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.

 

I was a believer, now skeptic. Believers are wrong.

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Yes, lots of stories. The Hill case is a great example of modern mythology. You can interpret this story in a number of different ways. Everything from ET to the CIA to just basic psychology can be an explaination. To me, The "star map" is a product of Betty Hills mind. That it matches to any one particular "thing" like a star system is well, ridiculous. Why not a map of Vermont? Or even our solar system? www.kochkyborg.de...

edit on 29-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



Perhaps because it is a map of stars...somewhat stylized, and from a long way off. The fact that it does match a group of stars is very remarkable, and, nearly impossible: 14 chances in 68 billion, 100 million.





posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

tanka418

ZetaRediculian
"poker has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability" is still wrong, utterly. This statement alone is testament to your complete lack of understanding of mathematical probability.

Just a cursory glance from anyone can see that. There is no reason to take your numbers at face value or even check your "work" because you demonstrated that you don't grasp the basics. We must conclude your numbers are either fictitious or wrong.

All I see is a failed attempt to dodge the fact you don't actually know what you are talking about.


I'm sorry the advanced mathematics confuses you; here maybe this will help.

Poker does not define mathematical probability, however many of the "interactions" contained within Poker can be described using mathematics, including the probability of any given hand, at any point in the game.

Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad. However, both can be described by mathematics.

Your assessment of my statements only shows your lack of understanding in mathematics. Your other statements show that you have issues with critical thinking, logic, as well as most of the fundamentals governing the ALL.

Perhaps, if you got off your "high horse", and stopped trying to prove everyone wrong, stopped trying to obfuscate the most important issue in Human history, you could become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.



When we talk probabilities it seems that the believers somehow go from life in general is throughout our universe to space faring intelligent life throughout our universe as if they are one and the same.

The key here is we can say life in general must be throughout our galaxy when conditions are right, but when you start to add discriminators as to what that life is you really start to reduce the chance greatly.

You can say life and when I say that life is a 600 pound purple flying hippo that can speak French and the probability goes from 100% to some infinitesimal percentage.

This is a lot like suggesting that there is intelligent life that has the capability to travel throughout our galaxy, AND actually find us. We also know that life in general is hard to kill, but species come and go all the time, and the more complex the species gets the more fragile it becomes to the chance of extinction.

Even when we say there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy when we suggest non-binary, G type, with a planet in the right area, right size, most likely with a moon, liquid core, controlled eco system i.e. earth like, we really reduce the 300 billion down. We can look at both Mars and Venus to see what happens when a planet is slightly outside of the conditions needed for long sustainable conditions to support the evolution of advance life of anykind, much less intelligent life.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Yes, lots of stories. The Hill case is a great example of modern mythology. You can interpret this story in a number of different ways. Everything from ET to the CIA to just basic psychology can be an explaination. To me, The "star map" is a product of Betty Hills mind. That it matches to any one particular "thing" like a star system is well, ridiculous. Why not a map of Vermont? Or even our solar system? www.kochkyborg.de...

edit on 29-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


As a better researcher of the map than Tanka who seems to blow a lot of things out of proportion and who has only a cursory understanding of astronomy please allow me to answer. I am an Astronomy and Astrobiology major who approached the map from a similar mindset when it was brought to my attention.

Remember, I was looking to see if the map fit Alpha Centauri or any other arbitrary set of base stars. I am a UFO skeptic. But the map presented something scientifically testable within my expertise.

Those arguments you raised were raised in the 1970s when there were serious science researchers looking at the map, including none other than Carl Sagan who suggested as much. It all played out in Astronomy Magazine.

Notable astronomy and science writer Terrence Dickinson even published a collection of the whole affair which I have a physical copy of now:



There was this idea that you could get that pattern to match just about anything. That's all well and good as a rebuttal but its not accurate.

Additionally, having run over 2,000 pattern matches using Hipparcos catalog data the pattern surprisingly has a 90% fit to the stars of Marjorie Fish's original model.

