Posted on 03/30/2022 4:53:58 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Extraterrestrial space archaeology is engaged with the search for relics of other technological civilizations. It resembles a survey for plastic bottles in the ocean as they keep accumulating over time. The senders may not be alive when we find the relics. These circumstances are different from those encountered by the famous Drake equation, which quantifies the likelihood of detecting radio signals from extraterrestrials. That case resembles a phone conversation in which the counterpart must be active when we listen. Not so in extraterrestrial archaeology.
What would be the substitute to Drake’s equation for space archeology? If our instruments survey a volume V, the number of objects we find in each snapshot would be,
N = n * V,
where n is the number of relics per unit volume. Suppose on the other hand that we have a fishing net of area A, like the atmosphere of the Earth when fishing meteors. In that case, the rate of new objects crossing the survey area per unit time is:
R = n * v * A,
where v is the characteristic one-dimensional velocity of the relic along the direction perpendicular to that area. Both n and v could be a function of the size of the objects. NASA launched many more small-spacecraft than large ones. And it requires more energy to launch faster objects.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedebrief.org ...
The counterpart doesn’t have to be active when we intercept a signal. They could be dead and buried, along with their civilization. Space is big and light isn’t instantaneous at a distance.
Well, that's just axiomatic. if n is the number of relics per unit volume, that comes out to be N/V, so the equation becomes N=N/V*V, which is N=N
Seems like a pretty stupid point to make.
Also, who cares about the velocity if you are sampling a certain volume in a certain period?
When N=1, we know with certainty that we are not the only technological civilization that has ever existed.
Space travel is fun for escapism, and I did enjoy the fantasy. But the distances are so vast.
That’s what New Yorkers used to say about traveling to California in the early 1900s.
Yeah, but you could get to California in a week with available technology. How long to get to Alpha Centauri?
It is impossible with existing or even most imagined technology...but that does not mean it is impossible.
Humans are still primitive. We have only scratched the surface of what's possible.
I have watched some videos recently in which physicists said that physics might rest on a foundation of consciousness.
I have no earthly idea what that might mean, but they said that, if true, it would upend our current understanding of physics and even reality itself.
If materialism explains all that there is, then what does consciousness rest on? Turtles, all the way down? I guess even the physicists feel like the “material” is inadequate to explain our world to our “primitive” minds.
drakes and yodels
This topic was posted , thanks RoosterRedux.
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·
· post new topic · subscribe ·Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
