Intelegent life in the Universe, how common is it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
We only have a sample of 1 universe to analyse too..

And how is this relevant?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Blake
Well, whats common?
Intelligent life on 1 in 10 systems?
1 in 1000?
1 in 1,000,000?
1 in 1,000,000,000?


The problem is with 100,000,000,000 stars in the milkyway, any of those could be considered "common", but to the average earthling, 1 in a million is not common.

Altough I would probably put it like this:
1 in 1,000,000 - Common
1 in 1,000,000,000 Rare
1 in 100,000,000,000 Very Rare
1 - Unique

where does pretty damned rare fit into that?

[Whaleboy]

That doesn't count the need of a big, stailizing moon, Jupiter clearing out the asteroids, and most of all, the Sagans of the world forget that intelegence isn't the goal of evolution. I consider that equation a bunch of over-optimisstic crap.

The same equation can be outfitted with different wildcards, as I have done. 4 - 50 intelligent species (capable of intelligent communication across interstellar) in this galaxy is reasonable, excluding Earth of course, where we are not the only said species... dolphins for example and some other primates that can communicate and thus possible attain the characteristics to develop a civilisation capable of interstellar communication... seems to indicate the intelligence is not an evolutionary fluke. As for species building spaceships and zapping each other with lasers, that's most likely less common for several other reasons, though it would be idiotic to discount it.

Are we talking intelligent as in dolphins frolicking in the sea or intelligent as in humans building New York and selling Big Macs?

In terms of what is the "better" intelligence, I'd say dolphins! In terms of intelligence according to the Drake equation, it's big macs all the way . Drake works on the idea that a species would be capable of interstellar communication.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dissident
there isn't intelligent life on earth. Why would the universe have any?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
*Whips out Drake equation...*

With all due respect, Drakes equation is a crock of sh1t.

Most of the numbers you need to plug in are guesses

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Has anyone commented on the irony of the title yet?

Spotted it straight away, I must be in a mellow mood today, I let it ride!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava

'Twas neither creative nor funny the first time it was said...

[Odin]

Originally posted by reds4ever


With all due respect, Drakes equation is a crock of sh1t.

Most of the numbers you need to plug in are guesses

BINGO!

There is a book where a lot of my ideas on ETs came from called Rare Earth. it is a good read on how lucky we really are compared to other possible living worlds. As I said before, Most life will probably be found in the Europas of the universe.

[smacksim]

Originally posted by reds4ever
With all due respect, Drakes equation is a crock of sh1t.
Most of the numbers you need to plug in are guesses

I thought the point was just to get thinking about the numbers, not to provide anything like a hypothesis. Without 'guessing' what kind of factors might come into play, how are we to search for answers?

-S

[:) Smiley]

If we want our aliens we're gonna hafta seed the galaxy MoO style.

[Theben]

Re: Intelegent life in the Universe, how common is it?

As you spelled 'intelligent' wrong in the title, you're probably not the most qualified to ask this question.

[Whaleboy]

Most of the numbers you need to plug in are guesses

Until we find better evidence though, guesswork based on guesswork is the best we can do

[The Andy-Man]

'you'd better hope there something up there,
cos theres bugger all down here on earth.'

Now you've put it that way, yes, you can have me liver.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Until we find better evidence though, guesswork based on guesswork is the best we can do

The Drake Equation does not have enough variables. For example, Earths tilt is kept between 20 and 25 degrees because of Luna. The Erath-Moon system is the only case of a double planet in the Solar System (I don't consider Pluto a planet, it is the largest known Kuiper Belt object, technically). Without the Moon the Earth's axis will wobble around randomly between 0-90 degrees, preventing the evolution of complex life. The moon formed when a Mars-sized protoplanet collided with the proto-earth at a very off-center angle. the impactor's core and much of its mantle merged with the proto-earth. Vaporized chunks of the mantles of the earth and the impactor recoalesed to form the Moon. How likwly are such double planets in a star system's habitalble zone?

Onother trump card is the thickness of the stellar disc. If the desc is too thick and dense it will cause the planets to spiral inward untill the disc is cleared. this is carried to great extremes with the systems with "epistellar giants", gas giant planets that are closer to their star then Mercury is to the Sun. The only hope for such systems is if a Jovian planet with an earth-sized moon ends up in the star's habitable zone. There is one such planet known. HD177830 b is a 1.28 Jupiter mass planet orbiting the K0 (yellow-orange) star HD177830, located 192 light-years away in the constellation Vulpecula. This planet is likely to be within its habitable zone. A moon found here could have liquid water and look similar to Earth.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Until we find better evidence though, guesswork based on guesswork is the best we can do

Indeed guesswork is the best we can do at the moment, but to call it an 'equation' implies otherwise, don't you think?

'Drakes guess',while a more accurate description, does n't have the same ring of authority to it though?