The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Thanks for your honesty for once.

Where have I lied ever? Show specific examples.

I already demonstrated that.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....

The direction can't be just "up", or they would never get into orbit. It would need to fly up a little, but more parallel to the Earth's surface, since an orbit is parallel to the surface.

A rocket that just goes up would fall back to Earth.

Yes, I'm well aware of those excuses.

Show me a rocket that eventually becomes a mere speck in the sky, as it flies towards 'orbit'.

No 'up' excuse for you here.

Again, because the direction to orbit is not "straight up", that won't happen when a camera stationed at the launch site follows a rocket launch.

The direction to orbit would be over the horizon, so a rocket would disappear over the horizon first before it would otherwise disappear from the camera's view (even if it were a telescopic camera).

So you're saying we cannot film it along the way, then??

Nice try.

There have been many launches that were filmed the entire way. You just pretend it's all fake.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....

The direction can't be just "up", or they would never get into orbit. It would need to fly up a little, but more parallel to the Earth's surface, since an orbit is parallel to the surface.

A rocket that just goes up would fall back to Earth.

Yes, I'm well aware of those excuses.

Show me a rocket that eventually becomes a mere speck in the sky, as it flies towards 'orbit'.

No 'up' excuse for you here.

Again, because the direction to orbit is not "straight up", that won't happen when a camera stationed at the launch site follows a rocket launch.

The direction to orbit would be over the horizon, so a rocket would disappear over the horizon first before it would otherwise disappear from the camera's view (even if it were a telescopic camera).

So you're saying we cannot film it along the way, then??

Nice try.

There have been many launches that were filmed the entire way. You just pretend it's all fake.

Because if they cannot film it from Earth, nobody sees it from Earth, they don't tell us where to SEE it from Earth, but if they claim a rocket is filming it from above Earth, you say it's all 'true'!?!?

Nobody has seen it from Earth, that's sheer nonsense, and you know it, but simply cannot admit it, and never will, most likely, since those who have such faith, trust, and worship, for these 'gods', cannot see them as liars, only as gods, speaking truth, and if you doubt them, in any way, you are a heretic, a fool, or so forth...as who can doubt our gods, who speak all truths to us, on all things!!


When they have never told anyone, ever, where to observe their greatest, most spectacular, amazing creation of all human history, which they announced to the whole world, as we know....

We saw what we wanted to see, what we were told was true, what they showed us on TV was true, and nobody ever considered why we'd never seen a rocket fly any higher than a plane, but nobody even thought about it, or doubted it, or anything...it didn't matter, anyway.

Everyone who has ever replied about it, so far, thinks we HAVE seen it, again and again, but cannot prove it. Showing films that make it even worse, than before....

The obvious problem of rockets never flying above airplane altitudes, which is ridiculous already, suggests that a rocket, going towards 'orbit', or 'space', must fly around Earth, at first, and speed up along the way, to 'break free' of Earth, where 'gravity' holds it, and to 'break free' of gravity, a rocket must speed up, a lot....!

If they had to gain such incredible speeds, nobody would fly at such altitudes, any time, because much more resistance is found at such altitudes, which is why planes don't fly at such altitudes, they fly at much higher altitudes over flights, which is 'cruising' altitude. The air is much thinner, and less resistant, so planes fly there, faster, and use much less fuel than flying lower altitudes.

A rocket flies lower than cruising altitudes. You keep claiming they go much, much higher than any plane does, because they told you so, and showed a light in the dark sky, which 'confirms' it is in 'orbit'!

How would you look at a light, and know it's altitude? By eyesight alone? Nobody can do it, and you can't either.

If seeing a plane in daylight, we can estimate it's altitude, if clouds are nearby. If the plane is above all clouds, or within them, or below them all, indicates the plane's altitude, in general terms. Not with any accuracy, though.

At night, in a pitch black sky, an actual plane cannot be seen, only the lights of a plane are seen. Estimating its altitude is not only harder, it is nearly impossible, at times. We reference what we know about planes, and their lights, to estimate the altitude, among other things.

When a light we cannot identify is in the air, at night, there is nothing to reference it to, compare against, in size, because we don't know the size of it, first of all.

A light is all we know about it, a light that moves in the sky. It is not heard, from that distance, anyway. Planes aren't heard at all, sometimes, too. But we know they are planes, because of having lights that blink, are red, and green, obviously, which is how we can identify a plane is the light moving above Earth, when we cannot see or hear it, while moving above Earth...


If a plane didn't have those lights, but rather, had unknown, odd lights on it, when silent above Earth.....

The same as your 'ISS' light, no? It is no different.

But, since they claim this light is the ISS, in 'orbit', you believe it. Sorry, but it's complete bs

a reply to: carsforkids

You know what the problem with the drake equations is?

Its that it did not take in its equation the flat earth theory or even the hologram universe. Or a million billion other things.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: carsforkids

You know what the problem with the drake equations is?

Its that it did not take in its equation the flat earth theory or even the hologram universe. Or a million billion other things.

The problem is that everyone treats it as an actual formula with complete data sets and firmly defined variables. Nobody did any reading on what Drake actually said? I keep getting that impression through this discussion. Smells like "context insensitive" fallacy to me.

a reply to: TzarChasm

yes - and how many times have various ATS members corrected people - and cited drakes own writings and other sources - that clearly state the intent purpose and context of the equation ???

but still the cultists repeat the same nonsence

a reply to: TzarChasm

Who are these people who treat it as an actual formula? Nobody need to do much reading on it either. If somebody says that aliens dont exist because they havent said hi yet? Which it basically comes down to. It does not even take into account plasma lifeforms or even solar lifeforms. Just the average garden variety meat creatures that may or may not exist on some floating rock somewhere, and think itself intelligent.

its not something to take to take all that seriously.

a reply to: Barcs

I don't think that was ever my argument to be fair. Maybe i misrepresented my thinking or you took my words out of context.

