Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Again your grasp of science is truly astounding I really expect you to pull out the baking soda volcano any minute. Nature isn't biased your data is because of thr failure to detect al km thr stars.you attribute something to nature that is a limit of out technology and you seem to be clueless on how to correct for it. You know I'll say this I thought what your were doing was very cool at first. Until I realized you thought that this had some scientific purpose. It's more along the lines of a thought experiment with things we can't answer at this time. For example did you know that most stars are binaries seems so is the exception and not the rule. Though there are some that believe we do have a companion star. This alone adds new conditions to the feasibility of life.

Want to try again in comprehending what was being said???!!

Seriously man, you seem to have misunderstood every character. Oh well...your bad.

What I was saying, and responding to was the assertion that there are very few stars above class "F", as well as few class "M" stars. I was pointing out that the quantity of class A, B and above are few because that is how nature has provided these class of star. So, it is not a true bias. On the other end of the spectrum we have relatively few class "M" (relative to the actual population of class "M" stars) because of technological limitations. Neither of these conditions are compensable.

The accurate comment was made that my use of the Hipparcos further limited the number of class "M" stars available for inclusion (selection). I was commenting that this technological "filtering" was not detrimental to the investigation because it only removes the noise of class "M" too small and cold to be of significance to the investigation.

Yes, I am aware of the binary star systems, and the statistics surrounding them. I am quite aware of how they affect the development of life on other worlds...want a good study in that? Try Gliese 67.

Please attempt to apply logic in the future...as contrasted with the ole knee jerk.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now your dealing g with what we can observe again you have problems with this. Your data doesn't represent brown dwarfs. Meningitis that about 80 percent of your data is binaries. See these are those pesky little details we have to think about in something we call science. This effects your data since you are basing your opinions of feasibility of life in a star system. Binaries are very complicated to make such assessments. For example it's believed alpha centurie even being an a type star could contain life because of thr arrangement if the binary system. The odd increases a lot if we through a brown dwarf into the mix. This would follow along the lines of the dogons who seem to think there is 3 stars there not just two.

Yeah pesky little details; like no "proximityflag". In the Hipparcos dataset there is a data item called "proximityflag" this is used to indicate a stellar companion within something like 10 arc seconds...flagging a "close binary". While even a moderate separation in stars is frequently not sufficient to negate the effects of the companion, larger separations are not only "insulating", but far more common that "close" to "moderate".

Binary Stars like Zeta Reticuli have more than enough separation so that each star may have its own, relatively unaffected, solar system...in this case the separation is significantly less than 1ly...

Point here is, binary stars can be as abundant as they like and have little to no affect of the evolution of life...again, you should check out Gliese 67...A good example of a binary that may have an Earth like planet in its HZ, but, even with great time, never evolve anything sentient...due to its companion (1/3 Sol size...Red Dwarf)

By the way...in 118,000+ records in Hipparcos there are just over 10,000 close binary stars...just a wee statistic for ya.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now your dealing g with what we can observe again you have problems with this. Your data doesn't represent brown dwarfs. Meningitis that about 80 percent of your data is binaries. See these are those pesky little details we have to think about in something we call science. This effects your data since you are basing your opinions of feasibility of life in a star system. Binaries are very complicated to make such assessments. For example it's believed alpha centurie even being an a type star could contain life because of thr arrangement if the binary system. The odd increases a lot if we through a brown dwarf into the mix. This would follow along the lines of the dogons who seem to think there is 3 stars there not just two.

Yeah pesky little details; like no "proximityflag". In the Hipparcos dataset there is a data item called "proximityflag" this is used to indicate a stellar companion within something like 10 arc seconds...flagging a "close binary". While even a moderate separation in stars is frequently not sufficient to negate the effects of the companion, larger separations are not only "insulating", but far more common that "close" to "moderate".

Binary Stars like Zeta Reticuli have more than enough separation so that each star may have its own, relatively unaffected, solar system...in this case the separation is significantly less than 1ly...

