by R. Beaumont
Enrico Fermi specifically outlines that:
* The Sun is a typical star and there are billions of stars, many of which are older.
* Even at a very low rate of life supporting planets per star, the shear number of stars in the cosmos necessarily should imply that there are many intelligent civilizations out there.
* Again, even at small percentages one would assume that a fairly substantial number of intelligent civilizations would have developed interstellar travel capacity.
* Even given the challenging physics of interstellar travel one would expect galactic colonization by now.
So given this line of thinking one can logically conclude that the Earth should have been visited by extraterrestrial life. But obviously only the POTUS and a few dudes that work in Area 51 know if that is the case. The rest of us are in fact scratching our heads and saying "where is everybody?"
Of course the flip side to that argument is that the Earth is very atypical, if not exceptional. If that is the case then maybe we are all that's here.
So which one is it?
Well we need to consider scale and probability. Accorging to wiki there are apparently 200-400 billion stars in the galaxy and well over twice that in the visible universe. So at a 0.01% intelligent life frequency then the Milky Way should have about 20,000 intelligent civilizations.
But, but... maybe we just are exceptional anyway!!!
Well now (to quote one of my favorite Hemingway lines) "isn't it pretty to think so!"
What Fermi also infers is the "mediocrity principle" which states that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories." Point being it's more likely we are the norm not the exception.
Of course there isn't but I'll go ahead and give you one of my mixed up paradigms anyway. Which in fact leads us to Ryan's Ashley Madison Paradox which states:
"If Ashley Madison is the world's #1 'married dating' site with over 36 million members, approximately 50% of whom are supposedly female, why don't women write me back anymore? Where the *uck are they? :)"
Well we can also use the Drake Equation to explain why ET is still at home. Which will give me the inspiration to derive why so few women throw themselves eagerly at my messages (or your's) on Ashley Madison.
|Please let me be abducted by her!|
the Drake Equation:
N = R * p * n * l * i * d * L
where N = number of alien civilizations or AM women who will *uck us
R = the average rate of star formation or AM New Members notifications
p = the fraction of new stars with planets or AM New Members that are actually real
n = the average number of potential life supporting planets per star or AM New Members that are real and interested in contacting a male of the species
l = the fraction of potential planet supporting planets that do in fact spawn life or AM New Members that are real, interested in contacting men, and happen to log on just prior to you sending a priority message (ahead of the 100 other messages she will get on that given day)
i = the fraction of life spawning planets that end up developing intelligent life or the AM New Members that are real, interested in contacting men, that happen to see your message, and you in fact write an intelligent message (rather than a "hey babe you look hot; hit me up and let's get cra cra! :)"
d = the fraction of planets with intelligent life that in fact release detectable signs of life or the AM New Members that are real, interested in contacting men, that happen to see your message, think your message exhibits intelligent life, and then are motivated to in fact return a message to you.
L = the length of time said intelligent civilization continues to send messages out or the AM New Members that are real, interested in contacting men, that happen to see your message, think your message exhibits intelligent life, are motivated to return the message, and continue writing back until you can get a hotel meeting.
So let's make some assumptions:
R = from my inbox it appears that there are about 6 new ladies per day within my 25 mile radius so over a month R will trend to 6 * 30 = 180.
p = Now from my experiences at least 67% of these new women are fake (prostitutes, dudes, Russian scammers, etc). So let's go with a low estimate of p = 15%
n = If you have read any of my posts about e-mail queens you would know that a lot of these ladies (or men scouting the competition) are just out there for a little titillation or to see how desperate men can get. Let's put n = 25%
l = The cold hard fact is that writing women is a crap shoot, you know a good profile is getting 80-100 messages per day so even with the best message luck is always a factor. And let's face it we never know what is going on in a woman's minds; it can be so random you know. That being said, never write to anyone who hasn't logged on in 4+ days, never write on the weekends unless she is on-line (although even that can be very inaccurate). Best to write early in the morning on a Monday so your note is at the top of her mail when she sits down to her AM mobile Ap at Starbucks with her Mocha Cappuccino. That's when she will be most receptive! Let's go with l = 25%.
i = Well now this really comes back to you. But as I said above who really knows what women want. You can read their entire profile and regurgitate it to them but if that is the day Fabio writes them to say "hey babe let's go taste some wine and roll in the hay," well let's just say women are visual as well. But let's be confident and say here i = 50%.
d = Oh shit, did you realize that you could be Brad Pitt with the writing ability of Hemingway and she could be as horny as a green alien around Captain Kirk but if she has a hair appointment, a PTA meeting, a job deadline, her hubby shows up with the first set of Opera tickets in a decade, or she is just feeling frumpy none of this may matter at all!! Yep random error or lack of motivation on her part could kill all of this so let's set d = 50%.
L = Even if you get an interested women who likes you and you don't screw it up over multiple e-mails you still have to be patient. And most guys aren't patient. She may not just show up in your bed after that third e-mail. It may take time, a few meals, and the luck of two schedules with openings next Tuesday between 2 and 5 pm and the ability to get to the Comfort Inn off I-70. Let's set L = 2 weeks.
So with all that here goes. The number of new women on Ashley Madison who are currently willing to have sex with me is:
N = 180 New Ladies/month * 15% * 25% * 25% * 50% * 50% = 0.42 women/month @ 2 weeks per identified interested female.
So what this means is that it will likely take:
1.0 Women Who Want to *uck You/0.42 Interested Women per Month = 2.38 months to find a women that will likely have sex with you and then another 2 weeks of patiently waiting to get laid!
OH and you will have to write to well over 100 women to accomplish that.
Of course, who knows, the Mediocrity Principle may not apply to you and you may get laid with an economy package buy in! But do the numbers really support that hypothesis? Heck, I'm gorgeous and an amazing writer and I've only had sex with 4 ladies I met on AM. God only knows how many messages I had to write to get to that number. I guess based on that Drake Principle I did have to go Outer Galaxy to get to Sandee!
|Even Kirk had to strike out a few times before he got to the hot Android|
|BE cautious the hotties may be Borgs!|
But if you do sign on to Ashley Madison take Bill Nye's advice. Start listening and listen closely and don't give up, somebody must be out there.
Here's a vid on the Fermi Principle by that Science Guy everybody likes:
Here's that Simon and Garfunkel song: