Don't want to be a kill joy but the Drake Equation is very outdated with the onslaught of information since 1960.
It does stimulate conversations that much can be said.
And I enjoy the discussions that come from it.
Conclusions about the Drake Equation:
Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the other terms in the equation become very speculative. The uncertainties revolve around the present day understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful[/quote].[75][76]
The difficulty of life arising on an exoplanet must include these parameters not mentioned at all in the Drake equation:
1) The galaxy must be a spiral galaxy. 98% of galaxies are not spiral. This is 2% of all galaxies. Radiation from the centre of all other galaxies is too high for a planet to develop life. But for a spiral galaxy the spiral arms block the radiation enough that an exoplanet could possibly develop life.
2) The galaxy must not have wavey spirals. Of the 2% of spiral galaxies 99% of the remaining have wavy arms instead of flat arms and such spiral galaxies and cannot contain a exoplanet that could develop life. Again radiation problem coming from the centre of the galaxy.
3) Of the remaining spiral galaxies only those in a galaxy cluster that is not too dispersed and not too dense can be considered. Too dense then gravitational effects from galaxies colliding over time makes it impossible to obtain a stable flat galaxy . Too dispersed then the interaction of galaxies is not available to create the necessary elements required for life... heavy metals. There must be the ability to create heavy metals necessary for life from these galaxies. Heavy metals can not originate in many galaxy clusters and we cannot have life without heavy metals.
4) The spiral galaxy must have the right size star in it that floats around in the "goldylock zone" not too far out from the centre of the galaxy and not to close. All other planets outside this goldilock zone could not give rise to life. A stable safe distance from the centre of the galaxy to ensure a stable solar system with stable planets.
5) The perfect star must oscillate within the arm of the milky way vertically like the tides of the seashore but not too high of an amplitude and not too low of an amplitude.
The remaining 100 limitations I cannot post here on the board at this time.
Nevertheless, the probability of life elsewhere exists but the limitations are becoming more obvious as time goes on.
And for the record.....there is clear evidence of aliens posting on this board.
Ba Ha
L_R
