To the analysis of the Drake hypothesis and the Fermi paradox

Many still remember the so-called astronomy (well, or university) school year. Drake’s formula for estimating the number of intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, which was proposed by astrophysicist Frank Drake in 1960. By the way, it was thanks to Drake and his formula that millions of dollars were allocated for a program to search for extraterrestrial life.

The proposed formula itself looks like :


Interestingly, this formula has two kinds of results: optimistic and pessimistic estimates.
')
An optimistic estimate gives an order of the order of N ~ 5,000, assuming that “10% can and want to make contact and still exist up to 100,000 years,” and a pessimistic estimate gives a value in the region of N ~ 10 ^-20, i.e. "What does the uniqueness of the Earth civilization mean, not only in the Galaxy, but in the whole Universe".

Also there is a so-called. Fermi's paradox , which, together with the Drake hypothesis, or rather its pessimistic result, pushes many learned thinkers to believe that highly developed civilizations must destroy themselves (nuclear wars?) and, consequently, the faster civilization develops, the faster it will destroy itself (by analogies with a body moving in a viscous medium: the faster the body moves, the greater the resistance force acts on it and the faster it will stop ).

However, UFOs have been observed and are observed in all points of the globe and near-space, and many cases of contact with representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations are also reported.

I, in turn, want to share thoughts about the Fermi hypothesis and the pessimistic result of the Drake formula. The article consists of two parts: philosophical-historical and philosophical-mathematical . Let's start with the first one.

Reasoning on the Fermi Paradox (philosophical and historical part of this article)

The very formulation of the paradox, “Paradof Fermi - the absence of visible traces of the activities of alien civilizations ...”, in my opinion, is erroneous due to the fact that there is a huge amount of real evidence on our planet that some higher (more advanced) civilization visited the Earth (or rather the surface of the Earth, on which humanity lives) once upon a time in the past. I will cite a number of these evidences considering which one should take into account the fact that humanity has always reflected in the annals, frescoes, rock paintings, etc. what personally observed. Why? But because we, people, have always been famous for such quality as laziness, which is the engine of progress, as many know. And, accordingly, it is much easier to redraw, for example, on a stone or a fresco, what you see at the moment, thus putting the observed phenomenon into history, than sitting and puzzling, thinking about what to draw such a thing, what would be left in history for future generations. Logical, isn't it? Although, it is obvious that there will be people who have the opposite view on this question.

1) A huge number of artifacts (coins, stone "boxes", etc.) with one recognizable image - a month with a star - were found all over the planet (from Africa and the Mediterranean to South America).


The idea (unfortunately, not for the first time proposed by me) is the following: it is clear that the moon is “round” and, not least important, solid, and the month is nothing but the illuminated surface of the moon in a certain lunar phase, and accordingly the light from the stars through The moon cannot pass, and it is physically impossible to observe a star against the background of the unlit surface of the moon. And accordingly, in order to explain the “presence” of a certain object resembling a star, against the background of the lunar month, the idea was suggested that it is not the star’s light, but light from an object on the lunar surface, for example, from the lunar base, or some other structures belonging to obviously not human civilization (moon?). In my opinion, taking this theory, everything immediately falls into place, namely, why the “star” was visible, where it should not be visible.

2) The following artifact : the fresco “The crucifixion”, located above the altar of the Visoki Descani monastery in Kosovo , which captures the moment of the crucifixion of the Savior (created around 1350). On the fresco you can see an image of an object (or rather two objects) flying through the air and discarding something resembling a flame escaping from the nozzle of a jet or rocket engine, inside which (object) is some humanoid creature (humanoid-astronaut?).



3) One of the most famous paintings: a painting by Domenico Girlandaia XV c. AD " Madonna with Saint Giovannino ". The picture is in Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and depicts the mother Mary Mary looking down, while in the background you can see an object emitting rays and hanging (or moving) in the air, which is closely watched by a person who glance, covers his eyes with his hand so that the object does not blind him (well, or just decided to scratch his forehead).


4) The most famous artifact: the Egyptian pyramids, which do not even need to be presented. Without the “help” of a more developed civilization, the ancient Egyptians would not have been able to bring multi-ton stone blocks tens of kilometers from the quarry to the construction site, and not just lift them to the hundred-meter height, but lift and fit them so that even the blade cannot be inserted between them.

And there are a huge number of such artifacts. It is they who make it possible to believe that the Earth (is it ours?) Was visited by other highly developed civilizations, whose representatives, it is possible, with something (appearance, for example) do they resemble people. The author of this site has collected many photos on this topic.

Reasoning on the pessimism of the results of the Drake formula (philosophical and mathematical part of the article)

Long mathematical calculations, formulas and calculations will not be!

I build my reasoning on the following statistical assumption (I think many will say that in order to apply it, it must first be strictly proved):


I think the logic is clear. Now, how do I apply this statement to the problem of the number of probabilities of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations.


If you do not take into account the so-called. habitable areas in galaxies, then, based on my statement, I come to the conclusion that since the number of planets in the galaxy is extremely high, then there is a non-zero probability that, at least in two planets (one of them is Earth), the parameter that is responsible for the emergence and development of life on the planet coincides.

And if this is so, then considering not the galaxy anymore, but the whole Universe, consisting of the greatest number of galaxies, one can, not greatly mistaken, assert that the number of planets in the entire Universe is so large that one can assume that its number tends to infinity, that, based on all of the above, allows us to conclude that the probability of the existence of at least one extraterrestrial civilization increases substantially, and should strive for unity. Those. the existence of at least one extraterrestrial civilization (rational civilization) must be a reliable event.

Based on this logic, I conclude that the pessimistic estimate of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations obtained from Drake’s formula is absolutely wrong (but, however, has the right to exist), that is, in simple words, the absence of other civilizations on other planets is statistically is impossible .

Thank you for your attention and for the time spent on reading the article!

Constructive and reasonable criticism of my reasoning and conclusions more than welcome.