Re: Estimates of life in the universe

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:04:09 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dkomo wrote:

I ran across some estimates of the prevalence of life in the universe.
There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion
galaxies in the observable universe so the total number of stars is 10^21.

1. Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapely assumed:

a. 1 star in a thousand has planets
b. 1 in a thousand of the stars in (a) has a planet at the right
distance from it
c. 1 in a thousand of the planets in (b) is large enough to hold an
atmosphere
d. 1 in a thousand of the planets in (c) has the right chemical
composition to support life

and concluded there should be at least 100 million planets capable of
supporting life in the universe.

2. Astronomer Su-Shu Huang made less limiting assumptions, so that he
came to the conclusion that 5 percent of all solar systems in the
universe should be able to support life. This means 100 billion
life-bearing planets.

3. Harrison Brown assumed that almost every visible star posses a
partially or wholly invisible panetary system. This means 100 billion
solar systems in our own galaxy alone, and there are 100 billion
galaxies in this universe.

4. Frank Drake, the originator of the Drake equation, estimated that
10,000 advanced technological civilizations are likely to exist in the
Milky Way galaxy alone.

5. The Drake equation was updated and elaborated by Carl Sagan and
colleagues. They estimated that up to one million intelligent
civilizations could exist in our galaxy.

6. Robert Taormina applied the equations in (5) to a region within 100
light-years fro earth and found that more than 8 such civilizations
should be present within hailing distance from us.

The estimates of the number of life bearing planets or intelligent
civilizations vary quite a lot, but they are all significantly greater
than 1.

Do you think that a one of them is worth anything, or that input numbers
are any better than you could pull out of your ass? Consider the number
of intelligent civilizations we actually know about. Most estimates put
the number at either one or zero.

The number we know about is probably the least reliable indicator.
Even if there are thousands of advanced civilizations in our galaxy as
Drake estimates, they're still thousands of light years apart on
average. Earth has had a civilization able to detect interstellar
signals for only about 100 years of its 4.5 billion years of
existence. Without giving myself a migraine doing the math, it seems
pretty obvious that the chances of any civilization detecting another
are vanishingly small even if there are as many as the most optimistic
estimates.

McGoo

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ... civilizations could exist in our galaxy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ... civilizations could exist in our galaxy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ... civilizations could exist in our galaxy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ... civilizations could exist in our galaxy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: cosmology pulls out the rug
    ... In this era of precision cosmology we can in ... perturbation from black holes and other stars. ... outskirts of the Galaxy don't have metals. ... discovered planets is gaseous and in any case not prone to harbouring ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading