Starborn Dragon
Captain
I think that while it's a most eggsellent, equation, i think it's missing something.
For those who don't know,according to the wiki:
The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations,[1] but intended as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the world's first search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) meeting, in Green Bank, West Virginia. The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.[1] The Drake equation has proved controversial since several of its factors are currently unknown, and estimates of their values span a very wide range. This has led critics to label the equation a guesstimate, or even meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
But that was before the Hubble Telescope.
The Hubble telescope took pictures of something called a stellar nursery, which is a region of space that has lots of materials to create a star, and is very hostile, to at least our form of life.
So that got me to thinking, that maybe mister Drake didn't know about this kind of thing.
Then i saw this show on the Gamma Ray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HIokbQMHB8
Which, in short,s ays that if the earth is hit by one, depending upon the distance, the earth will be badly affected and a lot of life would go extinct, to everything going extinct.
so, perhaps, space is NOT as hospitable to life as he would have thought.
I think that there are many regions of space that are very hostile to our form of life and maybe in ways we probably haven't discovered yet.
So, in short, outer space is more hostile to our form of life, and I sometimes wonder if the Drake equation doesn't really address this factor. If it doesn't, then doesn't it stem to logic and reason that it should be updated to reflect these hostile regions?
And perhaps that it is actually much harder for life to develop out there than we think.
But I'm not a scientist or a mathematician. I'm simply speculating about the possibility, and i certainly wouldn't know the proper methodology to properly change it.
For those who don't know,according to the wiki:
The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations,[1] but intended as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the world's first search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) meeting, in Green Bank, West Virginia. The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.[1] The Drake equation has proved controversial since several of its factors are currently unknown, and estimates of their values span a very wide range. This has led critics to label the equation a guesstimate, or even meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
But that was before the Hubble Telescope.
The Hubble telescope took pictures of something called a stellar nursery, which is a region of space that has lots of materials to create a star, and is very hostile, to at least our form of life.
So that got me to thinking, that maybe mister Drake didn't know about this kind of thing.
Then i saw this show on the Gamma Ray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HIokbQMHB8
Which, in short,s ays that if the earth is hit by one, depending upon the distance, the earth will be badly affected and a lot of life would go extinct, to everything going extinct.
so, perhaps, space is NOT as hospitable to life as he would have thought.
I think that there are many regions of space that are very hostile to our form of life and maybe in ways we probably haven't discovered yet.
So, in short, outer space is more hostile to our form of life, and I sometimes wonder if the Drake equation doesn't really address this factor. If it doesn't, then doesn't it stem to logic and reason that it should be updated to reflect these hostile regions?
And perhaps that it is actually much harder for life to develop out there than we think.
But I'm not a scientist or a mathematician. I'm simply speculating about the possibility, and i certainly wouldn't know the proper methodology to properly change it.
