reply to post by stereologist
A rationale person would have deduced by this point, that I take a very dim view of people who are like you, a bully. This is evidenced by your
approach towards anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you; by attempting to intimidate them using pseudo logic, “cherry picking”,
irrelevant evidence, “rabbit holing” or all of the above, with a nice helping of patronizing tone. Unfortunately, this is usually the case with
people like yourself who are without cognitive reasoning skills and limits their ability to express their ideas in a reasoned fashion. Hence, your
pathetic attempts at baiting with statements that I am: “wrong”, “mistaken”, “misunderstood” etc… without backing up that statement with
the how or the why.
Null hypothesis testing is also used in statistical analysis. This is especially true when conducting a T-test or a Z-test. Those of us that use
them call it ANOVA. You might want to look into those little facts. That is if you’re not too wrapped up in the mantle of your own
self-absorption. You see most statisticians, scientists, and mathematicians use null hypothesis testing…to guess what? I bet everyone who is
playing along at home knows! No…it’s not to test an experiment. It is used to test their hypothesis! Before they waste their time conducting an
experiment! I’m not going to take any further time to explain the difference between an experiment and a hypothesis because that would be a waste
and is again a “rabbit hole”.
Weiler states his formula as: N= N(N) + N(S) + N(A) where N represents the total number of objects in T-orbit . Does not N(N) also means N x N? Here
again, you “cherry picked”, leaving out my point about N. Is it not true that normally N means I can insert any whole number, that Weiler used
the deck of cards analogy, and that I chose to use a normal playing deck? Are those not facts? How am I mistaken then if I used in the equation a
normal deck of cards, that 52 x 52 is 1:2704? I’m using his equation and his analogy! His premise and therefore yours (as you are the one who used
this paper as evidence in the contrary to Tahnya86’s assertion), is that locating an object is irrelevant, is clearly absurd. The equation and
Weiler’s Assumption 1 state that any located object effects the overall equation.
You also failed to include in your quote the crux of my paragraph: Therefore, it is relevant to include in the equation. In point of fact, he refutes
his own assertion by stating: “…while finding an object in T-orbit is difficult, succeeding only about once in 100,000 trials…” Some would
call that “rabbit holing” or “cherry picking”. I simply define it as lying by omission. You did notice further into the paper’s paragraph
that Weiler’s states, “But once an object has been found…” This would imply that he realizes that it has to be found and that he is expressing
the same odds just in a different form as ones that he called “irrelevant” when they were 10-5? You did try taking me down the “rabbit hole”
by using your diamond and needle in a haystack analogies. That was rather a pointless effort by the way, as no other analogies are necessary. Weiler
admits by his own words that you have to locate it to identify it. To try and prove otherwise is blatantly false! He contradicts his own premises
and therefore lessens his credibility.
Speaking of credibility, this leads me back to your smug confession of purposefully offering false information, as an “experiment” to see how many
people would do their own research. One could make the argument that you done the same thing here. Or one could make the argument that you didn’t
do any research into the evidence (which was my initial thought as stated in my previous response), which you are now contesting most vehemently. In
actuality I think neither is true and that you just enjoy being a bully. In any of three of the scenarios you have no credibility. There can be no
other scenarios, as the disclosure was by your own omission. Therefore, one of the three has to be fact. The ironic thing is that you are too self
absorbed to realize it.