In short, Marjorie Fish created something like 12-15 physical models using the Gliese catalog before she arrived at the one which we all know that includes the stars of Zeta Recticuli. This model was her best fit.

Using a computer and more accurate data from Hipparcos I was able to duplicate her work without trying to get a match with those stars. The computer just did it automatically.

No other nearby stars fit to that percentage.

The next best fit is not nearly as good and involves stars hundreds and in one case almost a thousand light years away.

The thing is that until recently we knew very little about the stars on the map or had very accurate positions of the stars in our neighborhood.

Now we do and now we know that some of them have exoplanets, some of which are habitable.

That was covered in this ATS thread:

ATS: The Hill Star Map and Exoplanets

......which Tanka ripped most of his ideas from without credit including my research which fingered one of the stars possibly as Upsilon Andromedae due to more accurate position data I had culled.

Tanka lost credibility in my eye after doing that. In science when we reference each others work we give credit where due.

I would not be so ticked off about it if he was better at articulating what the map is and MOST IMPORTANTLY what the map ISN'T. He presents one side with poorly understood astronomy and takes huge rushes to judgement and leaps of logic that do nothing for the credibility of the map research done to date by Ms. Fish, Terrence Dickinson or me.


BTW: I put together a longer video that goes into detail about my research (again, which Tanka cherry picked). I'd have posted it by now but its unfinished as I want to include a segment on Marjorie Fish, the woman who created the original model of the map. She passed away this past year. I'm waiting for more information about her life from Stanton Friedman (who was on tour but said he was interested in my research and would get back to me).

From what I hear Marjorie too was a UFO skeptic by the way, nevertheless she went where the science leads her, not necessarily where she thought it might go.

Ohio State University's Observatory displayed another astronomical model she built, this one was of the nearest stars in the mid 70s. She worked as a technician at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She was not some wide-eyed UFO abduction believer.

My video does not make the case that the map is evidence but that pending further discoveries it is interesting beyond statistical chance and could perhaps be evidence if other discoveries are made in the near future with instruments due to come on line in the next decade.

I urge you to read that thread starting on page 2 if you want to see where my contributions start:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I REALLY wish tanka would stop overselling the map. I've pleaded with him to stop but he persists. I even showed him a pre-release version of my video hoping that he'd listen to me but he obviously has little regard for the credibility of research, science or the work I've done.

Part of the reason why the map laid pretty much unexamined since the 1970s was because of people who oversold the map as evidence of the Hill abduction case back then.

Now he's doing the same. Promoting his hack job of a rip-off video again. Selling it as evidence, when it is nothing of the sort.

So, you and he look likely to be on opposite sides of a debate where the truth likely lay somewhere in the middle.

To answer your original question: It would be silly to suggest the map is that of our solar system when it involves including some large asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects while omitting others. Koch's map was a lame attempt at pattern matching as were two other attempts I've looked at and debunked (again, read the relevant thread I referenced for details as to why).
edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

JadeStar

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Yes, lots of stories. The Hill case is a great example of modern mythology. You can interpret this story in a number of different ways. Everything from ET to the CIA to just basic psychology can be an explaination. To me, The "star map" is a product of Betty Hills mind. That it matches to any one particular "thing" like a star system is well, ridiculous. Why not a map of Vermont? Or even our solar system? www.kochkyborg.de...

edit on 29-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


As a better researcher of the map than Tanka who seems to blow a lot of things out of proportion and who has only a cursory understanding of astronomy please allow me to answer. I am an Astronomy and Astrobiology major who approached the map from a similar mindset when it was brought to my attention.

Remember, I was looking to see if the map fit Alpha Centauri or any other arbitrary set of base stars. I am a UFO skeptic. But the map presented something scientifically testable within my expertise.

Those arguments you raised were raised in the 1970s when there were serious science researchers looking at the map, including none other than Carl Sagan who suggested as much. It all played out in Astronomy Magazine.

