RE: starship-design: WHERE ARE THEY?

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

>  > No, it doesn't change the end result at all as far as the
> equation is
>  > concerned. It just means that there are more of them to make up the
>  > difference. Statistically, the end result is the same. We
> seem to have just
>  > been extremely lucky in that none have been pointed our
> way in somewhat more
>  > than the allotted amount of time.
>
> Actually, plenty are pointed our way -- otherwise we wouldn't
> keep detecting them so frequently.
>
> Statistically, though, the result is not the same.  On a
> universe-wide scale, there are plenty of gamma-ray bursts for
> everyone to see.  If GRBs are isotropic, then, yes, potentially
> each burst we see has sterilized a large portion of its host
> galaxy.  But if GRBs aren't isotropic, then individual GRBs
> aren't sterilizing huge parts of the galaxies they occur in, and
> at a galaxy-wide scale there aren't enough close GRBs to clear
> galaxies of life.

As I understood your original response, you were saying that GRBs might be
anisotropic - which means to me we only see GRBs aimed directly at us. The
sterilization theory was based upon the OBSERVED incidence of GRBs and is
not materially affected by this change. Regardless of whether a particular
GRB is aimed at us or away from us (anisotropic) the summation of all GRBs
must be isotropic. Which means there are a great many GRBs that we never
see, in fact the majority of them are never seen. Either way, the statistics
are the same and the conclusion reached is the same. The only thing that has
changed is the number of GRBs that occur in order to perform the same act -
sterilization of large segments of the galaxy.

Lee Parker