Point here is, binary stars can be as abundant as they like and have little to no affect of the evolution of life...again, you should check out Gliese 67...A good example of a binary that may have an Earth like planet in its HZ, but, even with great time, never evolve anything sentient...due to its companion (1/3 Sol size...Red Dwarf)

By the way...in 118,000+ records in Hipparcos there are just over 10,000 close binary stars...just a wee statistic for ya.

Did you know brown dwarfs are suspected of being greater then thr number if visible stars in the galaxy. In fact it's suspected they make up a large portion of the dark mater in thr universe. These placed in a propriety distances from other stars and you have new possibilities. They even have their own habital zone though there would be problems for them such as radiation. But life has shown to adapt so who knows. We have done studies bombarding e coli with radiation after 200 or so generations they actually start repairing their DNA. Then there is the possibility of making it a triple helix as a check sum if you will. Life seems to have a remarkable ability to adapt to any hostile environment

a reply to: dragonridr

I've already stated elsewhere that I have no doubt that all classes of star have their planets and life. That should remain a given, however, not all life is going to be "interesting"...for instance, at some point most single celled organisms are going to start to look pretty much the same. Though, I'm sure they would continue to amaze for the variety of conditions they thrive in.

However, more advanced life forms become increasingly more interesting due to the variety of things the adapt to do...like form societies, venture into space...


And on the Red and Brown Dwarf stars...yes I am quite aware...One doesn't do what I'm doing here without becoming aware...And if you think about the number (percentage) of Red and Brown Dwarf stars you should begin to understand "why" I want some filtering present...those stars are, for the most part, noise...hence the filtering...So you should understand that I am actively exploiting the technological limitations.

Well I looked at the map in Poser Pro 11 and got well rather limited results at best. I a, going to have to convert it to a .obj and load it up in Maya cause it is almost impossible to really view anything clearly in Poser with the file you uploaded. Not sure what version of Poser you use but when your open a file and just see a ton of Ball Primitaves it's an eye sore and the render/camera settings really don't fix or help with the clutter. I will see if I can get in to Maya and have a better look at it in 3D space and not a cluster of dots like in Poser. Just curious and not trying to come off rude or anything but why did yout make this in Poser of all programs? I understood not everyone can afford 3DSM/Maya but you could had done it in Blender which is completely free and open source and is a full fledge 3D program as well as a basic built in game engine.

I honestly was not expecting to open the file and see just a ton of randomly sized Ball Primitaves. Hopefully when I export it in to Maya it will be a lot easier to read/navigate. Also just so things don't get mixed up I knOw how to use Poser and have been using it since it was originally owned by Curious Labs in 1999 when Poser 3 came out and have been using professional 3D software since 1998. So I don't want to hear "You're doing it wrong". That annoys me more then anything.

a reply to: dragonridr

Also while off topic I would be interested in reading that as well if that would be ok. Sounds rather interesting.

And I didn't quote the post but about the bacteria you mentioned.

a reply to: Keiyentai

You understand...it is a star field with nearly 6000 stars of all classes...

it being a "field of balls" is what you are supposed to see...after all the space surrounding Earth for 46 parsec is a field of "balls"...

It is the "patterns", like constellations that are formed by those stars (balls) that we are looking at...

I'm aware of that. I am just saying that the way that Poser is in general a mass of 6000 stars is something Poser is not meant to deal with. It's ment for character animation and making renders of people with a simple backdrop. Blender like I said would be better cause you could move the camera or something and have a depth a field for view and not have it look like someone threw an load of confetti on a beige backdrop or black when rendered. I'm just saying it was a bit odd cause you have all the mathematical info and such on your site. If someone who wasn't use to doing stuff in 3D opened that file would probably be confused as hell or think you took a sphere and multiplied it to death.

Also even looking at the sky with good vision or binoculars yes you can see fainter stars/clusters around the brighter ones and known constellations but you don't just see confetti in the sky is what I'm trying to get at.

a reply to: Keiyentai


Ahhh...okay...


You're right Poser isn't the best tool for that...however, we use the tools we have and can afford...Poser allowed me to put an object, representative of a star, at all the appropriate locations, and then view it with a camera that I can place where I need... Most of the stars however are much large than they should be for the scale...typically to make them easier to find/see

By the way; there are just over 5800 stars 150ly or closer...

a reply to: tanka418

What I was saying, and responding to was the assertion that there are very few stars above class "F", as well as few class "M" stars. I was pointing out that the quantity of class A, B and above are few because that is how nature has provided these class of star. So, it is not a true bias.

Wrong. It is a natural bias. Lucky for you it works in your favor; it means "uninteresting" massive stars will probably not get incorporated into your template. On the other hand, if you had no other choice, I'm sure you could find a logical reason to include them. A stars tend to have discs of dust and gas, therefore the ETs mine them for raw materials. That's why they are a major "trade" center.

On the other end of the spectrum we have relatively few class "M" (relative to the actual population of class "M" stars) because of technological limitations. Neither of these conditions are compensable.

Which means that if the ETs came from an M class star, you would not be able to find their home solar system. Doesn't that strike you as being worth considering? After all, red dwarfs have extremely long lives, giving life a very long time to evolve into intelligent forms. (Your bell curve graph does not take that into account, BTW.)

The accurate comment was made that my use of the Hipparcos further limited the number of class "M" stars available for inclusion (selection). I was commenting that this technological "filtering" was not detrimental to the investigation because it only removes the noise of class "M" too small and cold to be of significance to the investigation.

In your completely arbitrary opinion.

originally posted by: DJW001
Wrong. It is a natural bias. Lucky for you it works in your favor; it means "uninteresting" massive stars will probably not get incorporated into your template. On the other hand, if you had no other choice, I'm sure you could find a logical reason to include them. A stars tend to have discs of dust and gas, therefore the ETs mine them for raw materials. That's why they are a major "trade" center.

LOL...you realize you just said was wrong for saying exactly what you reiterated...are you paying attention???

And yes, I do have other reasons to not consider class "A" or class "B" stars...they typically don't exist long enough to evolve advanced sentient life...fact of nature.

Which means that if the ETs came from an M class star, you would not be able to find their home solar system. Doesn't that strike you as being worth considering? After all, red dwarfs have extremely long lives, giving life a very long time to evolve into intelligent forms. (Your bell curve graph does not take that into account, BTW.)

You should have read my earlier response...I addressed the issue of missing some of the more advanced "M" class stars...you didn't see that did ya...yes we might miss something, but, as I said, this is a first approximation...loss is expected.

And, yes, the bell curve takes that into account...

"The accurate comment was made that my use of the Hipparcos further limited the number of class "M" stars available for inclusion (selection). I was commenting that this technological "filtering" was not detrimental to the investigation because it only removes the noise of class "M" too small and cold to be of significance to the investigation."

In your completely arbitrary opinion.

Ya know, I'm really tiring of your "arbitrary" crap; prove it!

For instance, in the above; those decisions were based on 40 years of data acquisition/management/analysis system design, along with discussions with Astronomers, and Astrobiologists...so hardly "arbitrary" as you mistakenly assert. (BTW; those discussions were in relation to another project).

But then again, I suppose you kind of need a large arbitrary element, as it is one of your last straws.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Keiyentai


Ahhh...okay...


You're right Poser isn't the best tool for that...however, we use the tools we have and can afford...Poser allowed me to put an object, representative of a star, at all the appropriate locations, and then view it with a camera that I can place where I need... Most of the stars however are much large than they should be for the scale...typically to make them easier to find/see

By the way; there are just over 5800 stars 150ly or closer...