Notable astronomy and science writer Terrence Dickinson even published a collection of the whole affair which I have a physical copy of now:



There was this idea that you could get that pattern to match just about anything. That's all well and good as a rebuttal but its not accurate.

Additionally, having run over 2,000 pattern matches using Hipparcos catalog data the pattern surprisingly has a 90% fit to the stars of Marjorie Fish's original model.

In short, Marjorie Fish created something like physical 12-15 models using the Gliese catalog before she arrived at the one which we all know that includes the stars of Zeta Recticuli. This model was her best fit.

Using a computer and more accurate data from Hipparcos I was able to duplicate her work without trying to get a match with those stars. The computer just did it automatically.

No other nearby stars fit to that percentage.

The next best fit is not nearly as good and involves stars hundreds and in one case almost a thousand light years away.

The thing is that until recently we knew very little about the stars on the map or had very accurate positions of the stars in our neighborhood.

Now we do and now we know that some of them have exoplanets, some of which are habitable.

That was covered in this ATS thread:

ATS: The Hill Star Map and Exoplanets

......which Tanka ripped most of his ideas from without credit including my research which fingered one of the stars possibly as Upsilon Andromedae due to more accurate position data I had culled.

Tanka lost credibility in my eye after doing that. In science when we reference each others work we give credit where due.

I would not be so ticked off about it if he was better at articulating what the map is and MOST IMPORTANTLY what the map ISN'T. He presents one side with poorly understood astronomy and takes huge rushes to judgement and leaps of logic that do nothing for the credibility of the map research done to date by Ms. Fish, Terrence Dickinson or me.


BTW: I put together a longer video that goes into detail about my research (again, which Tanka cherry picked). I'd have posted it by now but its unfinished as I want to include a segment on Marjorie Fish, the woman who created the original model of the map. She passed away this past year. I'm waiting for more information about her life from Stanton Friedman (who was on tour but said he was interested in my research and would get back to me).

From what I hear Marjorie too was a UFO skeptic by the way, nevertheless she went where the science leads her, not necessarily where she thought it might go.

Ohio State University's Observatory displayed another astronomical model she built, this one was of the nearest stars in the mid 70s. She worked as a technician at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She was not some wide-eyed UFO abduction believer.

My video does not make the case that the map is evidence but that pending further discoveries it is interesting beyond statistical chance and could perhaps be evidence if other discoveries are made in the near future with instruments due to come on line in the next decade.

I urge you to read that thread starting on page 2 if you want to see where my contributions start:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I REALLY wish tanka would stop overselling the map. I've pleaded with him to stop but he persists. I even showed him a pre-release version of my video hoping that he'd listen to me but he obviously has little regard for the credibility of research, science or the work I've done.

Part of the reason why the map laid pretty much unexamined since the 1970s was because of people who oversold the map as evidence of the Hill abduction case back then.

Now he's doing the same. Promoting his hack job of a rip-off video again. Selling it as evidence, when it is nothing of the sort.

So, you and he look likely to be on opposite sides of a debate where the truth likely lay somewhere in the middle.

To answer your original question: It would be silly to suggest the map is that of our solar system when it involves including some large asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects while omitting others. Koch's map was a lame attempt at pattern matching as were two other attempts I've looked at and debunked (again, read the relevant thread I referenced for details as to why).
edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


*head explodes*

I was warming to the idea that the Hill case was some kind of MKULTRA psyop...but holy cow. I don't know what to think now.


Would a kind of reverse-SETI be an option in this case? Use a probe (existing or purpose built) in line with the target stars in question at a distance from Earth, and look for microburst radio or optical transmissions from concealed observation devices? I doubt that if this was ET, that they would just drop by and go off without leaving observation platforms behind - after all, we could be a potential threat to them (shades of The Killing Star).



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

1ofthe9

*head explodes*

I was warming to the idea that the Hill case was some kind of MKULTRA psyop...but holy cow. I don't know what to think now.


