It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Could Elenin be a Asteroid supporting life?

page: 2
3
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:20 PM

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.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Tahnya86

some of the smartest geniuses and iventors in time have had weak areas, mine is spelling, doesnt make me dumb....

I'll bet if some of those geniuses had free access to "spell checker" they would use it!

I lost interest in your OP because of the appalling spelling.......my spelling is not 100% either, but when you type out a post here on ATS, the red lines under a word indicate it is spelled wrongly!,,,,,right click on it, and it will be corrected!

terrible spelling on ATS is the result of laziness..........not genius!
edit on 11/9/2011 by Argyll because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:13 PM

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?

The simple answer to that is NO. It's not N(N). It's N(n).

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!

Actually, you are not using his equation since N(n) is not a probability. It is a function. N and n are distinct. Once again you repeat the mistake of N(n) implying multiplication. The equation supplied yields an integer.

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.

Completely wrong. Amazingly wrong.
The ability to detect does not affect the numbers of objects. It is absurd to suggest it does.

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”.

Again NO. You are again wrong. The probability of detection has nothing to do with the numbers of objects, nor the probability that a detected object is of a certain type if all objects are detected uniformly.

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?

Selecting an object is done uniformly as stated by both Steel and Weiler. Thus the probability of finding an object is irrelevant.

Weiler admits by his own words that you have to locate it to identify it. To try and prove otherwise is blatantly false!

Detection is independent of the nature of the object. That is the point.

The problem seems to stem from your lack of understanding of the math beginning with the mistake with N(n). Please rework the paper with this correction.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:57 PM

God you know you are really funny, that ending statement, “Please rework the paper with this correction.” I actually laughed for a good 2-3 minutes! Hey Einstein, this isn’t my paper to re-work! And you are not my Advisor nor a member of my Doctoral Committee!!

Your answers are still, “no”, “wrong”, and other variations with no evidence to the contrary of why or how I am wrong. I must admit that I am impressed that you have now taken the “cherry picking” to a level that can only be construed as outright lying to prove your point.

How about answering salient points of the paragraph to me and not to everyone else on the site? You are not being “slick” at all using quotes. The only reason why you keep doing it, is the belief that other ATS member won’t read through my statements or the paper in full, which then bring the full context into place.

You have already admitted that you have presented false information in the belief that people don’t do their own research. I think it is interesting that you ignored that fact and didn’t address that paragraph of my last response. Hmmm….why could that be?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:13 AM

I pointed out the glaring blunder you made:

N(n) is not multiplication.

Stop the childish commentary and go back to the paper and figure out where this mistake has misled you.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:53 PM

Now the approach is to call me childish. What I believe is "childish" is for you not to answer questions that are raised about your self admitted credibility issues, your inability to rationale explain your position with facts not opinions, and using bullying tactics to shut down dissent. I have explained each one of my points in detail. I am not the one bullying people. And I am definitely not the one that admitted to lying to conduct an experiment.

You are the one that started this, you are the one that needs to defend his position.

If you are not going to have a rationale discussion then don't bother answering as I won't be responding otherwise. Thanks.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:51 PM
The facts of the matter are that Steel's paper makes a number of mistakes. The issues were reported by Weiler in a correspondence to the journal. He showed that:

1. The probability of detecting an object and the origin of the object are independent issues, which seems intuitive, but needed to be demonstrated.
2. Steel made a mistake in his consideration of the probabilities, which Steel claimed made for a claim of a high probability of an alien object.

These are the types of issues that need to be discussed in a scientific forum. It is a discussion of the pros and cons of a topic. People are often unaware how these issues are discussed in often a high spirited manner until a general consensus can be formed on the issue.

top topics

3