It would be silly to admit one is wrong until one is proven wrong... especially when you choose to work around my fundamental critique -- choosing .1c vs. .9c -- for the last three posts!




In terms of a simulation, from .1 c to .9 c, yes, I thought I made that clear.



Since it get's the probe to it's destination 9 times faster, then yes.



If you are limiting your probes to .1 c in your simulation, then yes.




All I said is that if you go faster, you reduce the search time, nothing more.



And came up with a search time of 1.5x10^7 vs. 10x10^9.

Which proves my point that the values for the parameters of the simulation are completely arbritray and there is nothing to stop us from changing those parameters to acheive whatever timescale we wish! Bjork wanted a large time scale so he cooked up his simulation for large scales; I want a small time scale so I can cook up his simulation for small scales. If the simulation were true, it would be irrelevant what we want but that is not the case here and that is my problem with drawing gradiose conclusions based on it.


Again, nothing in this paper is conclusive. It is a overly simple simulation that is based on many speculative assumptions. It does give insight however IF we go at .1 c and IF we limit ourselves to 200 probes and IF the we don't construct new probes. But we don't know that aliens (or ourselves) will limit themselves to any of these parameters.

This simulation is not the answer to Alien question. I'm sorry if you can't see that Alberto, but I've tried my best to point out the scientific flaws in Mr. Bjork's analysis. If you continue to believe him, then that is your personal perogative, but it won't hold water in any public discussion as we are having.