Hence why I mentioned Blender. It's free and open source and a full 3D package like 3D Studio Max/Maya and has a huge community. It's only downfall is the UI is horrid but that's about it. For free it has a TON of features and has even been used in AAA movies for CGI so it can out do Poser/Daz Studio in all features.

originally posted by: Keiyentai

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Keiyentai


Ahhh...okay...


You're right Poser isn't the best tool for that...however, we use the tools we have and can afford...Poser allowed me to put an object, representative of a star, at all the appropriate locations, and then view it with a camera that I can place where I need... Most of the stars however are much large than they should be for the scale...typically to make them easier to find/see

By the way; there are just over 5800 stars 150ly or closer...

Hence why I mentioned Blender. It's free and open source and a full 3D package like 3D Studio Max/Maya and has a huge community. It's only downfall is the UI is horrid but that's about it. For free it has a TON of features and has even been used in AAA movies for CGI so it can out do Poser/Daz Studio in all features.

Ty...the 3D is mostly at the hobby level for me. I'll check on Blender...

a reply to: tanka418

Wrong. It is a natural bias. Lucky for you it works in your favor; it means "uninteresting" massive stars will probably not get incorporated into your template. On the other hand, if you had no other choice, I'm sure you could find a logical reason to include them. A stars tend to have discs of dust and gas, therefore the ETs mine them for raw materials. That's why they are a major "trade" center.


LOL...you realize you just said was wrong for saying exactly what you reiterated...are you paying attention???

You certainly aren't. A biased sample is biased whether the bias is natural or deliberate. If your sample is biased, you can test it by applying the same methodology to a control group. When I suggested this, you scoffed. I was able to impose your template onto a random set of points, proving that any information present in your version of the map is the result of the data set's bias.

And yes, I do have other reasons to not consider class "A" or class "B" stars...they typically don't exist long enough to evolve advanced sentient life...fact of nature.

Wrong, an assumption based on limited data. We only have one data point in our knowledge of the evolution of technological (as opposed to merely intelligent or sentient) life. Remember, we have had four major extinction events in our four billion year history. A luckier planet may have evolved technological species earlier.

Which means that if the ETs came from an M class star, you would not be able to find their home solar system. Doesn't that strike you as being worth considering? After all, red dwarfs have extremely long lives, giving life a very long time to evolve into intelligent forms. (Your bell curve graph does not take that into account, BTW.)


You should have read my earlier response...I addressed the issue of missing some of the more advanced "M" class stars...you didn't see that did ya...yes we might miss something, but, as I said, this is a first approximation...loss is expected.

Are you talking about the bell curve or the map? If it is the bell curve I have no problem with it being a reasoned guess; if you are talking about your map, the poverty of M class stars is fatal. If the aliens came from a planet around an M class star, their home system might not even be in the database... assuming that the map is real, and and assuming that it depicts stars and not something else.

And, yes, the bell curve takes that into account...

In other words, you assume that, in the absence of any actual data, the distribution of "intelligent life" in the universe among spectral classes will be normal. Unfortunately, that tidy curve would apply only if the populations of each spectral type were equal. In fact, it should look more like a ski slope, since there are many more red dwarfs, and the stars on the hot end of the spectrum probably don't have planets at all. Or, is this somehow based on a series of assumptions about the likelihood of intelligence correlating to spectral type? You have to excuse me for wondering, but on the one hand you disqualify some types of stars because they "don't live long enough," yet you discard the large population of long lived stars. That certainly looks arbitrary.

"The accurate comment was made that my use of the Hipparcos further limited the number of class "M" stars available for inclusion (selection). I was commenting that this technological "filtering" was not detrimental to the investigation because it only removes the noise of class "M" too small and cold to be of significance to the investigation."

In your completely arbitrary opinion.

Ya know, I'm really tiring of your "arbitrary" crap; prove it!

You are the one making assumptions. It is up to you to justify them.

For instance, in the above; those decisions were based on 40 years of data acquisition/management/analysis system design, along with discussions with Astronomers, and Astrobiologists...so hardly "arbitrary" as you mistakenly assert. (BTW; those discussions were in relation to another project).

