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.
Yale University
If there are k possible outcomes for a phenomenon and each is equally likely, then each individual outcome has probability 1/k.
Yes, the confusion is yours. It states "each individual outcome". That means a single outcome. That means you must specify which outcome you are talking about. So...which path are you talking about?
Actually there seems to be some confusion over this, so, I will go with the greater authority.
www.stat.yale.edu...
Suppose five marbles, each of a different color, are placed in a bowl. The sample space for choosing one marble, from above, is S = [red, blue, yellow, green, purple]. Since one of these must be selected, the probability of choosing any marble is equal to the probability of the sample space S = 1. Suppose the event of interest is choosing the purple marble, A = [purple]. If it is equally likely that any one marble will be selected, then the probability of choosing the purple marble, P(A) = 1/5.
1. probability of intersection: 0.0000078 This is one image. 1:128,205
Remember, our object images have two cosmic ray vectors; using the same formula as above we can work out the probability of the image. P(1)*P(2 = P or 0.0000000847 * 0.0000000847 = 0.00000000000000717409 or 1 chance in 139,390,501,094,912.3861 (1 in 139 trillion).
So yes we have two "tracks" each with the sae probability, which hasn't changed from it's original 1:255,102.04
Ok, that makes it at least two times your calculations have been wrong.
I formally retract the last post.
No, I used actual probabilities and logic.
You continue to use "innovative" logic and math. You use every opportunity to obfuscate and mis-lead. You have introduced "processed data" and called it "raw" (none of the images you posted were raw data). It ends.
You mean the software for which I provided a link? Yes, It's called denying ignorance.
Perhaps now that we all can have the required software, you will not be able to "pull the woll over the eyes" of ATSers.
You have no idea what my skills, education, or resources are. Your "science" consists of rejecting information which doesn't fit your hypothesis (see above).
I will not be treated like a rank student by someone who has not the skills and education to attmept such scientific investigation.
Everything? Even the part about using 2 planes instead of 3? Even the part about the odds of rolling doubles. Even the part about... Well it sort of goes on and on. As far as the things you've said, about the best we can do is say that most (but not all) of it was flat out wrong.
This discussion is over. Perhaps, one day you will learn, but that day is not today. Everything you have said in this discussion has been marginal at its very best
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
Ok, that makes it at least two times your calculations have been wrong.
No, I used actual probabilities and logic.
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.
You mean the software for which I provided a link? Yes, It's called denying ignorance.
You have no idea what my skills, education, or resources are. Your "science" consists of rejecting information which doesn't fit your hypothesis
Even the part about using 2 planes instead of 3?
No documentation for that .2 to .3 nanometer thick photosensitive layer? I really wanted to learn more about that.