Verified answer

The virtue in the Drake equation is that it has no numbers. You get to put in any numbers you feel represent the data you feel to be accurate, or wish to explore. The bottom line is that given the size of the universe it is virtually impossible to create a scenario in which earth has the only intelligent life form. The Drake equation is a demonstration of the argument against us being alone in the universe. On the other hand, the great distances may well mean that it may be improbable that any two intelligent life forms on different planets ever come in contact with each other.

Its hard to disagree with the equation itself, since it's really just a fancy way of *counting* extraterrestrial civilizations. However, there is a lot of disagreement about the numbers that go into the equation!

My personal belief is that the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy is a lot bigger than 10! But nobody really knows since there are so many terms in the equation that we have no idea about.

You've got it all wrong. "Believe in" Drake equation? Drake's equation is fine, perfect, and unchallenged in science. That's because Drake's Equation has NO NUMBERS in it at all!

Now the numbers needed to fill in Drake's equation, that's an entirely different story. There are seven of those numbers, and of the seven only one is known with any confidence. The other six are up for grabs.

So if you find the *results* of the Drake equation unacceptable, just plug in different numbers and get yourself a more acceptable answer. But be prepared to defend your numbers, that's all.

For myself, I find the result of 10 technological civilizations in the galaxy reasonable. If there were thousands, they would be here by now.

But the equation itself -- who can deny its validity?

The thing that you've have got to remember about drakes equation is that it is fantastically subjective and depends on how optimistic the person solving the equation is. As it is the person solving the equation that decides on each value, none are observationally determined.

I, personally, believe in Drakes equation, although I am slightly more optimistic that 10, probably a couple of thousand.

No! The equation is from an egghead who uses his PC for his conclusions.

It is highly unlikely that it will ever be disproved and therefore remain for other eggheads to tinker with.

The real facts against Drake's equation are as follow:

Our moon stabilizes the earth's axis and helps control our climate. The location of our solar system in our own galaxy prevents over exposure from our sun.

Most stars in the universe are smaller than our sun and that would require planets to orbit closer to their sun to obtain necessary heat.

Since Jupiter's orbit is in the same solar plane as our earth, it protects us from being hit by many things such as asteroids and comets.

Having only one sun in our system provides a more stable orbit by the earth around the sun. Our distance from the sun is such that an atmosphere and liquid water can form and be maintained.

However, convincing the equation believers otherwise, would be like trying to convince the ufoers, Yeti and lockness believers of their nonexistence...that would be a lesson in futility.

The Drake equation (also known as the Green Bank equation or the Sagan equation) is a famous result in the speculative fields of xenobiology, astrosociobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in the 1960s in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of extraterrestrial civilizations. In recent years, the Rare Earth hypothesis, which posits that conditions for intelligent life are quite rare in the universe has been seen as a possible refutation of the equation.

The Drake equation is closely related to the Fermi paradox. It was cited by Gene Roddenberry as supporting the multiplicity of starfaring civilizations shown in Star Trek, the television show he created.

The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{*} ~ \times ~ f_{p} ~ \times ~ n_{e} ~ \times ~ f_{l} ~ \times ~ f_{i} ~ \times ~ f_{c} ~ \times ~ L

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time

and

R* is the rate of star formation in our galaxy

fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

ne is average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life

fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

fc is the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate

L is the expected lifetime of such a civilization

The well-known astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare.

(Note, however, that in the year 2001 a value of 50,000 for L can be used with exactly the same degree of confidence that Drake had in using 10,000 in the year 1961.)

The remarkable thing about the Drake equation is that by plugging in apparently fairly plausible values for each of the parameters above, the resultant expectant value of N is generally often >> 1. This has provided considerable motivation for the SETI movement. However, this conflicts with the currently observed value of N = 1; i.e., one observed civilization in the entire galaxy. Other assumptions give values of N that are << 1, in accord with the observable evidence.

This conflict is often called the Fermi paradox, after Enrico Fermi who first publicised the subject, and suggests that our understanding of what is a "conservative" value for some of the parameters may be overly optimistic or that some other factor is involved to suppress the development of intelligent space-faring life.

All the Drake equation does is take one number that we do not know and break it into a bunch of other numbers, most of which we do not know. It just seems like a silly waste of time to me.

no

n=0

I haven't seen any legitimate evidence (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though) for technologically-advanced civilizations in our galaxy. My guess would be that it's possible, but at the moment - no.

It's not an equation, it's just a huge estimate. He's probably not too far off though .... Hopefully