You have been discussing this with astronomers and exobiologists in this thread, yet you refuse to pay attention to the criticism.

But then again, I suppose you kind of need a large arbitrary element, as it is one of your last straws.

You are the one who has built your entire theory on arbitrary assumptions:

1. You assume that Betty Hill's experience took place in the "real world."

2. You assume that the aliens were physical, and came from another star system.

3. You assume that what the alien showed Betty was a map.

4. You assume that the map was of a volume of space in our universe.

5. You assume that the map only showed stars, although Betty specified stars and planets, and took great care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets.

6. You assume that the drawing she made was accurate.

7. You assume that the drawing was not precise. (This gives you a large degree of freedom when you attempt to match.)

8. You assume that the pattern of dots and lines on the map is unique, and cannot be superimposed on a random set.

9. You assume that it takes the aliens a finite amount of time to traverse space.

10. You assume that they must have originated in this universe within a 100 light year radius.

11. You assume that they reason like us, although their craft has a wide windshield that they turn their backs to when operating their craft.

12. You assume that the theories of stellar, planetary and biological evolution developed in the 1960's and 70's are fact.

13. You assume that the aliens would come from an F, G, or K class star because of the above.

14. You assume that the bias inherent in the Hiparcos data set doesn't matter. (Because you assume M stars don't count.)

15. You assume you know what aliens who find the fact that our feet are divided into toes surprising, would consider "interesting."

I could go on, of course. Please don't take this criticism wrong. I am not trying to imply that you are stupid, I am just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You have clearly put a great deal of effort into this, which is why you are so defensive. Look at this as a learning experience. From now on try to understand if you have enough good information to make a project worthwhile. As you should know by now, data without context is meaningless.

originally posted by: DJW001
You certainly aren't. A biased sample is biased whether the bias is natural or deliberate. If your sample is biased, you can test it by applying the same methodology to a control group. When I suggested this, you scoffed. I was able to impose your template onto a random set of points, proving that any information present in your version of the map is the result of the data set's bias.

Wow, a whole load of jibber jabber...well we'll try to get through this field of "I haven't any idea what I saying anymore" of yours...

So...firstly; Bias...

Yes, I've admitted that the data I'm using is "biased" as you like to put it, ans I suppose that by definition my data is "biased". However, two important points.


1. And this one is very very important. most of that "bias" you complain about is natural. Meaning that even though it is a "bias" it is a bias that we get to work with, No matter how much we might like it to not be, it is, and we have to deal with it...I have, how about you try...

2. The other "bias", the result technological "filtering" is entirely due to the sensing equipment in orbit. Nothing can be done about this bias as it is imposed by the limitations of technology. So again we must find a way to work with it. I exploited this "bias" so that the noise generated by many small and for now undesirable stars was eliminated. I did this knowing full well that I might loose a few good candidates...again; first approximation...

"And yes, I do have other reasons to not consider class "A" or class "B" stars...they typically don't exist long enough to evolve advanced sentient life...fact of nature.

Wrong, an assumption based on limited data. We only have one data point in our knowledge of the evolution of technological (as opposed to merely intelligent or sentient) life. Remember, we have had four major extinction events in our four billion year history. A luckier planet may have evolved technological species earlier.

An "assumption"...that's rich!
You do realize that my "assumption" is based on the best dat the Human species has at this time, right?

When I say that these class "A" and "B" stars "don't live long enough", do you realize that I'm talking about 100's of million of years? And, in the case of these stars, it is always the first few 100 million years. So, they in fact, have life spans too short for advanced life.

You attempted to work Earth into this, so lets go...

Earth wasn't habitable for the first 500 million years, then it was struck by a massive object, and the moon was formed. After another 500 million years life began to form...it was another billion and a half before Earth became habitable for life as we know it. It was another 2 billion before complex life appeared...