It's an intriguing case that should probably be parsed out of the rest of the the UFO abduction lore to be studied in detail for a number of notable reasons. The map is one of them. The Hills consciously remembering the experience, the physical evidence (damage to the car, scuffs on the tops of Barney's shoes from reportedly being dragged and the discoloration of patches of Betty Hill's dress) as well as the description of the alleged aliens being significantly different from what has become the "Grey" or "Communion" aliens.



Would a kind of reverse-SETI be an option in this case? Use a probe (existing or purpose built) in line with the target stars in question at a distance from Earth, and look for microburst radio or optical transmissions from concealed observation devices?


Sure. All it takes is money...


Ideally what you'd like to be able to do is to get a large optical interferometer or coronagraph like the cancelled Terrestrial Planet Finder to spot any planets around these stars directly and search their atmosphere's for biomarkers (signs of life).

If we were to detect biomarkers on an Earthlike world around either or both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli then the race would be on to find radio, lasers, waste heat, large structures in space, etc ie: the markers of a civilization.

BTW: Both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli were on the Terrestrial Planet Finder's preliminary list of target stars.



I doubt that if this was ET, that they would just drop by and go off without leaving observation platforms behind - after all, we could be a potential threat to them (shades of The Killing Star).


Indeed. I suspect that -if- (And this is a BIG if) the map is real then the Hill aliens likely discovered he Earth through such a platform either around 82 Eridani or Tau Ceti where the Earth could be imaged and studied closely with instruments not much more advanced than ones we have on the drawing board.

This is all speculation of course. Speculation awaiting further data. Which we may have in the form of NASA TESS space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, Europe's PLATO space telescope and a number of large aperture ground based facilities (Thirty Meter Telescope in the US and European Extremely Large Telescope in Chile).

edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

JadeStar

As a better researcher of the map than Tanka who seems to blow a lot of things out of proportion and who has only a cursory understanding of astronomy please allow me to answer. I am an Astronomy and Astrobiology major who approached the map from a similar mindset when it was brought to my attention.


Hypothesis: The Hill "star map" template is a map of real space as interpreted by Ms. Fish.
probability of 14 random star selection from K, G, and F class stars that match geometrical template: 2.05E-10
error in fish interpretation: 0.07
probability of earth like planets: 0.026

overall Bayesian probability: 0.941889

So...how out of proportion is 94%? Yes, I know, "not enough terms" sorry, but logic kind of negates some of those in specific contexts; like the context of the original template's origin. I used 3D software to model the space in question. one of the very few locations that template is viewable from is: : RA: 10.9h; Decl: -80.3; 250ly. So Betty didn't dream it up...

Logically she got it from one of the species represented on the map, and we know it wasn't Earth / Humans.

In any case, think of my "out of proportion", more as "predictions".



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

JadeStar

1ofthe9

*head explodes*

I was warming to the idea that the Hill case was some kind of MKULTRA psyop...but holy cow. I don't know what to think now.


It's an intriguing case that should probably be parsed out of the rest of the the UFO abduction lore to be studied in detail for a number of notable reasons. The map is one of them. The Hills consciously remembering the experience, the physical evidence (damage to the car, scuffs on the tops of Barney's shoes from reportedly being dragged and the discoloration of patches of Betty Hill's dress) as well as the description of the alleged aliens being significantly different from what has become the "Grey" or "Communion" aliens.



Would a kind of reverse-SETI be an option in this case? Use a probe (existing or purpose built) in line with the target stars in question at a distance from Earth, and look for microburst radio or optical transmissions from concealed observation devices?


Sure. All it takes is money...


Ideally what you'd like to be able to do is to get a large optical interferometer or coronagraph like the cancelled Terrestrial Planet Finder to spot any planets around these stars directly and search their atmosphere's for biomarkers (signs of life).

If we were to detect biomarkers on an Earthlike world around either or both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli then the race would be on to find radio, lasers, waste heat, large structures in space, etc ie: the markers of a civilization.

BTW: Both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli were on the Terrestrial Planet Finder's preliminary list of target stars.



I doubt that if this was ET, that they would just drop by and go off without leaving observation platforms behind - after all, we could be a potential threat to them (shades of The Killing Star).


Indeed. I suspect that -if- (And this is a BIG if) the map is real then the Hill aliens likely discovered he Earth through such a platform either around 82 Eridani or Tau Ceti where the Earth could be imaged and studied closely with instruments not much more advanced than ones we have on the drawing board.

This is all speculation of course. Speculation awaiting further data. Which we may have in the form of NASA TESS space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, Europe's PLATO space telescope and a number of large aperture ground based facilities (Thirty Meter Telescope in the US and European Extremely Large Telescope in Chile).

edit on 29-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


I find the human like aliens to be problematic... but the research I've seen seems to suggest that it is plausible to mess with the mind to a great extent with EM radiation. I would suggest that a great deal of the Hill experience was likely spooled into their minds via electromagnetic means. The Hill aliens weren't that dissimilar to the typical Contactee alien, so we might be dealing with a clever disguise aimed at not giving their technological game away.

Its interesting to note that a lot of our internet/Singularity stuff emerged from the same crowd that did government UFO work in the 1970's. SRI and Vallee and all that jazz.
I think it might be worth a try to go back and look for new patterns in the data that would not have been apparent to investigators at the time. If there is another intelligence behind the phenomena, then what we have been perceiving is what 'they' intend us to see. Smoke and mirrors. However, it might represented a kind of cryptography - like suppose flap data was plotted and subjected to computer analysis... Maybe the lights in the sky, when plotted out and subjected to the power of mathematics, represent some kind of theorem or something expressed in a very unusual medium (hellooo Marshall McLuhan...).

On a side note, would you know if the Kepler data would be of any use in a search for an optical Benford beacon?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
And just a brief follow up to my post: I know computer studies have been done by Vallee and friends...but we might be missing an important data point. We can take the *sightings* into account - but what about the content? Specifically the number of objects/lights involved in each sighting, and maybe the geometry of the objects involved.

I think we can make the assumption that math is universal.
However, I think we might have been confusing the medium for the message in this case...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Bruja?




I agree Mexico should be known for it's over active imagination.
To be kind.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Thanks JadeStar. That was actually very informative. Even though my opinion is of the skeptical side on this matter, I would have no problem looking at actual statistical data that would show something in support of the claims. I do have a problem with people not only misrepresenting someone else's work but also misrepresenting themselves as "knowledgeable" when it is obvious they don't really know what they are talking about.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad. However, both can be described by mathematics.

Might as well say 1+1=3.

Sorry, you are wrong. No other way to put it. You are wasting everyone's time. Move along now.
edit on 29-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
 


Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad. However, both can be described by mathematics.

Might as well say 1+1=3.

Sorry, you are wrong. No other way to put it. You are wasting everyone's time. Move along now.
edit on 29-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


You have made the assertion; now prove it.

I'm sorry ZR but it is you who are mistaken. My math is quite solid. Though, if you like I can find mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

It's a cute little trick you should google it.

No sorry man, I've proven my point, and without the need to involve the math to derive all those other terms (course One could always use a modified "Drake"). I'm sorry the math is beyond you, but that does not invalidate it.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Please keep the conversation on the topic and off each other to avoid further action being taken. Everyone's opinions are allowed and it's not necessary to get personal to debate the topic.

Blaine91555
Forum Moderator
edit on 12/29/2013 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Xtrozero

tanka418

ZetaRediculian
"poker has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability" is still wrong, utterly. This statement alone is testament to your complete lack of understanding of mathematical probability.

Just a cursory glance from anyone can see that. There is no reason to take your numbers at face value or even check your "work" because you demonstrated that you don't grasp the basics. We must conclude your numbers are either fictitious or wrong.

