The likelihood of finding a planet with ALL the requirements to support life AND for that life to exist at all, much less to be intelligent enough to build a transmitter, are virtually nil. The odds are like 1:10e-300.
Are you not familiar with the Drake equation?
“The likelihood of finding a planet with ALL the requirements to support life AND for that life to exist at all, much less to be intelligent enough to build a transmitter, are virtually nil. The odds are like 1:10e-300.”
The problem is when. Some scientists have posited that the amount of time a civilization with a comparable lifespan to ours has between developing radio and collapse from war/pollution/disease is 100-200 years.
Who said that life has to be like us?
e? You mean Euler’s number?
Do you mean -300 as a subtrahend or an exponent?
The key to your statement is “the likelihood of FINDING” which has nothing to do with the likelihood of Existing. To be clear. Using statistics to prove or disprove anything is a fool’s errand. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. And explain the “tic-tacks” filmed, seen, and reported multiple times by the US Navy, please.
he likelihood of finding a planet with ALL the requirements to support life AND for that life to exist at all, much less to be intelligent enough to build a transmitter, are virtually nil. The odds are like 1:10e-300.
The statistic is based on a priori assumptions which leads to nothing more than a guess. One might as well go with the 12-year climate change prediction based on the amount of time we have left on this Earth. That too is an a priori assumption. The truth is the actual percentage of finding another planet like ours has a percentage somewhere between 0 and infinity.
In simpler words, They “...know nuthin’, John Snow”