So basically it took the Earth 4 and almost a half billion years to produce life that could eventually evolve into Humans.

During this time Earth has suffered a few more than 4 extinction events, but, did you know that with each event the complexity of life on Earth "ratcheted up" almost a quantum level in the complexity of the existing life?

In any case, class "A" and "B" stars of those advanced ages (over 800 million years), according to existing data, are quite simply rare. In Hipparcos there are less than 20,000 such stars, most do not have a listed age over 800 million years.

[quote
Are you talking about the bell curve or the map? If it is the bell curve I have no problem with it being a reasoned guess; if you are talking about your map, the poverty of M class stars is fatal. If the aliens came from a planet around an M class star, their home system might not even be in the database... assuming that the map is real, and and assuming that it depicts stars and not something else.


You are over reaching...While it is true that Hipparcos may not have found any of the smaller class "M" stars, it is equally likely that it has found any class "M" stars large enough, and warm enough to support an advanced evolution.

And, again, this technological limitation is one we get to deal with as there is little we can do (and, these same arguments; you would apply to 2MASS as well, so...)

You are the one making assumptions. It is up to you to justify them.

Only IF they actually exist...we'll get to that in a bit...

You have been discussing this with astronomers and exobiologists in this thread, yet you refuse to pay attention to the criticism.

Really?!!!?? Where are they?

To the best of my knowledge I am the only person here (in this discussion) with an advanced education! I've seen absolutely no evidence that there are any astronomers or "exobiologists" in attendance here...

Sorry man, but you are starting to make thing up just to support your prejudice against evidence and data of this nature...

edit on 12-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: DJW001
You are the one who has built your entire theory on arbitrary assumptions:

And this is almost too funny...

1. You assume that Betty Hill's experience took place in the "real world."

Oh... is there another world where it could have happened? After all she "came back" with data that exists in this "real world" of yours, so perhaps it did happen there in spite of your need for it to not have been real.

BTW, I would consider any world that an Orexin deprived person find themselves in, to be the real world. After all, the presence or absence of a neuro-chemical can not affect the world One exists in...

So...not so much of an assumption!

2. You assume that the aliens were physical, and came from another star system.

Again not much of an assumption. More like a carefully considered opinion...apparently better considered that your view!

Yes I suppose that I do assume that the "aliens" were physical, but then, how else could betty have received knowledge of the physical? And as for the "other star system"...Betty did come out of that with knowledge of the stars that did not exist on Earth at the time...

3. You assume that what the alien showed Betty was a map.

No, I'm afraid that is your assumption...made even more complex by the fact that yo insist on including me in that wee fantasy.

I think what Betty saw was a Graphical User Interface...and that her story would have been made even more fantastic IF she had touched it...I'll be demonstrating this GUI notion soon...

4. You assume that the map was of a volume of space in our universe.

Given that there can be only ONE Universe, This is not an assumption...and before you go off on the multi-verse hypotheses...I would invite you to check on the definition of the word "UNIverse"..."there can be only one"....

But all that not withstanding...this is not an assumption, unless and until you can prove there is another option.

5. You assume that the map only showed stars, although Betty specified stars and planets, and took great care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets.

Again you are incorrect! That whole statement show only your assumptions...

I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...course, you don't want any logic or reason here as it destroys your little fantasy.

6. You assume that the drawing she made was accurate.

lol you are seriously funny, and dishonest!

Betty's drawing; is accurate by definition. As it is the template being used...in reality it doesn't matter how accurate the template is. It only matters that it matches an area of space; which it does quite well.

7. You assume that the drawing was not precise. (This gives you a large degree of freedom when you attempt to match.)

Again, not an assumption! Betty drew it on a bit of notebook paper, after a hypnosis session. Thus, it can not be an accurate engineering version of what she saw, and therefore, a somewhat less than precise template.

