which of these factors have gone up or down since drake wroe his equation?what does that mean in terms of zooming in on the number 'N'for example:in drakes time he knew nothing about exoplanets, now loads have been detected
exoplanets has no sunlight, they are not needed in terms of chances, otherwise goldilocks wouldn't be a thing
>>17009768None of them have changed, we are still working on a sample size of 1. Unless you are dumb enough to assume that simply because we had not detected planets in other systems in the past they couldn't possibly exists or something.
>>17009768>which of these factors have gone up or down since drake wroe his equation?Most of them are impossible to estimate with existing data. Attempts to do so are cope and willful self-delusion. The equation is useless.
Fp turned out to be pretty high. Like 50-90% percent of stars actually have planet systems or so.
Hold on, Drake doin science now too? He is one talented nig
>>17009768Evolutionary progress isn't a given, it needs a certain arrangement of gas giants creating milankovitch cycles for Fi. Multiply that by everything else rare earth claims, and the calculator says this galaxy is ours to conquer. I'd prefer a lenticular but it'll do.
>>17009768While lots of exoplanets have been discovered, they are also mostly large gas giants that can't support life (though this is a technical limitation since it's almost impossible to detect smaller, rocky, Earth-like planets with current methods). Then there's the 'rare Earth hypothesis' that leans towards the requirements of life needing low radiation, high amounts of heavy elements, and other constraints - for example abiogenesis appears to be a lot more unlikely than those in Drake's era believed. So the original estimates for [math]n_e, f_e, f_i[/math] appear to have been far too high.
>>17009768This equarion seems incomplete.I'm not seeing the I term, nor the E or the G terms.
>>17009768ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
