science. Or maths. It's a false appeal to authority.”

Which is not what is happening. First these are not all complete unknowns and second there is no false appeal to authority. You are trying to imply there is an appeal to authority that was never intended and never happened. No one is claiming the drake equation is solved or that the results are accurate. No one is trying to make the results appeal to authority. As I said in my other posts, the approximated/estimated number are highly likely to not even be correct. I expect the results will be refined over time to be more accurate as more accurate data is used for the data input.

Also I was only talking about planets that could fit the requirements to potentially have basic life evolve on them. So the last 2 unknowns you can completely remove in relation to my post.

 

[Angilion]

How can you say the Drake equation has nothing to do with approximating chance of life on other planets when that’s a core part of the equation? Before you can approx. the chance to communicate with aliens. First you need to approx. as best you can on current data how many planets there are around stars, how many are likely to be habitable, how many are suitable to evolve life on them. Along with the fraction of planets that could support life that could actually develop life at some point. Which are all parts of the equation and are all data points that are being refined as time goes on. With data like K2-18b, analysis of microlensing surveys and Kepler space mission data we can approximate and keep refining those data inputs for the Drake equation.

The purpose of the Drake equation was to stimulate discussion of the relevant factors in communicating with alien civilisations.

If you treat it as an equation (which it was never actually meant to be) then it's about communicating with alien civilisations. The result is the number of civilisations in this galaxy that currently possess the capability to communicate with humans. It is not about how many planets have life on them. In order to use the Drake equation to calculate the number of planets with life on them you would need to know the values of all the other terms on both sides of the equation, including but not limited to the number of civilisations in the galaxy that currently possess the capability to communicate with humans.

The Drake equation is not about the number of planets with life on them. It was never claimed to be until you made that claim. That's not what it's about. You don't need the Drake equation to estimate the number of planets with life on them. The Drake equation has nothing to do with that.

That’s not what I said or what I think, you seem to be misreading my posts. The 100,000,000 planets that could fit the requirements to potentially have life evolve on them. Life doesn’t have to mean intelligent life. I never said 100,000,000 advanced civilisations or 100,000,000 intelligent life. I was just talking about life at is most basic level. 100,000,000 that could potentially have the right conditions for basic life.

The Drake equation is about the number of civilisations in the galaxy that currently have the capability to communicate with humans.

You claimed (and continue to claim) to have solved the Drake equation and got a result of 100,000,000.

Therefore you claimed (and continue to claim) that there are 100,000,000 civilisations in the galaxy that currently have the capability to communicate with humans.

If we want to say there is intelligent life out there, the answer of why they might not have communicated with us could come down to something as simple as time or distance. Perhaps they are too far away, perhaps their civilization flourished and died out 1+million years before or after us so there was no chance of a communication cross over. But that doesn’t matter as I never claimed anything about advanced civilisations. You added advanced civilisations into my posts which is not something I was talking about.

It was, because that's what the Drake equation is all about. Specifically, civilisations that currently have the capability to communicate with humans. So none of what you wrote above has anything to do with the Drake equation.

Which is not what is happening. First these are not all complete unknowns and second there is no false appeal to authority. You are trying to imply there is an appeal to authority that was never intended and never happened. No one is claiming the drake equation is solved or that the results are accurate. No one is trying to make the results appeal to authority. As I said in my other posts, the approximated/estimated number are highly likely to not even be correct. I expect the results will be refined over time to be more accurate as more accurate data is used for the data input.

Also I was only talking about planets that could fit the requirements to potentially have basic life evolve on them. So the last 2 unknowns you can completely remove in relation to my post.

I never said all the terms are complete unknowns. I said that 5 out of the 7 terms are unknown. Of course, if even 1 of the terms was unknown that would make the result unknown because multiplying anything by an unknown quantity results in an unknown answer.

The authority you're appealing to is the Drake equation (in order to make your claim appear reliable, the result of an equation). But it doesn't support your position. So it's a false appeal to authority.

You claim to have used the Drake equation to obtain a result. That's a claim to have solved the equation. That's what solving an equation means.


If you dropped the false claim to authority you'd be in a much better position. Your claim relied on nobody else knowing what the Drake equation is and nobody even bothering to look it up. That wasn't what happened, so you need to try something else. You could try providing some reasons why you came up with the 100,000,000 figure. If you have any reasons.

 

[Pottsey]

“You claimed (and continue to claim) to have solved the Drake equation and got a result of 100,000,000.”

That is false. I directly said I have not solved the equation and the numbers I have are highly likely to be wrong as they are made from estimations and approximations.
You are the one making false clams in saying I claim to have solved the equation. I have not solved it. As I explained my numbers are not based on solid perfect data because we don’t have that solid data. Which is why I said from my first posts that my numbers are likely not right.

“Therefore you claimed (and continue to claim) that there are 100,000,000 civilisations in the galaxy that currently have the capability to communicate with humans.”