My argument was that Ptolemy used the principles of science (study of the natural world) to create his model, without any reference to theology. It is a pretty impressive feat to model celestial motion so accurately that it took over 1000 years to supersede. Even more impressive when you consider he was completely wrong.

I too hope we can bury the hatchet and get back to constructive discussion.

a reply to: Grenade

You literally said that geocentrism was a scientific theory and I quoted that directly not too far back. I'm not arguing against anything else. I was just encouraging you to admit your mistake regarding that, since Ptolemy didn't use any experiments. If you misworded or misrepresented it by mistake, then I have no problem with that, just admit it and we'll be cool. I'm not trying to take the piss.

a reply to: Barcs

www.merriam-webster.com...

"What to Know
In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data. Theories will pull together experimental results to provide full explanations such as "The Big Bang Theory." Outside of scientific reasoning, "theory" and "hypothesis" are often used interchangeably, and "theory' can unfortunately be interpreted to mean "less sound" or "lightly speculated."

www.britannica.com...

"Geocentric model, any theory of the structure of the solar system (or the universe) in which Earth is assumed to be at the centre of it all. The most highly developed geocentric model was that of Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd century CE). It was generally accepted until the 16th century, after which it was superseded by heliocentric models such as that of Nicolaus Copernicus. Compare heliocentrism; Ptolemaic system; Tychonic system."

en.wikipedia.org...

The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model, developed in the 2nd century CE, served as the basis for preparing astrological and astronomical charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward, it was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642), and Kepler (1571-1630). There was much resistance to the transition between these two theories. Some Christian theologians were reluctant to reject a traditional theory[citation needed] that agreed with Biblical passages.[13] Others felt that a new, unknown theory could not subvert an accepted consensus for geocentrism.

Not all Greeks agreed with the geocentric model. The Pythagorean system has already been mentioned; some Pythagoreans believed the Earth to be one of several planets going around a central fire.[38] Hicetas and Ecphantus, two Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC, and Heraclides Ponticus in the 4th century BC, believed that the Earth rotated on its axis but remained at the center of the universe.[39] Such a system still qualifies as geocentric. It was revived in the Middle Ages by Jean Buridan. Heraclides Ponticus was once thought to have proposed that both Venus and Mercury went around the Sun rather than the Earth, but this is no longer accepted.[40] Martianus Capella definitely put Mercury and Venus in orbit around the Sun.[41] Aristarchus of Samos was the most radical. He wrote a work, which has not survived, on heliocentrism, saying that the Sun was at the center of the universe, while the Earth and other planets revolved around it.[42] His theory was not popular, and he had one named follower, Seleucus of Seleucia.[43]

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Grenade

You literally said that geocentrism was a scientific theory and I quoted that directly not too far back. I'm not arguing against anything else. I was just encouraging you to admit your mistake regarding that

According to relativity, any point in the universe could be the center. All things from our vantage point appear to be expanding away, indicating we are a focal point:

"The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point." source

A not-so-well-known observation is that the "big bang" happened at all locations in the universe simultaneously.

a reply to: cooperton

If, as we are to believe the universe was at one time a singular point of infinite density, then the expansion energy would surely have to be uniformly distributed.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: cooperton

If, as we are to believe the universe was at one time a singular point of infinite density, then the expansion energy would surely have to be uniformly distributed.

If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

If all points in the universe can be considered the center, it would create an array of overlapping circles that are all expanding from their center. Depicted as such:

a reply to: TzarChasm


Yes, that’s what I was attempting to say.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

If all points in the universe can be considered the center, it would create an array of overlapping circles that are all expanding from their center. Depicted as such:

Hmm, no. Each "bubble" would continuously evolve through the entire polyhedra spectrum in a fractal series. The Ant Man movie is actually surprisingly suitable for visual concept (heavy emphasis on concept)





The idea here is that ALL points are simultaneously transitioning through this process, and the process is constantly generating new points within the newly generated space as the universe expands.

Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Grenade

You literally said that geocentrism was a scientific theory and I quoted that directly not too far back. I'm not arguing against anything else. I was just encouraging you to admit your mistake regarding that, since Ptolemy didn't use any experiments. If you misworded or misrepresented it by mistake, then I have no problem with that, just admit it and we'll be cool. I'm not trying to take the piss.

Actually he did use experiments. His model was compared again and again with the actual motion of the planets and was always found to be perfectly accurate. Mariners could use his predictions to navigate the ocean (which is really all the purpose the model had for any living human at the time anyway).

The Coppernican model is actually the one that ignored experimentation.

In fact, experiments were conducted upon it, and it always PROVED WRONG.

Why? Not because the Sun isn't the center of the solar system. He was right about that.

It came out wrong every time because Coppernicus had proposed the planets would orbit in perfect circles. In fact they do not do this. Their orbits are elliptical.

Johannes Kepler saved the theory by discovering the elliptical nature of the orbits, and so for the first time ever, the Solar centric model could finally match up with experiment.

Some times it is a small thing that leads us to a gloriously wrong conclusion. And fixing it sets us aright again.

As for the Drake equation, I've realized recently that it has a fatal flaw.

It assumes humanity and Earth would have to be the FIRST life bearing world that a advanced alien species discovers. Or even among the first 200 they discover.

If we were intelligent life bearing world #1001, they just might not care enough to bother with us.

Sort of like how the American public isn't overwhelmed with excitement about going back to the Moon. It's been done already. Several times.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

wrong

a reply to: Grenade

Thanks for posting that. It agreed with everything I said.