On 7/21/2021 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 7/21/2021 12:41 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>>> Trumpophobes are screaming 'Orange Man Bad'!
>>
>> The average NEVER_TRUMPER is an idiot, perhaps even a lunatic.
>>
>> There is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons.
>>
>> Finding good things to say about Hitler is very much the same
>> thing as finding good things to say about Donald Trump. While
>> it is actually possible, the evil the man wrought is so
>> overwhelming as to negate any possible good. Trump carries
>> many false flags. Whoever he/she is, why are you completely
>> certain about your hero(s?)
>
>
> Another fauci science guy...You cannot name not one thing Aldolf Hitler has ever done bad. Name one 'not good' thing he done??

So finally you've come out clearly displaying your insanity.

google "Hitler's crimes" 3,410.000 hits

"During World War II, the Germans' combined armed forces
(Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) committed systematic
war crimes, including massacres, mass rape, looting, the
exploitation of forced labor, the murder of three million
Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the
extermination of Jews"

Under the well understood and universally accepted
"respondeat superior" doctrine, Hitler was responsible for
all the events that transpired under his command. But if you
insist on a single act in which his hand played a direct role
it was the execution of Eva Braun and himself for political
purposes.

I chose to believe you are insane, although you could just be
very very very stupid. Sometimes, as here, it is impossible to
tell the difference.

whodat wrote:
>
> On 7/21/2021 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/21/2021 12:41 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >>
> >>> Trumpophobes are screaming 'Orange Man Bad'!
> >>
> >> The average NEVER_TRUMPER is an idiot, perhaps even a lunatic.
> >>
> >> There is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons.
> >>
> >> Finding good things to say about Hitler is very much the same
> >> thing as finding good things to say about Donald Trump. While
> >> it is actually possible, the evil the man wrought is so
> >> overwhelming as to negate any possible good. Trump carries
> >> many false flags. Whoever he/she is, why are you completely
> >> certain about your hero(s?)
> >
> >
> > Another fauci science guy...You cannot name not one thing Aldolf Hitler has ever done bad. Name one 'not good' thing he done??
>
> So finally you've come out clearly displaying your insanity.
>
> google "Hitler's crimes" 3,410.000 hits
>
> "During World War II, the Germans' combined armed forces
> (Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) committed systematic
> war crimes, including massacres, mass rape, looting, the
> exploitation of forced labor, the murder of three million
> Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the
> extermination of Jews"
>
> Under the well understood and universally accepted
> "respondeat superior" doctrine, Hitler was responsible for
> all the events that transpired under his command. But if you
> insist on a single act in which his hand played a direct role
> it was the execution of Eva Braun and himself for political
> purposes.
>
> I chose to believe you are insane, although you could just be
> very very very stupid. Sometimes, as here, it is impossible to
> tell the difference.

I see whodat dat dat you couldn't think of one 'not good' thing he done so you had to look it up.

Where did you look it up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

WIKIPEDIA co-founder: Nobody should trust the site!

Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created...

whodat say who there when I say whodat

You had to look it up because you could not think of one thing Aldolf Hitler done wrong...tsk, tsk, tsk.

"During World War II, the Germans' combined armed forces..."

I said "one thing Aldolf Hitler has ever done bad.", I didn't say what did the Germans did bad..

whodat say who there when I say whodat

you're not very smart are you? and, and you hang out in a "science" newsgroup????

wats the vorld comin too????

whodat say whothere when I say whothere?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 07/21/2021 09:09 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Mainspring wrote:
>
>> But if you want to know how to kill Injuns, look
>> no further than the Canadian "conversion" schools.
>> The little-kid body-counts around those places are
>> sure to grow into the thousands.
>
> Just the other day, some right-winger told me that they were guilty
> only of trying to turn those kids into "good little citizens".
>
> That's not a bad thing, the white man did, right?
>
> What I don't understand is how molesting children, or killing them,
> turns them into "good little citizens".
>

Once again I forgot the <sarcasm/> markup.

On 18-Jul-21 9:03 pm, Bud W Thacker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> I mean, you got ten fingers so you should be able to count to ten.
>>>
>> An entirely uninteresting question based on a disputed meaning of the
>> word "planet".
>
> Not so, I read once there is a planet ten times larger than Jupiter
> located somewhere the double distance sun-pluto. Not visible otherwise.
>

Starmaker appears to be seeking to create an argument based on the
various definitions of the word planet. I just don't see the point.

Sylvia.

