The Science of David Braben

[JerryLove]

Not only that, but many of the "variables" in the Drake equation are subjective and not precisely defined. In fact there is some degree of "uncertainty" about every single variable in the equation.

So what?

"Star formation" does not define the threshold for "sub-stellar" objects and there may in fact be brown dwarfs that have narrow habitable zones, especially given that the 13xMj mass limit for substellar objects is completely arbitrary.

That's because we don't know what constitutes a "star" for these purposes. If communicative civilizations can arise around a brown dwarf, then they count. If not, then they don't (or they do, but your next number moves down accordingly)

"Planets" does not define what exactly should be considered a planet, given that Pluto has recently been "demoted" to "dwarf planet" status and the current scientific definition of what constitutes a planet has some very notable ambiguity.

Just like stars. You might be able to get away with arguing that Drake had not considered moons and asteroids; and so we should modify that portion to "the percentage of stars around which the conditions for life exist".

"Life" does not distinguish between the grey area between "an organized chemical system", the transition to "proto-life" transitional states and what we recognize as "life" given we have no coherent model for abiogenesis, nor does it account for possible forms of life not based on carbon or water chemistry. In fact there is even debate about whether a virus is sufficient to qualify as "life" in the absence of a biological host.

Again: important in determining the number, but not in validating the equation.

"Intelligent" life does not distinguish between the definitions of "intelligence", "self-awareness" and "sentience" and is a purely subjective concept.

Actually: it's defined as "capable of making a civilization".

"Detectable signals" depends entirely on the way in which signals are being detected which requires that you specify the technology available to detect the signals.

But since the drake equation tells you the likelihood of detecting a civilization; that's exactly the point.

And so on. Essentially there is not even scientific agreement on how each of the variable in the equation should even be defined, much less any assurances that the equation itself is even valid.

The equations validity is tautological.

You actually failed to hit the one part it does miss... the presumption that an active civilization must form on a planet orbiting a star.

If they can form in an oort cloud, or in the star itself, or in deep space ; then the drake equation is incomplete.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Look at my earlier example.

The number of brown dogs = the number of dogs * the percentage of dogs that are brown.

I haven't defined "brown" nor "dog"; but I don't need to.

 

[Monk]

*going to get some popcorn, this thread is really starting to be entertaing[cool], keep the show going guys.

Really? At this point all I see are people going back and forth on things that will NEVER change.

I feel like I'm in a philosophy class....zzzZZZzzz

 

[Devari]

So what?

That's because we don't know what constitutes a "star" for these purposes. If communicative civilizations can arise around a brown dwarf, then they count. If not, then they don't (or they do, but your next number moves down accordingly)

Just like stars. You might be able to get away with arguing that Drake had not considered moons and asteroids; and so we should modify that portion to "the percentage of stars around which the conditions for life exist".

Again: important in determining the number, but not in validating the equation.

Actually: it's defined as "capable of making a civilization".

But since the drake equation tells you the likelihood of detecting a civilization; that's exactly the point.

The equations validity is tautological.

You actually failed to hit the one part it does miss... the presumption that an active civilization must form on a planet orbiting a star.

If they can form in an oort cloud, or in the star itself, or in deep space ; then the drake equation is incomplete.

You haven't actually refuted any of my points. The equation uses variables that are not precisely defined or are even highly subjective so it's not a useful scientific equation which requires consistent agreement on what each variable refers to.

Look at my earlier example.

The number of brown dogs = the number of dogs * the percentage of dogs that are brown.

I haven't defined "brown" nor "dog"; but I don't need to.

You sort of do need to have clear definitions if you're doing something in astrophysics/astronomy. You would need to define "brown" as a specific range of wavelengths (not just a subjective experience of what brown is, which varies with each individual) and you would also need to define "dogs" as a specific sub species (since dogs are a domesticated sub-species of canis lupis and you would need to specify what you want to include). Science needs to be precise to work properly and make meaningful predictions because scientists need to communicate with a common language that lacks ambiguity. That what people who lack scientific education/training don't understand. It's not a matter of someone posting a brief comment on twitter that other people "agree with".

 

[JerryLove]

You haven't actually refuted any of my points. The equation uses variables that are not precisely defined or are even highly subjective so it's not a useful scientific equation which requires consistent agreement on what each variable refers to.

