Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
Ok, that makes it at least two times your calculations have been wrong.
No, my calculations are indeed correct.
No, I used actual probabilities and logic.
Again, no. You misidentified the probability model, and then tried to pass it off as the "right way" when it clearly is not.
While the data uploaded from the satellites may involve some onboard processing it is far "cleaner" than the browse images which you rely upon. I
provided links to the source images which is more than you did with yours. Processed? Ok, I adjusted the contrast, it didn't change the fact that
there was a cosmic ray track there. Doesn't have anything to do with the errors in your calculations.
Actually, you did a bit more than simply "adjust contrast". I've seen the raw data, and not with your application.
You mean the software for which I provided a link? Yes, It's called denying ignorance.
No, I was referring to the Harvard aplication. It seems cleaner, wasn't written in C# (C sharp), and does nothing upon loading the data other than
display the raw data.
You have no idea what my skills, education, or resources are. Your "science" consists of rejecting information which doesn't fit your
And, again, no! You are the One who was trying to find a "fit". I was trying to make this easy, which you didn't want. You are the one who denied
every single attempt to describe these probability. And, in the rocess, make these analies "comon", which they are not. Your computation of the
probabilities has been entirely based on a misconception, and misinterpretation of the math, and logic. These facts are visible to anyone with an open
Even the part about using 2 planes instead of 3?
Okay, I'll give you 2 planes. But the part about rolling doubles No, not a chance. I had a Phd read e the riot act a long tie ago over that very
issue. In that instance you are wrong. I will give yu the "logic" on that one though. I used a;most the same argument, then got a 3 hur lecture on how
I was wrong. That was, however, 4 years ago, so don't ask me to repeat it (cuz I dubt that I can).
No documentation for that .2 to .3 nanometer thick photosensitive layer? I really wanted to learn more about that.
Sorry about that, got caught up in other things.
I did some research, and it seems that this value is not included in any "data sheets" for CCD devices, at least not Sony or Toshiba. The only data
similar is "cell/pixel size" (surface), and with that I've seen as small as 4 microns. But no indications on thickness. However, I think, I may be
with you on this; less than a nanometer Seems rather small. I'm not so much interested in the wavelength issues, but rather the physics of the
construction. Last I heard, and that was recent, microprocessors still used at 30nm technology, so I will remain unsure of the assertation made in
A few inutes ago there was a news spot on the presidental campaign. They showed both men "dumping" on the other. I couldn't help think how much our
discussion was like that ... BS.
You see, we may both be right, and it is a matter of our individual understanding. In this matter of "doubles" I can see your logic, but, expirence
demands my math.
Logic would also seem to dictate that these "anomalies" can't be cosmic rays in all instances , but, unless we can get past this one issue, we will
not be able to proceed to any furter analysis of the data.
edit on 16-8-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)