All I see is a failed attempt to dodge the fact you don't actually know what you are talking about.


I'm sorry the advanced mathematics confuses you; here maybe this will help.

Poker does not define mathematical probability, however many of the "interactions" contained within Poker can be described using mathematics, including the probability of any given hand, at any point in the game.

Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad. However, both can be described by mathematics.

Your assessment of my statements only shows your lack of understanding in mathematics. Your other statements show that you have issues with critical thinking, logic, as well as most of the fundamentals governing the ALL.

Perhaps, if you got off your "high horse", and stopped trying to prove everyone wrong, stopped trying to obfuscate the most important issue in Human history, you could become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.



When we talk probabilities it seems that the believers somehow go from life in general is throughout our universe to space faring intelligent life throughout our universe as if they are one and the same.


Bingo. This is the main difference between what Tanka is doing and what I did.

He looks at the potentially habitable worlds on the Hill Star Map and takes what I called a "light year sized leap of logic" to the planets being inhabited with intelligent spacefaring civilizations. All of this without any idea what these planet's atmospheres are made up of, whether life exists there at all and whether intelligent life exists there, much less spacefaring intelligent life.

Meanwhile, I look at the same habitable exoplanets on the map and say, "that's interesting but not outside of statistical likelihood of habitable planets around nearby stars yet. More study is necessary before it even approaches being anywhere close to irrefutable evidence of the Hill incident. But more study is exactly what should be done with new data to come."



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

1ofthe9


I find the human like aliens to be problematic...


As do I given all the possibilities of evolution which in theory could lead to intelligent beings which look nothing like humans.

About the only thing that would explain such a similarity would be if "they" and us had a common progenitor species which somehow seeded and guided evolution on both planets. That requires yet another lightyear sized leap of logic.


but the research I've seen seems to suggest that it is plausible to mess with the mind to a great extent with EM radiation. I would suggest that a great deal of the Hill experience was likely spooled into their minds via electromagnetic means. The Hill aliens weren't that dissimilar to the typical Contactee alien, so we might be dealing with a clever disguise aimed at not giving their technological game away.


Anything is possible. It's all about narrowing down what is probable.


Its interesting to note that a lot of our internet/Singularity stuff emerged from the same crowd that did government UFO work in the 1970's. SRI and Vallee and all that jazz.


Interesting. I did not know that.



I think it might be worth a try to go back and look for new patterns in the data that would not have been apparent to investigators at the time.


I agree. That case is rich with stuff that could be re-examined. I chose to re-examine just a small part of it and it has been time consuming to be complete. One could re-examine everything from Leo Sprinkle's connections to anyone you might be interested in to the anomalous radar report of an object in that area on the night in question as well as the other items I pointed out.

I certainly don't want to try investigating all that but I do think its all worthy of attention and a new look with new eyes.



If there is another intelligence behind the phenomena, then what we have been perceiving is what 'they' intend us to see. Smoke and mirrors. However, it might represented a kind of cryptography - like suppose flap data was plotted and subjected to computer analysis... Maybe the lights in the sky, when plotted out and subjected to the power of mathematics, represent some kind of theorem or something expressed in a very unusual medium (hellooo Marshall McLuhan...).


Great points all. Well outside my abilities though




On a side note, would you know if the Kepler data would be of any use in a search for an optical Benford beacon?


Hmmm... Kinda but not really.

There is an effort to go through the Kepler data to look for any large structures that are oddly shaped which might indicate artificiality.

So far the only result of that have been some eclipsing binaries and a planet which is evaporating like a comet with a long tail behind it.

That said there is a study looking for an optical Benford Beacon done at Harvard by Paul Horowitz. It began in 1998.

The page is a little out of date but here it is:

Optical SETI at Harvard

There has been a breakthrough in the technology behind the search which is not reflected on the out of date page above.

