Of Cosmic Rays, UFO, and SOHO

reply to post by Phage


Consider this:

If there are k possible outcomes for a phenomenon and each is equally likely, then each individual outcome has probability 1/k.

Yale University

Actually there seems to be some confusion over this, so, I will go with the greater authority. And, it seems that Yale University supports my position. If ya want, I'm sure cal tech, mit, stanford, and most others will as well.

The methods, and values you are talking about, quite simply are a kind of "false" logic. In that it "seems" like it "should" be correct. Unfortunately it isn't. I was "bitten" by this "logic trap" myself many times in the early days. So, I understand how it happens.

But, the fact remains, that your method does not yield accurate result, and, mine does. Many peole like to use coins, dice, marbels, etc. to illustrate probability. The problem is; the illustrations are usually a somewhat "special case", and can only apply to a model that is, for all intent and purpose, identical with the original illustration. As soon, as you try to apply it to the real world, the method breaks down, and no longer produces reliable result.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Actually there seems to be some confusion over this, so, I will go with the greater authority.

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?

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.

www.stat.yale.edu...
It is talking about selecting one particular marble. The purple one. If you are trying to choose the purple marble the probability is one in five. If you are choosing any marble the probability is 1 that you will select...any marble.

So, is that first track a selected track? Or is it any track?
Are you claiming that the odds of rolling doubles is 1:36?

reply to post by Phage


Fine, if you want it that way; it's not going to help.

1. probability of intersection: 0.0000078 This is one image. 1:128,205
2. probability of two images: 0.00000000006084 1:16,436,554,898 1 in 16 billion
3. probability of 3 images: 0.000000000000000474552 1:2,107,250,627,960,687 1 in 2 quadrillion.

I've personally seen more than four such images. So, as I said, these anomalies can not all be cosmic rays.

You are still calculating the probabilities wrong, due to improper logic. But, as yo can see, it doesn't really matter, the probabilities are still untenable.

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

1. probability of intersection: 0.0000078 This is one image. 1:128,205

Incorrect.
Please redo the problem showing all your work. Please provide specific criteria to define a "special" event. Such criteria are to include but are not limited to:
a) length of tracks in pixels (a range is acceptable).
b) angle of intercept (a range is acceptable).
c) maximum proximity of two endpoints in pixels (a range is acceptable)

If you get it correct you will receive 25% credit because this will be your forth (at least) attempt.

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

reply to post by Phage


I formally retract the last post. Phage, you are wrong! Period. You have searched and searched for a way to win this debate, and despite all your attempts you have failed!

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.

Perhaps now that we all can have the required software, you will not be able to "pull the woll over the eyes" of ATSers.

When I get it "right", now that's rich. You wouldn't be able to tell. For I have had it right all ong, the only thing that you may perceive is the attempts I made to give you an advantage. Never again for any one.

I will not be treated like a rank student by someone who has not the skills and education to attmept such scientific investigation.

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

reply to post by AnthraAndromda

I formally retract the last post.

Ok, that makes it at least two times your calculations have been wrong.

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.

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.

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 mean the software for which I provided a link? Yes, It's called denying ignorance.

I will not be treated like a rank student by someone who has not the skills and education to attmept such scientific investigation.

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).

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

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.

No documentation for that .2 to .3 nanometer thick photosensitive layer? I really wanted to learn more about that.

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 hypothesis

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 mind.

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 that article.

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.