That is 100% false. I am making no claims about 100,000,000 civilisations. Nor have I continued to claim there are 100,000,000 civilisations. Go look at what you just quoted. In fact I directly said and clarified my claims are not about advanced civilisations but instead about possible planets that could potentially have the right conditions for basic cell life. I said that directly in what you just quoted. Let me quote myself as you just did "I was just talking about life at is most basic level. 100,000,000 that could potentially have the right conditions for basic life."

“If you dropped the false claim to authority you'd be in a much better position”

There is no need for me to drop any claim to authority. As that is something you made up. My numbers never had any claim to authority right from the start. So there is no need for me to drop something I never had.
I never intended or claimed any authority towards my numbers. Right from the start I said my numbers are estimated and are likely wrong. Which I have already explained to you.

“That wasn't what happened, so you need to try something else. You could try providing some reasons why you came up with the 100,000,000 figure. If you have any reasons.”

No I don't need to try anything else. As I explained to you already. The rate of star formation in this Galaxy is about 0.68–1.45 based of NASA data. Analysis of microlensing surveys, in 2012 and the Kepler space emission data says there could be as many as 40 billion Earth sized planets orbiting in habitable zones. 11 billion of those are estimated to be orbiting Sun like stars. Then with https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8225 and findings potential life on K2-18b I estimated that potentially out of those 11 billion remaining 100,000,000 could have potentially developed single cells basic life like what appears to be on K2-18b but not confirmed.

Are my numbers right? most likely not. But its the best I have based on the current data.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

This is the best but also the worst thread in GD. Schrodinger's Fun Times

 

[Thekwango]

Schrodinger's Fun Times

he can keep his crappy cat, we got aliens/not aliens in our box. GD wins.

 

[Angilion]

That is false. I directly said I have not solved the equation and the numbers I have are highly likely to be wrong as they are made from estimations and approximations.
You are the one making false clams in saying I claim to have solved the equation. I have not solved it. As I explained my numbers are not based on solid perfect data because we don’t have that solid data. Which is why I said from my first posts that my numbers are likely not right.



That is 100% false. I am making no claims about 100,000,000 civilisations. Nor have I continued to claim there are 100,000,000 civilisations. Go look at what you just quoted. In fact I directly said and clarified my claims are not about advanced civilisations but instead about possible planets that could potentially have the right conditions for basic cell life. I said that directly in what you just quoted. Let me quote myself as you just did "I was just talking about life at is most basic level. 100,000,000 that could potentially have the right conditions for basic life."



There is no need for me to drop any claim to authority. As that is something you made up. My numbers never had any claim to authority right from the start. So there is no need for me to drop something I never had.
I never intended or claimed any authority towards my numbers. Right from the start I said my numbers are estimated and are likely wrong. Which I have already explained to you.

I'll repeat myself in as succinct a way as possible:

You cited the Drake equation as the source of the 100,000,000 number you chose.

The Drake equation is (very explicitly) about the number of civilisations in the milky way that currently have the capability to communicate with humans.



Using an equation to find the answer given by the equation is solving the equation. That's what solving an equation is.

You claimed to have done that.


You used the Drake equation to bolster your claim, to pass it off as the result of a scientific equation. An appeal to authority. But you used it completely incorrectly. A false appeal to authority.

No I don't need to try anything else. As I explained to you already. The rate of star formation in this Galaxy is about 0.68–1.45 based of NASA data. Analysis of microlensing surveys, in 2012 and the Kepler space emission data says there could be as many as 40 billion Earth sized planets orbiting in habitable zones. 11 billion of those are estimated to be orbiting Sun like stars. Then with https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8225 and findings potential life on K2-18b I estimated that potentially out of those 11 billion remaining 100,000,000 could have potentially developed single cells basic life like what appears to be on K2-18b but not confirmed.

Are my numbers right? most likely not. But its the best I have based on the current data.

So on the basis of a single possible unconfirmed potential indirect finding that a single planet might have a dense hydrogen atmosphere and might have water on the surface, you've decided that life exists on 100,000,000 planets, a result you somehow arrived at using a completely irrelevant equation (that isn't really an equation) that you hadn't even looked at (since you didn't know what it was about).

On what basis do you make your estimate for the likelihood of abiogenesis and/or panspermia? Given that we have a sample size of 1 and we don't understand how it happened.

 

[Angilion]

he can keep his crappy cat, we got aliens/not aliens in our box. GD wins.

I sort of feel soory for Schrodinger. All the things he did and he's most remembered on the basis of people misunderstanding a single casual reference he once made as part of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Few people even know what he was arguing against (the Copenhagen interpretation).

 

[Pottsey]

“I'll repeat myself in as succinct a way as possible:

You cited the Drake equation as the source of the 100,000,000 number you chose.”

I used part of Drake equation based on the Scientific data I listed to get the output number I had in my post. This is all correctly used and valid. As I said the output number is likely wrong as it’s based on estimated values for the purposes of discussion.

“The Drake equation is (very explicitly) about the number of civilisations in the milky way that currently have the capability to communicate with humans.”

That’s not all its about and its not explicitly about just the number of civilisations. The meeting tends to start with the average rate of star formation, then move onto fraction of stars, average number of planets, then planets that could potentially support life. At this point I stopped. As there was no need for me to do the last three steps. As I explained to you before I am not talking about intelligent life with advanced civilizations.

