It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: tanka418
Just thought i'd offer this:
-- www.pas.rochester.edu...
Permutations and Combinations
Many problems in probability can be phrased in the language of "how many ways can we pick r objects out of a group of N objects." We now calculate the answer to this question.
If the order of the r objects is important, than the "number of ways to pick r objects out of a group of N objects" is called: the number of permutations of N objects taken r at a time, and denoted by the symbol NPr. What is the numerical value of NPr? For the 1st choice we can choose any one of N objects. For the 2nd choice we can choose any one of the remaining N-1 objects. For the 3rd choice we can choose any one of the remaining N-2 objects, and so on down until for the rth choice we can pick any one of the remaining N-r+1 objects. We therefore find
NPr = N x (N-1) x (N-2) x .... x (N-r+1)
It shows the way the real world probabilities are computed for exercises like this one...
And your point is?
Probabilities =/= Certainties
You've been shown how arbitrary those dots are. We can assign them to so many different things have have a clearer "match" than your "map".
You decided that Fishs map was more accurate than any of the others presented. That's bias because YOU chose it and dismissed other possibilities.
You also dismiss EVERYTHING Betty Hill said (including her more recent attempt at explaining the "map"), but her older "map" is a "template". Again, that's called bias.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418
So you want to play the "I've got an education and you don't" card?
Sorry, I've got a degree in computer science.
As for "finding someone who know about this stuff"? Point me in the direction of anyone who has knowledge of how an alien of unknown origins would draw a map and show it to human.
I personally don't care if you've been working on this for 2 minutes or 2 years. You've dug yourself a bias ditch.
You can't for 1 second say that the map is even a map. You call it a template, but there's nothing to suggest it was. Betty Hill says it was aliens yet the only proof is her word.
-- en.wikipedia.org...
A map is a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of some space, such as objects, regions, and themes.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418
Wow!
You've dug yourself in hard, haven't you?
All of this "proof" is from Betty Hill. You have her word that it is true and nothing more.
There's nothing about the map that points to it being human? You mean apart from being drawn by a human? I also thought you said it was a template? But you've also said it's accurate, but that can't be right because if it was accurate then you wouldn't need to drastically change it, would you?
You have inserted bias into this "map" in every possible way. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true. Most people can't see their own bias.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418
I've already pointed out the bias.
You're not listening so there's no point trying to show you (again). I'm done. Have fun.
No...actually you accused me of bias back on page 13, and have not pointed any bias what-so-ever...
You also accused me of making assumptions;
yet you fail to recognize that that is part of what a scientific inquisitor does; make assumptions about something observed in nature,
and then using empirical data, try to "prove" or "disprove" those assumptions. It is all part of the process...
Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to find fault with me, my processes, my data, my theory, and allowed the data to speak for itself...
ETA: Look; I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you...you know, in case there something I overlooked...
Would you please go and find out what "Arbitrary" actually means before you use the word again!
arbitrary
[ahr-bi-trer-ee]
adjective
1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.
2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
an arbitrary government.
4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
There is nothing arbitrary about this analysis...nothing. Except in your uninformed and prejudice mind.
I would suggest to all of y'all that IF you have an issue with what I'm saying; go and find someone who you know is knowledgeable in these subjects and ask them...you know people like other mathematicians, astronomers, etc.
Oh, and more importantly; You are correct probabilities != certainties...however, in this world we never get certainties. Certainties are like "proof"...and proof never happens outside of mathematics. So all we ever get are varying degrees of probability...perhaps we should listen to nature on this...and go with the greater probabilities...
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418
Your data set is biased against class M stars, for reasons that have been explained several times. This renders it useless for your purposes.
First, it is necessary to make observations. Once enough observations have been made, a pattern can be deduced. Only once a pattern has been found can hypotheses, and the accompanying assumptions, be formed. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Hill case has anything to do with nature. Betty Hill saw something in a dream. There is no reason to believe it has anything at all to do with waking reality.
www.sciencebuddies.org...
The Hill "map" contains no data. It is a drawing based on a dream.
Every page of this thread contains lists of things you have "overlooked."
originally posted by: DJW001
We have been using arbitrary in a precise manner. Here is the definition:
arbitrary
[ahr-bi-trer-ee]
adjective
1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.
2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
an arbitrary government.
4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
www.dictionary.com...
Your assumptions meet all but the second definition.
You have been arguing with people who are knowledgeable in these subjects.
originally posted by: DJW001
www.sciencebuddies.org...
Wow...really???!! Then where is the truly authoritative statements made by an astronomer that anything I said in this hypothesis is wrong?
The computer star map includes the Sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the Sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”
Pattern Recognition Figure 2The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in “The Interrupted Journey” by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allows even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance.
