Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeraph
You're right, what the heck is the rate talking about then?  Most of the newer sources that talk about it use rate instead of total stars. |
Maybe some guy named Drake wrote the equation as a joke, and then on a dare an astrophysicist tried to make it work.
Not sure. I've found like a dozen versions acorss the internet, plus two from back in school. Some say R* = the rate of star formation, which is what I suspect you're getting at. I guess you can look at it just as simply thinning the options from the top down. Even though there is no proof that stars are required for life, the basis of the equasion is that life requires stars to form, so we have to take into account that how amny and how often stars are created will be the first necessity for life. Let's say that, hypothetically, life only could exist in the very specific parameters here on Earth (or maybe Mars). In order to determine if there could be life elsewhere, you have to narrow down the instance to non instance ratio. The first step, beyond the big bang, would be to say that stars act as incubators for life and they are the first necessity for the development of intelligent life. That's the R*: the rate of star formation in or galaxy. This is also one of the fundamental flaws in the equation because:
1) There is no way to be certian that stars act as incubators to all life. There could be life forms in quasers or on cold rocks floating in the empty sea between stars for all we know.
2) This doesn't take into account the vast variables from different types of stars, anything from type to size to radiation levels and types to movement.
3) I'll think of another later.