PDA

View Full Version : Earth not so rare



ToSeek
2003-Dec-11, 05:35 PM
Planet Formation Model Indicates Earthlike Planets Might Be Common (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13178)

tuffel999
2003-Dec-11, 06:13 PM
Reminds me of this kind of http://www.seds.org/~rme/drakeeqn.htm

It is the Drake Equation for extrasolar life.

eburacum45
2003-Dec-11, 10:24 PM
I have already linked to Sean Raymond's research here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7907&highlight=water); it is jusy about the most informative simulation work on Terrestrial planets I have seen anywhere.

Diamond
2003-Dec-17, 11:18 AM
Reminds me of this kind of http://www.seds.org/~rme/drakeeqn.htm

It is the Drake Equation for extrasolar life.

Except that the Drake Equation is not science. [-(

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Dec-17, 01:09 PM
Except that the Drake Equation is not science. [-(

It's statistics, but since you only have one data set and one point of reference it's incomplete.

Vermonter
2003-Dec-17, 05:31 PM
I never liked the Drake Equation. Too much guessing and personal bias. "Well, I don't think there are many things here." or "Well, most civs would blow themselves up."

In any case, the simulation is good news! Very good indeed.

Quote: "The more eccentric giant planet orbits result in drier terrestrial planets," Raymond said. "Conversely, more circular giant planet orbits mean wetter terrestrial planets."

That would be the influence Jup has on the comets and asteroids, I think...

ToSeek
2003-Dec-17, 05:53 PM
I never liked the Drake Equation. Too much guessing and personal bias. "Well, I don't think there are many things here." or "Well, most civs would blow themselves up."



I think the Drake Equation is more useful in terms of focusing questions than coming up with answers. It's foolish to think we can come up with a remotely accurate solution with our present understanding.

Vermonter
2003-Dec-17, 06:07 PM
I never liked the Drake Equation. Too much guessing and personal bias. "Well, I don't think there are many things here." or "Well, most civs would blow themselves up."



I think the Drake Equation is more useful in terms of focusing questions than coming up with answers. It's foolish to think we can come up with a remotely accurate solution with our present understanding.

Very true. It irks me, though, when it does get used to try and get an answer, or is passed off as a hard scientific proof.

Diamond
2003-Dec-18, 03:59 PM
Except that the Drake Equation is not science. [-(

It's statistics, but since you only have one data set and one point of reference it's incomplete.

No, its not science at all. None of the coefficients can be given with any degree of certainty apart from the first one. The rest is faith that stands apart from scientific rigour - in other words: religion.

Using the Drake equation one can equally justify any result from zero to billions. An equation that can result in anything means nothing at all in science.

Edit: for grammar

ToSeek
2003-Dec-18, 05:15 PM
Using the Drake equation one can equally justify any result from zero to billions. An equation that can result in anything means nothing at all in science.


You could say that about any equation that has factors in it that are currently unknown. It would not be fair to say that E=mc^2 is meaningless if (just postulating here) we did not know the value of c. However, it would be great motivation for determining the value of c, as indeed the Drake Equation is for determining the value of its parameters.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-18, 06:03 PM
Using the Drake equation one can equally justify any result from zero to billions. An equation that can result in anything means nothing at all in science.


You could say that about any equation that has factors in it that are currently unknown. It would not be fair to say that E=mc^2 is meaningless if (just postulating here) we did not know the value of c. However, it would be great motivation for determining the value of c, as indeed the Drake Equation is for determining the value of its parameters.

That's true. The Drake Equation is not meant to be accurate, just a model based on several key assumptions. Obviously these are very limited assumptions, yet they nonetheless provide the motivation to seek the correct coefficients. It's not a hard science equation that can be explicitly "derived," but it is a general prediction model for a more accurate data analysis to come with more investigation.

Diamond
2003-Dec-18, 07:59 PM
Using the Drake equation one can equally justify any result from zero to billions. An equation that can result in anything means nothing at all in science.


You could say that about any equation that has factors in it that are currently unknown. It would not be fair to say that E=mc^2 is meaningless if (just postulating here) we did not know the value of c. However, it would be great motivation for determining the value of c, as indeed the Drake Equation is for determining the value of its parameters.

That's true. The Drake Equation is not meant to be accurate, just a model based on several key assumptions. Obviously these are very limited assumptions, yet they nonetheless provide the motivation to seek the correct coefficients. It's not a hard science equation that can be explicitly "derived," but it is a general prediction model for a more accurate data analysis to come with more investigation.

No, you misunderstand. The Drake Equation is not science at all. E=mc^2 relates mass and energy and can be tested and verified by anyone.

In contrast, despite its mathematical form, the Drake equation has six or more complete unknowns. The coefficients can be guessed at by anybody and can give whatever hope or lack of hope a person wishes - like a religious belief.

I'll come clean - I'll start a new thread and explain why.

Diamond
2003-Dec-18, 08:03 PM
sorry wrong place

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 08:19 PM
Oops Didn't mean to start that. I just think the drake equation is fun to play with that is all. Sorry for disrupting the thread.