Paul Horowitz was recently on The Planetary Society's podcast talking about it.

You can listen here:

Planetary Radio: All-Sky Optical Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Interesting stuff and well worth a listen.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

JadeStar
This is the main difference between what Tanka is doing and what I did.

He looks at the potentially habitable worlds on the Hill Star Map and takes what I called a "light year sized leap of logic" to the planets being inhabited with intelligent spacefaring civilizations. All of this without any idea what these planet's atmospheres are made up of, whether life exists there at all and whether intelligent life exists there, much less spacefaring intelligent life.


Not quite... I do not automatically presume intelligent space faring life. I presume "life" in a generic sense. Depending on several factors I decide whether they ay have life. One of those factors is the star's role in mythology.

Thus; because of the Hill experience, I predict planets and life for Zeta Reticuli. Tau Ceti plays a role in modern ET myth, and obviously can produce such beings, thus, it has such life. Other stars with high probability, but, no presumption of existence are 82 Eridani, and most of the rest of the Hill map stars. Their probability is high because of the map, but thee is no additional support...so...

It is not a "giant" or "light year" leap to presume life on habitable planets; life is one of the most tenacious "things" in existence. Y'all will learn that [I]if[/I] life has any chance, regardless of how remote, life is. It will be found to be nearly as ubiquitous as planets.

Also, with just the simple demo I already provided it is easy to see that the idea of these space faring folk is virtually a "sure thing".

I would also predict that virtually all space faring life is Humanoid, and, not necessarily related to Terrestrials. I would predict that it is the Human form that is the "end point" of Monadic evolution and thus the end point of biological evolution. But that is perhaps another discussion. The reason for this is the ability to manufacture and manipulate tools, and objects, both physically and mentally.

By the way; I think it may be possible for a species to evolve into a space faring one, with the use of high intelligence, or technology. There may even be such a creature here on Earth.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

tanka418

You have made the assertion; now prove it.

No, you made the assertion. I pointed that out and you are now trying a cute little trick. I already provided a few links which demonstrated my point. Comments on the links? No?



My math is quite solid.

Sure it is.



No sorry man, I've proven my point, and without the need to involve the math to derive all those other terms (course One could always use a modified "Drake"). I'm sorry the math is beyond you, but that does not invalidate it.

What point?
I'm not exactly paying attention to your "math". You have so far only demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about and that you suck at insults.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian

tanka418

You have made the assertion; now prove it.

No, you made the assertion. I pointed that out and you are now trying a cute little trick. I already provided a few links which demonstrated my point. Comments on the links? No?



My math is quite solid.

Sure it is.



No sorry man, I've proven my point, and without the need to involve the math to derive all those other terms (course One could always use a modified "Drake"). I'm sorry the math is beyond you, but that does not invalidate it.

What point?
I'm not exactly paying attention to your "math". You have so far only demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about and that you suck at insults.



Well then; please show us all the error s I have made. You are obviously a mathematician of great skill, so please show me / us.

No you aren't paying attention to my math. So just how do you know I'm wrong? Again, please educate me.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

tanka418

JadeStar
This is the main difference between what Tanka is doing and what I did.

He looks at the potentially habitable worlds on the Hill Star Map and takes what I called a "light year sized leap of logic" to the planets being inhabited with intelligent spacefaring civilizations. All of this without any idea what these planet's atmospheres are made up of, whether life exists there at all and whether intelligent life exists there, much less spacefaring intelligent life.


Not quite... I do not automatically presume intelligent space faring life. I presume "life" in a generic sense. Depending on several factors I decide whether they ay have life. One of those factors is the star's role in mythology.


Because that seems really science based... :rolleyes:



Thus; because of the Hill experience, I predict planets and life for Zeta Reticuli.


Predicting planets is easy. It's rarer for stars NOT to have any planets at all than for them to have planets. As for life, we'll see on that. You have a 50% chance of that being right. Either there is life on a planet around one of the Zeta Reticuli stars or there isn't.