On 21 Jul 2021, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> posted some
news:ils0t6FtqvkU2@mid.individual.net:

> On 07/21/2021 09:09 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> Mainspring wrote:
>>
>>> But if you want to know how to kill Injuns, look
>>> no further than the Canadian "conversion" schools.
>>> The little-kid body-counts around those places are
>>> sure to grow into the thousands.
>>
>> Just the other day, some right-winger told me that they were guilty
>> only of trying to turn those kids into "good little citizens".
>>
>> That's not a bad thing, the white man did, right?
>>
>> What I don't understand is how molesting children, or killing them,
>> turns them into "good little citizens".
>>
>
> Once again I forgot the <sarcasm/> markup.

Canadians aren't white men. They're frogs.

In sci.physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/2021 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/21/2021 12:41 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trumpophobes are screaming 'Orange Man Bad'!
>>>
>>> The average NEVER_TRUMPER is an idiot, perhaps even a lunatic.
>>>
>>> There is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons.
>>>
>>> Finding good things to say about Hitler is very much the same
>>> thing as finding good things to say about Donald Trump. While
>>> it is actually possible, the evil the man wrought is so
>>> overwhelming as to negate any possible good. Trump carries
>>> many false flags. Whoever he/she is, why are you completely
>>> certain about your hero(s?)
>>
>>
>> Another fauci science guy...You cannot name not one thing Aldolf Hitler has ever done bad. Name one 'not good' thing he done??
>
> So finally you've come out clearly displaying your insanity.
>
> google "Hitler's crimes" 3,410.000 hits
>
> "During World War II, the Germans' combined armed forces
> (Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) committed systematic
> war crimes, including massacres, mass rape, looting, the
> exploitation of forced labor, the murder of three million
> Soviet prisoners of war, and participated in the
> extermination of Jews"
>
> Under the well understood and universally accepted
> "respondeat superior" doctrine, Hitler was responsible for
> all the events that transpired under his command. But if you
> insist on a single act in which his hand played a direct role
> it was the execution of Eva Braun and himself for political
> purposes.
>
> I chose to believe you are insane, although you could just be
> very very very stupid. Sometimes, as here, it is impossible to
> tell the difference.

Have you ever concidered he might be both insane and very very very
stupid?

The two are not exclusive.

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
> > > > >
> > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
> > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
> > >
> > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
> > >
> > > Word salad...
> > >
> > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > >
> > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
> > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
> > >
> > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
> > > >
> > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
> > >
> > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
> > >
> > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
> > >
> > > I never mentioned anything about planets...
> > >
> > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
> > >
> > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
>
> > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
> >
> > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
>
> Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
>
> ... is this enough for you?
>
> I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
>
> https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
>
> " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."

Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg

and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.

An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.

It's Fake Science!

Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.

Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg

and then you multiply it by a million????

This is 'fauci science'...

Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...

If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
> > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
> > > >
> > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
> > > >
> > > > Word salad...
> > > >
> > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > >
> > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
> > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
> > > >
> > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
> > > >
> > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
> > > >
> > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
> > > >
> > > > I never mentioned anything about planets...
> > > >
> > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
> > > >
> > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
> >
> > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
> > >
> > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
> >
> > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
> >
> > ... is this enough for you?
> >
> > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
> >
> > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
> >
> > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
>
> Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
>
> and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.
>
> An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.
>
> It's Fake Science!
>
> Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.
>
> Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
>
> and then you multiply it by a million????
>
> This is 'fauci science'...
>
> Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...
>
> If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Here is a quote about ...so-called planets:

“Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable.
Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s
extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.”

https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/

The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ...

Data???? wat those dat mean?

"Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean?

"we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean?

That means, some fauci guy got a calculator
took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets!

I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
> > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
> > > > >
> > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
> > > > >
> > > > > Word salad...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
> > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
> > > > >
> > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
> > > > >
> > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
> > >
> > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
> > > >
> > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
> > >
> > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
> > >
> > > ... is this enough for you?
> > >
> > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
> > >
> > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
> > >
> > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
> >
> > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...
> >
> > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> >
> > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.
> >
> > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.
> >
> > It's Fake Science!
> >
> > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.
> >
> > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?
> >
> > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> >
> > and then you multiply it by a million????
> >
> > This is 'fauci science'...
> >
> > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...
> >
> > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Here is a quote about ...so-called planets:
>
> “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable.
> Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s
> extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.”
>
> https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/
>
> The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ...
>
> Data???? wat those dat mean?
>
> "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean?
>
> "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean?
>
> That means, some fauci guy got a calculator
> took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets!
>
> I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS!
>

about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations:

"The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.
I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses.
The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 7/22/2021 12:58 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.