You have yet to apologize or acknowledge your mistakes. You keep assigning fake claims to my posts even after I have clarified what I meant you still keep making those same fake claims. Why are you trying to mislead?

You might want to go back and reread from the start as you have made a number of mistakes and misunderstandings. Granted my first couple of posts could have been more clear but I clarified what I meant very clearly after that.

As for the Drake Equation it’s used as a probabilistic augment to estimated both the chance of life on planets and communicative advanced civilisations. I am only using it for the first part the chance of life on planets. The Drake equation is not intended for a single asnwer. It’s not intended to only be used in one single way. The purpose of the equation it not to be solved. The purpose is to stimulate scientific dialogue with a probabilistic argument. I am using the first part of the drake equation as a probabilistic argument for an estimated amount of planets with the potential to develop basic none intelligence life. You keep saying I don’t understand the equation and am not using it correctly but that is false. The probabilistic argument I am using is preciously what the Drake equation was created for.

The Drake equation is intended for different inputs to be used for different outputs to give a range of answers for the purposes of discussion on life on other planets both basic life and intelligence life.
In the original meeting the Equation didn’t have a fixed output. Drake equation can give a very wide range of values, depending on the assumptions made on the input data.
I am using this part of the equation

• R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our Galaxy.
• fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets.
• ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets.
• fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point.

The last 3 parameters (not listed here) are not known and the last 3 parameters are not required for the purposes of my post and how I am using the equation.

“You used the Drake equation to bolster your claim, to pass it off as the result of a scientific equation. An appeal to authority. But you used it completely incorrectly. A false appeal to authority.”

You are wrong on every single point here. I did not use it to bolster my claim nor did I use it for a false appeal to authority. I used it for the point of discussion which is the primary reason behind the Drake Equation and what it is meant to be used for. Right from the start I said my numbers are likely wrong which means they do not hold any authority.

You seem intent on saying my “claim” is accurate and correct and I am trying to gain extra authority. That is false as I acknowledged right from the start my numbers are highly likely to be wrong and not accurate. I have been saying from the start my numbers do not have authority. So why are you falsely calming I am trying to give my numbers authority? You know that is not true so why are you saying it? You also got it wrong saying I did not use the equation correctly. I used it both correctly and for its intended purpose.

“that you hadn't even looked at (since you didn't know what it was about).”

Wrong and wrong, you keep making false claims. I did look at it and I do know what it is about.
You have made a large number of false claims. Are you going to acknowledge you mistakes and false claims?

As much as I am enjoying this I don't want to derail this thread going back and fourth over your false claims and your misunderstanding for pages and pages. My goal was to stimulate discussion related to this thread subject not for you to nit pick claims of authority that I never had in the first place and never claimed to have had.

 

[Thekwango]

I sort of feel soory for Schrodinger. All the things he did and he's most remembered on the basis of people misunderstanding a single casual reference he once made as part of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Few people even know what he was arguing against (the Copenhagen interpretation).

What a weirdly arrogant post to make in reply to a joke.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What a weirdly arrogant post to make in reply to a joke.

That's nothing compared to what he's doing to @Pottsey
I once used the word BELIEVE to say I believed the Universe was full of the ingredients to form life wherever it could and I got assaulted with posts about God because I said the word BELIEVE

Are you going to acknowledge you mistakes and false claims?

You've got more chance of The Potters winning the Premier League.
His claws are stuck into you now

 

[Screeeech]

It's interesting how this thread oscillates.

We get some crazy made-up/inflated news about some nonsense (tic tacs, flying-jellyfish, Mexican aliens from Beadle's about), and there's this huge argument about all of it.

Then it all dies down, and it gets all philosophical about life and the universe, everyone's smoking weed and being thoughtful,

Then it ramps up again and there's another huge argument...

What is it about aliens and flying-saucers, that can generate this level of argument?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

What is it about aliens and flying-saucers, that can generate this level of argument?

Or Ukraine and Palestine conflicts, or XLBullys, or Simulation Theory. I'm going to suggest that certain members are inveterate bickerers.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Or Ukraine and Palestine conflicts, or XLBullys, or Simulation Theory. I'm going to suggest that certain members are inveterate bickerers.

Don't ever say Road Tax in front of me or I will attack you.

 

[visibleman]

As for the Drake Equation it’s used as a probabilistic augment to estimated both the chance of life on planets and communicative advanced civilisations.

@Angilion is right though in that the Drake Equation is very specific in it stipulating intelligent radio communicative life forms; it doesn't calculate "life on other planets", which is extremely broad (think microbes). Drake was part of Ozma(/SETI) at this time hence the equation.

...and how I am using the equation.

So you came to a valid conclusion based on ripping apart a very specific equation?
It's not how that works but i guess you can. Although it's easier to just pick an arbitrary big number out the air over playing "maths"...

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Don't ever say Road Tax in front of me or I will attack you.

Hyperspace Bypass Tax?