It's like flipping a coin. Head's you win. Tails you loose.



Tau Ceti plays a role in modern ET myth, and obviously can produce such beings, thus, it has such life. Other stars with high probability, but, no presumption of existence are 82 Eridani, and most of the rest of the Hill map stars. Their probability is high because of the map, but thee is no additional support...so...


Mixing science and myth is never a good idea. It does both of them a disservice.



It is not a "giant" or "light year" leap to presume life on habitable planets;


It is when we know next to nothing about them other than they may be habitable based on where they orbit.



life is one of the most tenacious "things" in existence.


Sure it is. But that does not automatically mean every habitable planet will produce life. Would life on Earth have risen without a magnetic field? Or without plate tectonics? These are big questions. Do not pretend to know the answers to them when some of the greatest minds in the relevant fields do not know.

In science, it's is ok to say, "I don't know." But you have all the answers, without much to back them up than "hunches".

We're still understanding the parameters at which life began. We know it happened fairly quickly on Earth. Whether that is the norm remains to be seen.



Y'all will learn that [I]if[/I] life has any chance, regardless of how remote, life is. It will be found to be nearly as ubiquitous as planets.


So you're a published post doctoral astrobiologist right? Joking of course. There is no way you can know that. Like I said, do not pretend to know.

Call your speculation what it is: speculation.


Also, with just the simple demo I already provided it is easy to see that the idea of these space faring folk is virtually a "sure thing".


Because you're an evolutionary biologist now who figured out how intelligence evolves and how often civilizations produce spaceflight right?



I would also predict that virtually all space faring life is Humanoid, and, not necessarily related to Terrestrials.


I predict you have watched too many episodes of Star Trek (not that there is anything wrong with that, it's a great show but it is limited in its types of aliens because it depends on human actors) to get into costumes.

I also predict you have studied very little about the history of life on Earth. There is no reason why any of the extinct species, had things been a little different, evolved intelligence.

You and I could very well have been based on a trilobite ancestor rather than a primate one and having this conversation typing with four of our six limbs.




I would predict that it is the Human form that is the "end point" of Monadic evolution and thus the end point of biological evolution. But that is perhaps another discussion. The reason for this is the ability to manufacture and manipulate tools, and objects, both physically and mentally.


And none of that is based on anything other than your own speculation. There is no science behind it so don't pretend that there is.



By the way; I think it may be possible for a species to evolve into a space faring one, with the use of high intelligence, or technology. There may even be such a creature here on Earth.



We do not know how common life is in the universe much less intelligent space faring life. I don't know, you don't know.

However the difference between us is I'm studying this subject scientifically as part of my university studies.

Not all opinions are created equal.

When I speculate (which I kinda hate to do), I flat out say, "this is speculation".

I never say: "I believe" or "I predict".

Such is the stuff of New Age hucksters.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



Well then; please show us all the error s I have made. You are obviously a mathematician of great skill, so please show me / us.

I have already laid it out for you.
Again:

You said:


poker does not demonstrate what I'm talking about, has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability


And you said:

I employ Bayesian inference, a sort of easy way to maintain overall probabilities over a large sequential sampling.


And then I said:

here are three random links for you that took me less than 5 minutes to find with a quick google search. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Modeling Texas Hold'em Poker Strategies with
Bayesian Networks


Luck, Bayesian Inference, and Poker Skill

Bayesian Inferences and Developing Information-poker


Simplified:
You said poker does not demonstrate what You are talking about.

You said What you are talking about is Bayesian inference.

I then provided 3 links I randomly plucked from the web on poker and Bayesian inference.

You then proceed to try to insult me and send me harrassing u2u messages.

You are obviously just avoiding that discussion. Not interested in playing games.

I am actually interested in discussing this with the people that know about the topic.9

And I'm not sure why you are sending me private messages. I just delete them and don't read them anyway. But if it makes you feel better...


edit on 30-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join