I disagree. Your statements are not relevant to the validity of the equation.

You sort of do need to have clear definitions if you're doing something in astrophysics/astronomy. You would need to define "brown" as a specific range of wavelengths (not just a subjective experience of what brown is, which varies with each individual) and you would also need to define "dogs" as a specific sub species (since dogs are a domesticated sub-species of canis lupis and you would need to specify what you want to include). Science needs to be precise to work properly and make meaningful predictions because scientists need to communicate with a common language that lacks ambiguity. That what people who lack scientific education/training don't understand. It's not a matter of someone posting a brief comment on twitter that other people "agree with".

Where did you get a silly idea like that?

Next you'll tell me "dark matter" isn't part of science because we don't know what it is.

And no matter how you define "dog" or "brown", my equation is still valid. If you want certainty of definition: remove all of biology from science (seriously: try to get a definition of "species" that doesn't lead to paradox).

What's the saying? Math can be certain as long as it doesn't intersect with reality, and it can describe reality as long as it isn't certain.

Oh: and congratulations! You have just asserted that Frank Drake isn't a scientist.

 

[Frank]

Aah so we're going to be able to see these plates?

Obviously there will be some tectonics-related variables that form the basis for a simulated "history" of each planet. Just like they do now for ravines and such. Doesn't mean they simulate the actual movement of tectonic plates in the game.

I see now the source of the confusion. I agree with Toumal that plate tectonics will just be a factor that's taken into account with their planet builder. I hope that glacial action will be taken into account when they start to model larger bodies. I do feel they add a nice baroque look to a coastline.

 

[Devari]

I disagree. Your statements are not relevant to the validity of the equation.

Of course they're relevant. The equation uses variables that are not precisely defined and often rely on a subjective assessment. Equations don't work that way. You need to have a precisely defined variable for the equation to be useful. If you can't agree on what the variable mean and how they're defined then it's not really an equation.

Where did you get a silly idea like that?

You think that you can use vague concepts to give you a precise "scientific" answer. You can't. That's not how science works.

Next you'll tell me "dark matter" isn't part of science because we don't know what it is.

We don't know what it is and have a very limited scientific understanding of the concept. If you had an equation that relied on quantifying a property of dark matter, that would not be a meaningful equation because if we can't quantify something properly we can't use it to give a precise numerical answer.

And no matter how you define "dog" or "brown", my equation is still valid. If you want certainty of definition: remove all of biology from science (seriously: try to get a definition of "species" that doesn't lead to paradox).

You still need to define your variables precisely if you expect the equation to be useful. In this case the only way you "know" the equation is valid is because you have chosen a simple definition that requires no "validation" of the equation itself. You still need to define the variables for it to be useful otherwise two different people will use different variables for "brown" and "dog" and get a different numerical result.

What's the saying? Math can be certain as long as it doesn't intersect with reality, and it can describe reality as long as it isn't certain.

Oh: and congratulations! You have just asserted that Frank Drake isn't a scientist.

No, I've asserted that the Drake equation is not a valid scientific equation and is at best a "thought experiment" or "estimate" of something that has not been measured or validated in any way.

 

[piugattuk]

Get out off town, attention to detail while the game lacks any true feel for the vastness of space, you eat, NPC thug, you sleep, NPC thugs, you mine, NPC thugs, you trade NPC thugs, you explore, NPC thugs, you mission, NPC thugs.

Everywhere you go you got NPC thugs spawning which gives it such an artificial feel, boring for all except combat pilots.

Say yes to human, NO to NPC thugs.

 

[warlock]

Never mind about all the science mullarkey. I was more impressed with the passion that D.B has for the game and the way it is going to progress.

 

[Vandaahl]

I was more impressed with the passion that D.B has for the game and the way it is going to progress.

Can't agree more. I'm glad he building the thing he wants.

 

[Patrick_68000]

For someone who has been on the journey from the beginning in 1984 it's good to see how ED is shaping up nicely now and we're only in season 2. Imagine where we will be at season 10?

Season 10 ? God hear you !

 

[hood1]

um, are we forgetting this is a game??

No. That's Frontier's job.

