"Maris V. Lidaka Sr." schrieb: > > I have studied this matter thoroughly while keeping silent. > > The number of planets that can possibly produce life turns out to be 69. > > (No joke in there - it's a scientific fact) > > Maris
Also, the countable number of those planets divided by the infinite number of star-systems equals zero. So there's no life in the universe at all! ;-) Thomas > T Rittenhouse wrote: > > Literally! > > > > The equation probably would give us a relatively precise indication > > of the life out there, IF we had real numbers to plug into it. > > However, all we have is off the top of our heads BS. It is a case of > > having a method, but not having any data to use it with. We can give > > an accurate estimate of the range of possible answers though. > > Somewhere between 1 (this one), and all the planets that possibly can > > produce life. > > > > Ciao, > > Graywolf > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:10 AM > > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A > > turned into Star Trek Thread) > > > > > >> The drake equation quantifies nothing. But it does look impressive, > >> which is the > >> point.