In USA of today he'd be working in a warehouse.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
> > > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Word salad...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
> > > > >
> > > > > ... is this enough for you?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
> > > > >
> > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> > > >
> > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.
> > > >
> > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.
> > > >
> > > > It's Fake Science!
> > > >
> > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.
> > > >
> > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?
> > > >
> > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> > > >
> > > > and then you multiply it by a million????
> > > >
> > > > This is 'fauci science'...
> > > >
> > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...
> > > >
> > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets:
> > >
> > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable.
> > > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s
> > > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.”
> > >
> > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/
> > >
> > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ...
> > >
> > > Data???? wat those dat mean?
> > >
> > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean?
> > >
> > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean?
> > >
> > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator
> > > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets!
> > >
> > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS!
> > >
> > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations:
> >
> > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
> > Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
> > As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
> > Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.
> > I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses.
> > The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."
> > --
> The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be z
>
> The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true.
>
> Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
> > > > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Word salad...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
> > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... is this enough for you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.
> > > > >
> > > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's Fake Science!
> > > > >
> > > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > and then you multiply it by a million????
> > > > >
> > > > > This is 'fauci science'...
> > > > >
> > > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...
> > > > >
> > > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets:
> > > >
> > > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable.
> > > > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s
> > > > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.”
> > > >
> > > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/
> > > >
> > > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ...
> > > >
> > > > Data???? wat those dat mean?
> > > >
> > > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean?
> > > >
> > > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean?
> > > >
> > > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator
> > > > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets!
> > > >
> > > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS!
> > > >
> > > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations:
> > >
> > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
> > > Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
> > > As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
> > > Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.
> > > I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses.
> > > The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."
> > > --
> > The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be
> >
> > The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true.
> >
> > Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise.
>
> I understand yous people...if the information is not in your head then it doesn't exist anywhere else..limited intelligence they call it. Know your limits.
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifq6nLv_fxAhWBAp0JHTrCALQQxfQBMAJ6BAgJEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fscience%2Fastronomy-exoplanets-kepler.html&usg=AOvVaw1HR650WjY-flEnpnUWn8Wp
>
> ""Dr. Batalha said that young scientists in the future might yet find a way to improve the value of eta-Earth: “Until then, this will be the de facto standard.”
>
> The value of eta-Earth is an important and hitherto unknown factor in a mathematical expression known as the Drake Equation.
> It is used by astronomers to estimate how many technological civilizations might exist in the galaxy, and that we might be able to contact by radio or other means some cosmic day.""
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=kepler-186f+planet+drake&sxsrf=ALeKk016_iSLqLuI10PrW1-ItBmGu63UWw:1626985228884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PykwPfxAhXBZc0KHRJVCQYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=1067

whodat wrote:
>
> On 7/20/2021 5:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 18-Jul-21 4:08 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> How many planets are there in the universe?
> >>>>
> >>>> okay...according to fausi science..
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a list of 8 planets I found on a google seach..
> >>>>
> >>>> Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune...
> >>>>
> >>>> so what is the name of the 9th planet?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you don't know the name then there are only 8 planets that exist in
> >>>> our universe, the whole universe...all of outer space.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you believe in fausi science then you must believe there are billions
> >>>> of planets in space...so what then is the name of the 9th one?
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean, you got ten fingers so you should be able to count
> >>>> to ten.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> An entirely uninteresting question based on a disputed meaning of the
> >>> word "planet".
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> Okay, I'll re-phrase the question...so what then is the name of the 9th planet from our sun?
> >>
> >> (these science guys all talk like fauci...)
> >
> >
> > Truth is (nobdy wants to admit)...is, there is only one sun in the whole
> > entire universe.
>
> What does Alice have to say about this?

whodat?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

In article <60FA5EE7.4096@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > > Truth is (nobdy wants to admit)...is, there is only one sun in the whole
> > > entire universe.
> >
> > What does Alice have to say about this?
>
> whodat?