8. You assume that the pattern of dots and lines on the map is unique, and cannot be superimposed on a random set.

A "randon set" of??? What you are trying to do is show that the template can be "fit" to a random set of dots, which yo have proven is true. Unfortunately, we are not trying to "fit" it to random dots, we are trying to fit it to Hipparcos stars. I have proven that it does in fact "fit" Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec...something that you are trying to disprove with no success what so ever.

9. You assume that it takes the aliens a finite amount of time to traverse space.

Perhaps an assumption, but, until there is better data, it will continue to transcend the "assumption" classification.

10. You assume that they must have originated in this universe within a 100 light year radius.

No actually that is not an assumption either. Any ET's visiting this world would necessarily be "local" (within 100ly)...and of course with this being the only Universe...

11. You assume that they reason like us, although their craft has a wide windshield that they turn their backs to when operating their craft.

Huh? You're not making any sense here...

12. You assume that the theories of stellar, planetary and biological evolution developed in the 1960's and 70's are fact.

You are very mistaken! I'm not even sure how you came to this illogical conclusion!!! But...it is wrong!

13. You assume that the aliens would come from an F, G, or K class star because of the above.

So, it is beginning to look like you have absolutely no idea what I think, and that you are simply ascribing anything that comes to mind in you wild attempts to discredit my work...and I thought you were better than that!

Again, not an assumption...but a reflection of the realities involved.

14. You assume that the bias inherent in the Hiparcos data set doesn't matter. (Because you assume M stars don't count.)

Well all of that is your assumption, not mine. Yes the bias inherent in the Hipparcos dataset...I mean the nerve of science to build a machine that filters out all the interesting stars above class "F". And of course all those small, cold stars, that were actually too small to detect.

You talk like our knowledge of the cosmos is too inadequate to enter into any activities of discovery...So while you're at it, you should bring all of Astronomy into question...after all, they have nothing but "assumption" to go on...right?

As you should know by now, data without context is meaningless.

There is no reason with you...you will refuse to "see" the logic, context, everything that disagrees with your fantasy world. Even when someone applies science you reject it out of hand.

You make insipid statements like how the template can be "pressed" onto a field of random points, while knowing that a field of random points is incorrect...

Would it not be better for you to drop all the dishonesty, and look at the truth and reality?

So, anyway, man; you are done here...you have nothing of substance to add, and I was so hoping you would...sigh, oh well...The science and mathematics I have presented so far speak for themselves, and much louder that anything you have...so I will continue with my investigations...I will invite you to leave, and not disrupt the progress made here.

Dropping all the pretense, all the BS there are only a couple of real questions that need answered...

is this


substantially similar to


A simple yes or no will suffice.

In my opinion it is...

Can the "template" be used to define another set of stars?
We have seen several serious attempts and another that wished only to mock this whole process. None of these has produced a match quite as good as the stars in the Tanka-Fish dataset.

So...given the mathematical probabilities involved; I would have to think; "No, it is not possible to define another "star set" that works with the precision and fidelity of my "star set".

originally posted by: tanka418
Dropping all the pretense, all the BS there are only a couple of real questions that need answered...

is this

substantially similar to

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No. They are different. Anyone can see they're different. To change it and go "looks similar so it's good enough for me!" doesn't work in science.

We have seen several serious attempts and another that wished only to mock this whole process. None of these has produced a match quite as good as the stars in the Tanka-Fish dataset.

That's because you have literally changed the data.

So...given the mathematical probabilities involved; I would have to think; "No, it is not possible to define another "star set" that works with the precision and fidelity of my "star set".

Precision based on changing the available data into your own data that is similar, but not the same, as the original.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
No. They are different. Anyone can see they're different. To change it and go "looks similar so it's good enough for me!" doesn't work in science.

That's because you have literally changed the data.

Precision based on changing the available data into your own data that is similar, but not the same, as the original.

Sigh...You are going to have to be specific...what elements of either image are not the same?

And, that is a rather serious charge you have there against me; care to prove it? Exactly what data have I changed?
Again, be specific.

Or is this really just a trolling...