Please critique my theory-compare Drake's equation

[newtonian]

Yevaud - OK, lets get specific here. You consider the number I punched in for the age of the universe to be educated guesswork, an estimate.<br /><br />How many powers of 10 off would the estimate I punched into the equation be? Note: the equation works, btw, no matter what the estimate - the upper limit changes though.<br /><br />Do you believe, for example, that the estimate popular among scientists today may be so far off that the young earth creationists are right in stating earth and universe are only some 10,000 years old or so?<br /><br />I don't believe there is any scientific basis for believing that.<br /><br />Or do you believe our universe is many powers of 10 older than 100 billion years old?<br /><br />Again, I am not aware of any scientific basis for believing in that.<br /><br />But if you are aware, please post it - I am all ears!<br /><br />In short, for one specific application of my theory, do you have any scientific basis for believing the number of chemical reaction products produced in our universe since our universe began was greater than 10^122?

 

[yevaud]

These figures have been, and still are, being altered, upgraded and downgraded even as we speak. How then can an equation determining something such as the number of extant civilizations be anything but guesswork?<br /><br />We will never image the true size of the Universe.<br />We have changed the estimated age of the Universe several times.<br />We still do not know precisely how many Earth-analogue worlds there may be.<br />We do not know the exact likelihood of life forming, and for that matter if it will form at all (it's likely, but that's not an answer).<br /><br />You see?<br /><br />As I'd said, it's not intended as perjorative as to your equation, and yours may well be a better one than Drake's. But as things stand now, it is impossible to determine if the primary factors it contains are correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[search]

Because it is time consuming and not something I am interest in. <br />However I stated before my opinion about the general idea which was the minimum I should do and the maximum I was willing to do. <br /><br />Sorry no heart feelings.<br /><br />I do need to select what I want in order to still have a life besides this forum. This forum is a hobby not my life.

 

[yevaud]

I noticed you online, so I thought I would sneak in this addendum:<br /><br />You see, estimating alien civilizations is skilled sophistry at best. How can we know enough yet of the Cosmos to determine how many civilizations exist, now? How? This is an arena in which so much is guesswork and expert supposition. We can't possibly know for certain if we're right or not, because so much is unknown as yet.<br /><br />S' what I meant by all of this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Understood - and I do appreciate your research on other threads.<br /><br />Since this is of interest to me, I will post more of my own research.<br /><br />Feel free to visit the thread again after I have found time to research each of the factors more thoroughly.

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - First, the factors you are commenting on:<br /><br />P = TxRxA <br /><br />Where P = the upper limit of chemical reaction products in our universe since our universe began - 10^122 <br /><br />T = the time alloted for chemical reactions to proceed (in this case, the age of the universe) - 10^18 seconds <br /><br />R = the upper limit of rate of chemical reactions - 10^24 per second is, of course, an overestimate. <br /><br />A = the upper limit of atoms available for chemical reactions to proceed, less than 10^80 in our universe. <br /><br />Of course, P depends on T, R and A.<br /><br />And, remember, I am not looking for accurate estimates - that is what is changing.<br /><br />I am looking for upper limits, since P is the resulting upper limit.<br /><br />My theory is for an upper limit only - I agree calculation of the actual specific amounts is far more difficult, hence the correct comments by posters on Drake's equation.<br /><br />So, my questions to you are:<br /><br />1. Concerning factor T:<br /><br />If 10^18 seconds is too short a time for the upper limit for the age of the universe, what upper limit would you substitute.<br /><br />Do you have any source or link giving an older age for our universe than this?<br /><br />2. Concerning factor R:<br /><br />Do you consider a chemical reaction rate of faster than 10^24 per second possible such that this is not an upper limit? <br /><br />Note that 10^24 is the time it takes light to traverse the nucleus of an atom.<br /><br />Actually, 10^13 per second is one estimate I found from a reliable source.<br /><br />3. Concerning factor A: <br /><br />This is the only factor I consider you may be correct about.<br /><br />What is the highest mass estimate for our universe from scientific sources? <br /><br />Is it permitted to start a thread on the mass of the universe to pursue this subject separately?<br /><br />However, as I have posted above, my equation can be modified such that P is for only the local 10^80 amu sector of a much larger