I don't know. I do know she's ten feet tall.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

On 23-Jul-21 4:15 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it:
>>>>>>>>>>> Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Word salad...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wiki (the facuci science website) reads:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt that anyone would argue about this...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never mentioned anything about planets...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... is this enough for you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's Fake Science!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yous guys take a dot and the result is this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and then you multiply it by a million????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is 'fauci science'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>>>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>>>>>> the unchallengeable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a quote about ...so-called planets:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable.
>>>>> Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s
>>>>> extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.”
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Data???? wat those dat mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> That means, some fauci guy got a calculator
>>>>> took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS!
>>>>>
>>>> about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations:
>>>>
>>>> "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
>>>> The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
>>>> Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
>>>> As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.
>>>> Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.
>>>> I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses.
>>>> The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."
>>>> --
>>> The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be
>>>
>>> The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true.
>>>
>>> Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise.
>>
>> I understand yous people...if the information is not in your head then it doesn't exist anywhere else..limited intelligence they call it. Know your limits.
>>
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifq6nLv_fxAhWBAp0JHTrCALQQxfQBMAJ6BAgJEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fscience%2Fastronomy-exoplanets-kepler.html&usg=AOvVaw1HR650WjY-flEnpnUWn8Wp
>>
>> ""Dr. Batalha said that young scientists in the future might yet find a way to improve the value of eta-Earth: “Until then, this will be the de facto standard.”
>>
>> The value of eta-Earth is an important and hitherto unknown factor in a mathematical expression known as the Drake Equation.
>> It is used by astronomers to estimate how many technological civilizations might exist in the galaxy, and that we might be able to contact by radio or other means some cosmic day.""
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=kepler-186f+planet+drake&sxsrf=ALeKk016_iSLqLuI10PrW1-ItBmGu63UWw:1626985228884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PykwPfxAhXBZc0KHRJVCQYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=1067
>
>
> Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation.
>
>
> n =
>
> Drake put in a value for n =
>
> and that value he used is fraud.
>
> Look up what number he put for n =
>
> and you will see the fraud.

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation.
> > >
> > >
> > > n =
> > >
> > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > >
> > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > >
> > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > >
> > > and you will see the fraud.
>
> Now you are moving the goalposts.

I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote:

"The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing

>
> "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice."

>
> And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer!

You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation.

I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation."

n =

Drake put in a value for n =

and that value he used is fraud.

Look up what number he put for n =

and you will see the fraud.

The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent.

But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements.

It's obvious to everyone here...

What is the value that Drake used in n = ????

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 7/23/2021 1:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 7/20/2021 5:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18-Jul-21 4:08 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> How many planets are there in the universe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> okay...according to fausi science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a list of 8 planets I found on a google seach..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so what is the name of the 9th planet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't know the name then there are only 8 planets that exist in
>>>>>> our universe, the whole universe...all of outer space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you believe in fausi science then you must believe there are billions
>>>>>> of planets in space...so what then is the name of the 9th one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, you got ten fingers so you should be able to count
>>>>>> to ten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An entirely uninteresting question based on a disputed meaning of the
>>>>> word "planet".
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I'll re-phrase the question...so what then is the name of the 9th planet from our sun?
>>>>
>>>> (these science guys all talk like fauci...)
>>>
>>>
>>> Truth is (nobdy wants to admit)...is, there is only one sun in the whole
>>> entire universe.
>>
>> What does Alice have to say about this?
>
> whodat?

You're on speaking terms with Alice but you don't know?

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > n =
> > > > >
> > > > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > > > >
> > > > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > > > >
> > > > > and you will see the fraud.
> > >
> > > Now you are moving the goalposts.
> > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote:
> >
> > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing
> > >
> > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer!
>
> > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation."
> > n =
> >
> > Drake put in a value for n =
> >
> > and that value he used is fraud.
> >
> > Look up what number he put for n =
> >
> > and you will see the fraud.
> > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent.
> >
> >
> >
> > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements.
> >
> >
> > It's obvious to everyone here...
> >
> >
> > What is the value that Drake used in n = ????
>
> All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math.
>
> The Drake equation is:
>
> N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L)
>
> where:
>
> N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
> and
>
> R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
> fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
> ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
> fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
> fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
> L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
>
> N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N!

The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5

(you're not suppose to know that i guess)

What number did Drake give for n = ?

(you're not suppose to know that i guess)

(everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.)

( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud)

and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version.

(you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.)

(I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet)

cancel culture been around a long time...

Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ?

multible choice

a) 0

b) 1

c) 2

d) 3

Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand
what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations...

n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life.

So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

What i don't understand is...
Why does the United States
feel
they need to look at the China lab...

(they claim so that they can protect themselves in the future)

The whole purpose of China making a killer virus is to kill everybody
in the United States with it!

Why would China want to let you in??