It's not a bad thing that the CEO is really enthusiastic about science and a little bit of that trickles into the game.

Better: the CEO is really enthusiastic about gameplay and a LOT of that trickles into the game.

 

[wulfson]

The science of David Braben is just going to get a lot "better" in 2.2 with instant space ships/fleets teleportation across galaxy.

 

[hood1]

Yes there are some sci-fi arcade aspects to the game for the sake of fun, but I have been having fun using my astrophysics degree to double check the structure and distribution and characteristics of the stars and star systems in conjunction with other explorers like Jackie Silver, Efilone, etc, and the results are nothing short of breathtaking in their scope and depth of accuracy and modeling.

I guess I'm not playing the same ED as you.

'Cos your ED galaxy clearly isn't a mish-mash of ham-fisted RNG output in which we routinely find planets embedded in suns, hotter that their parent star, and completely disappearing (Beagle Point, I'm looking at you).

"A lot of planets dont make sense. Gravity has no impact on anything either. The galaxy is 1:1, but only in numbers. It's random, and when you see something like a black hole a few LS away from a star and everything is perfectly ok, it isn't a sim." https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=250745&p=3932885&viewfull=1#post3932885

And no these are not "some sci-fi arcade aspects to the game for the sake of fun". They are the results of putting far less effort into making Stellar Forge that into hyping Stellar Forge.

 

[Jools]

Without the science it would not be a true Elite title
Without the PG it would not be a true Elite title
Without seamless space travel it is not a true Elite title (Fix it already)!

 

[GraXXoR]

Actually, I mentioned sitting a couple of light seconds away from the sun with a blown up canopy and the dead shield taking the biscuit.

I will add to it. This, not only takes the biscuit, but the entire dolly with all its cakes and tea pots, too. This would be sitting 8 km away from black hole and powering down my thrusters. David Braben, how do you respond?

 

[warbaby2]

Shame all that silence is just on the outside...

 

[lysan]

Joking aside - seriously: modeling of tectonic shifts and the thermodynamics of magma flow doesn't scream "revolutionary game design". It screams "OCD". And not in a good way.

Pokemon isn't the most popular video game on the planet because some guy said "Let's study the anatomical structure of a small dinosaur, then cross-reference that with the fire patterns of a flame-thrower spewing napalm at 2LT/minute. Then we'll study wind patterns and adjust for the position of the player, such that the fire from Charizard convincingly envelopes the Pokeball to give the player a satisfying real-world immersion."

No, they just made a cartoon lizard and let you throw balls at it. They made it fun, and a few billion people are playing it.

Sometimes you just don't need to consult a geophysicist when you're designing a video game.

You missed the point by about 3000 miles, good job!

 

[hood1]

Without the science it would not be a true Elite title

Er, what??? Elite 1984 has no real science. Is it not a true Elite title???

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I guess I'm not playing the same ED as you.

'Cos your ED galaxy clearly isn't a mish-mash of ham-fisted RNG output in which we routinely find planets embedded in suns, hotter that their parent star, and completely disappearing (Beagle Point, I'm looking at you).

"A lot of planets dont make sense. Gravity has no impact on anything either. The galaxy is 1:1, but only in numbers. It's random, and when you see something like a black hole a few LS away from a star and everything is perfectly ok, it isn't a sim." https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=250745&p=3932885&viewfull=1#post3932885

And no these are not "some sci-fi arcade aspects to the game for the sake of fun". They are the results of putting far less effort into making Stellar Forge that into hyping Stellar Forge.

How do you work out the gravity has no effect on anything, it does. In all my exploration trips (i have done a few), I have never seen a planet embedded into a star. If there are some, bug report it, as it is a bug. Black holes I agree with. They used to cause heat damage but for some reason that has been dropped.

The Galaxy they have created isn't totally random, it conforms to rules set into the PG seed. Obviously it isn't perfect, bug report it.

 

[Jools]

Er, what??? Elite 1984 has no real science. Is it not a true Elite title???

well... yeah that`s true, but it was still far more serious and believable than any other sci fi themed game at the time

but yeah you are right
I`m more of a frontier guy. I played elite 1 as a 4 or 5 y.o. and only remember it vaguely, mostly the pew pew