Finally, we hear from “The Interrupted Journey” that Betty Hill first thought she saw a remarkable similarity between her UFO star map and a map of the constellation Pegasus published in the New York Times in 1965 to show the position of the quasar CTA-102. How many star maps, derived from the Gliese catalog or elsewhere, have been compared with Betty Hill’s before a supposed agreement was found? If we suppress information on such comparisons we also overestimate the significance of the result.
The argument on “The Zeta Reticuli Incident” demonstrates only that if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful. The argument cannot serve even to suggest a verification of the Hill story -- which in any case is well known to be riddled with internal and external contradictions, and which is amenable to interpretations which do not invoke extraterrestrial intelligence. Those of us concerned with the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence must take care to demand adequately rigorous standards of evidence. It is all too easy, as the old Chinese proverb says, for the imprisoned maiden to mistake the beating of her own heart for the hoof beats of her rescuer’s horse.
originally posted by: DJW001
Once again, you need to do research before you start on a project:
The computer star map includes the Sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the Sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”
Pattern Recognition Figure 2The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in “The Interrupted Journey” by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allows even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance.
we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern.
Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”
if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful.
Sorry man, but inadequate...I have researched this, you obviously have not...
And really??!!!?? Carl Segan?!!???
It would appear that Carl spoke without knowing what he was talking about...and you talk about not doing research! HA!
In Marjorie's work the criteria for star selection is stated, and is almost identical with mine...mine enjoys a little greater confidence due to more modern research and Astronomy.
Carl continues to ignore the mathematics involved...ya know its starting to sound like these aren't real Carl Sagan statements, but, be that as it may...the whole thing is rather disingenuous and ill-thought, it shows a serious lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log102C = 37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits. For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary -- a matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits.
It is Saunders’ choice of the vantage point factor VP with which we must take strongest issue, for this is a matter of geometry and simple pattern recognition. Saunders assumes that free choice of the vantage point for viewing a three-dimensional model of 15 stars is worth only VP = 3 bits. He then reduces the information content of directionality to one bit by introducing the “constraint” that the star Zeta Tucanae be occulted by Zeta Reticuli (with no special notation on the Hill map to mark this peculiarity). This ad hoc device is invoked to explain the absence of Zeta Tucanae from the Hill map, but it reveals the circular reasoning involved. After all, why bother to calculate the statistical significance of the supposed map correlation if one has already decided which points represent which stars?
Certainly the selection of vantage point is worth more than three bits (not to mention one bit). Probably the easiest circumstance to recognize and remember about random projections of the model in question are the cases in which two stars appear to be immediately adjacent. By viewing the model from all possible directions, there are 14 distinct ways in which any given star can be seen in projection as adjacent to some other star. This can be done for each of the 15 stars, giving 210 projected configurations -- each of which would be recognized as substantially different from the others in information content. And of course there are many additional distinct recognizable projections of the 15 stars not involving any two being immediately adjacent (For example, three stars nearly equidistant in a straight line are easily recognized, as in Orion’s belt). Thus for a very conservative lower bound, the information content determined by choice of vantage point (that is, by being allowed to rotate the model about three axes) can be taken as at least equal to VP = log102(210) = 7.7 bits. Using the rest of Saunders’ analysis, this would at best yield SS = Zero to 4.4 bits -- not a very impressive correlation.
Gotta love those straws,
right???
Using Carl was not only a dishonor to him, but rather disingenuous on your part...Boo - Hiss...
And of course it only shows what older, less informed opinions can be...
So...you outta straw yet? You should be, there really isn't anything you can say to debunk this, it is what I've said it is...
Betty's "map" is a match to selected stars in interstellar space viewed from: HIP-26737 RA: 85.21669, Decl:-31.350, Dist: ~122.3478ly and looking at HIP-22451
The match is actually quite precise, with estimated much less than 1% difference.
originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have a problem with Carl Sagan?
"In Marjorie's work the criteria for star selection is stated, and is almost identical with mine...mine enjoys a little greater confidence due to more modern research and Astronomy. "
In other words, you cherry picked the data.
No, you do. If you had bothered to click on the link, you would have read this:
"For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log102C = 37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits. For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary -- a matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits.
"
Sorry, but Carl Sagan knew what he was talking about.
You mean like your retro opinions about the suitability of red dwarfs?
I am not misrepresenting your position at all, I am pointing out its arbitrariness.
Betty's "map" is a match to selected stars in interstellar space viewed from: HIP-26737 RA: 85.21669, Decl:-31.350, Dist: ~122.3478ly and looking at HIP-22451
The match is actually quite precise, with estimated much less than 1% difference.
It also matches up to random dots and cities in England!