That's like the Russians saying "Hey, we got to
go to the Manhattan Project to learn how to make an atomic bomb so
that we can protect ourselves!"

I doesn't make any sense to me.

Yoooooussss are suppose to DIE!

They want you dead!

That's the deal. That's the bottom line.

Israel kills nuclear scientists.

You need to kill all the Viraologists.

and while you're at it...all the ransomewareologist!

and the globalwarmingologists!

Let me give you a quote from Richard Feyman...

"...we have hidden laboratories in which men are working as hard as
they can to develop bacteria for which no one else will be able to
find a cure. " -- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN 1963

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:27:40 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> >China wants to dominate the ...world. So they learned from history and
>> >infected and spread the virus around the world so they can
>> >...dominate the world.
>> >
>> >They are just watching you die so they can come in and takeover.
>>
>> Ridiculous nonsense, from a lying right-wing propagandist.
>>
>> It's inevitable that China will become the strongest country on Earth.
>> Thanks to our internal strife, it's happening faster than they could
>> have dreamed. It would be needless and stupid, to take such a risk as
>> to "spread the virus around the world".
>>
>> It could have gotten out of control in China, too, you know. Duh.
>
>No, it was 'in control in China'.
>
>They took infected people in China,
>put them on flights going everywhere..
>except to other places in China.
>
>
>This was a China Military operation!
>
>This is War!
>
>
>
>They are just watching you die so they can come in and takeover.
>
>
>This is not a test.
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> 'If you do not use (or claim to use) Linux exclusively you are deemed
>> a "troll" by the herd.' - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one
>> can quote it lying)
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > n =
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and you will see the fraud.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts.
> > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing
> > > > >
> > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> > > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer!
> > >
> > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation."
> > > > n =
> > > >
> > > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > > >
> > > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > > >
> > > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > > >
> > > > and you will see the fraud.
> > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's obvious to everyone here...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ????
> > >
> > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math.
> > >
> > > The Drake equation is:
> > >
> > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L)
> > >
> > > where:
> > >
> > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
> > > and
> > >
> > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
> > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
> > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
> > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
> > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
> > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
> > >
> > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N!
>
> > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5
> >
> > (you're not suppose to know that i guess)
>
> It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point!
> >
> >
> > What number did Drake give for n = ?
> >
> >
> > (you're not suppose to know that i guess)
> >
> > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.)
>
> Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960...
>
> https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf
>
> ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce.

I was was specifically requesting Drake's original inputs..the value he gave n.

> >
> >
> > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud)
> >
> >
> > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version.
> >
> >
> > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.)
> >
> >
> > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet)
> >
> > cancel culture been around a long time...
>
> I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can.
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ?
> >
> >
> > multible choice
> >
> >
> > a) 0
> >
> > b) 1
> >
> > c) 2
> >
> > d) 3
> >
> > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand
> > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations...
> >
> >
> > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life.
>
> Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today?

the e next to the n stands for earth.

> >
> >
> >
> > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?

What number did Drake give for n = ?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > n =
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts.
> > > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
> > > > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer!
> > > >
> > > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation."
> > > > > n =
> > > > >
> > > > > Drake put in a value for n =
> > > > >
> > > > > and that value he used is fraud.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look up what number he put for n =
> > > > >
> > > > > and you will see the fraud.
> > > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's obvious to everyone here...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ????
> > > >
> > > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math.
> > > >
> > > > The Drake equation is:
> > > >
> > > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L)
> > > >
> > > > where:
> > > >
> > > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
> > > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
> > > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
> > > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
> > > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
> > > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
> > > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
> > > >
> > > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N!
> >
> > > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5
> > >
> > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess)
> >
> > It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point!
> > >
> > >
> > > What number did Drake give for n = ?
> > >
> > >
> > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess)
> > >
> > > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.)
> >
> > Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960...
> >
> > https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf
> >
> > ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce.
>
> I was was specifically requesting Drake's original inputs..the value he gave n.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud)
> > >
> > >
> > > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version.
> > >
> > >
> > > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.)
> > >
> > >
> > > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet)
> > >
> > > cancel culture been around a long time...
> >
> > I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ?
> > >
> > >
> > > multible choice
> > >
> > >
> > > a) 0
> > >
> > > b) 1
> > >
> > > c) 2
> > >
> > > d) 3
> > >
> > > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand
> > > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations...
> > >
> > >
> > > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life.
> >
> > Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today?

I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N .

The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s.

>
> the e next to the n stands for earth.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?
>
> What number did Drake give for n = ?
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

You obvisouly don't understand the 'definition' of the word...quote: repeat or copy out (a group of words from a text or speech)

Where did you learn English, Afganistan???

Habla inglis??

no speake inglish?

"...we have *hidden laboratories*
in which men are working as 'hard as they can'
to develop bacteria for which 'no one else
will be able to
find a cure'. "

-- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN 1963

Strange....

No mention that the virus came from the Wuhan Lab in China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19

WIKIPEDIA co-founder: Nobody should trust the site!

Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created

Don't you think the scientist at the Wuhan Lab should get some Wikipedia credit
for working as hard as they can to develop a virus for which no one else
will be able to find a cure, and kill millions of people and devastate the world????

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 2:21:25 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Let me give you a quote from Richard Feyman...
> >
> > "...we have hidden laboratories in which men are working as hard as
> > they can to develop bacteria for which no one else will be able to
> > find a cure. " -- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN 1963
>
> It is dishonest of you to take such a quote out of context, otherwise, someone might think that this is what Feynman thought. Sure, he said it, but what he actually meant is something very different. Here are the 2 paragraphs that you lifted this from...
>
> *********************
>
> http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/76346410.pdf
>
> I want to discuss these three aspects of science in reverse order. I will begin with the new
> things that you can do—that is, with technology. The most obvious characteristic of
> science is its application, the fact that as a consequence of science one has a power to do
> things. And the effect this power has had need hardly be mentioned. The whole industrial
> revolution would almost have been impossible without the development of science. The
> possibilities today of producing quantities of food adequate for such a large population,
> of controlling sickness—the very fact that there can be free men without the necessity of
> slavery for full production—are very likely the result of the development of scientific
> means of production.
>
> Now this power to do things carries with it no instructions on how to use it, whether to
> use it for good or for evil. The product of this power is either good or evil, depending on
> how it is used. We like improved production, but we have problems with automation. We
> are happy with the development of medicine, and then we worry about the number of
> births and the fact that no one dies from the diseases we have eliminated. Or else, with
> the same knowledge of bacteria, we have hidden laboratories in which men are working
> as hard as they can to develop bacteria for which no one else will be able to find a cure.
> We are happy with the development of air transportation and are impressed by the great
> airplanes, but we are aware also of the severe horrors of air war. We are pleased by the
> ability to communicate between nations, and then we worry about the fact that we can be
> snooped upon so easily. We are excited by the fact that space can now be entered; well,
> we will undoubtedly have a difficulty there, too. The most famous of all these imbalances
> is the development of nuclear energy and its obvious problems.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N .
>
> That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?
>
> > The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s.
>
> Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"...
>
> "The communicative lifetime L
> Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable
> trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the
> time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable
> advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not
> broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most
> advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the
> while.
> With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I
> could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?"
>
> So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a

You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you
believe people are making it up.

>
> > > the e next to the n stands for earth.
>
> No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier.

e is a postcript.

>
> > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?
>
> You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference.

I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working
your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again!

There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left
back in the second grade???

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 7/24/2021 9:11 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N .
>>
>> That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?
>>
>>> The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s.
>>
>> Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"...
>>
>> "The communicative lifetime L
>> Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable
>> trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the
>> time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable
>> advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not
>> broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most
>> advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the
>> while.
>> With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I
>> could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?"
>>
>> So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a
>
>
> You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you
> believe people are making it up.
>
>>
>>>> the e next to the n stands for earth.
>>
>> No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier.
>
>
> e is a postcript.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>> So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?
>>
>> You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference.
>
>
> I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working
> your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again!
>
>
> There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left
> back in the second grade???

How come you're still in the same seat after 53 attempts to achieve 3rd
grade?

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N .
> >
> > That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?
> >
> > > The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s.
> >
> > Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"...
> >
> > "The communicative lifetime L
> > Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable
> > trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the
> > time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable
> > advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not
> > broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most
> > advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the
> > while.
> > With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I
> > could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?"
> >
> > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not b
>
> You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you
> believe people are making it up.
>
> >
> > > > the e next to the n stands for earth.
> >
> > No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier.
>
> e is a postcript.
>
> >
> > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?
> >
> > You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference.
>
> I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working
> your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again!
>
> There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left
> back in the second grade???

Okay, I'll try to make it easier for you...( i barely made it past the second grade also...)

How many "habitable planets that are Earth-like" in our solar system?

multible choice 0, 1, 2, or 3?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.