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.
The probability that I'm correct about life around Zeta 2 Reticuli is far greater than 50%...more on the order of 90%.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
The probability that I'm correct about life around Zeta 2 Reticuli is far greater than 50%...more on the order of 90%.
So the probability that you are right (90%) is greater than pocket aces winning heads up preflop? (80%)
Now we are only talking about 52 cards with known values.
How many billions of values and unknown variables are you talking about?
My math is testable and provable. Yours is not. But I guess that's the trick?
It only seems "more" testable and provable because you only have 52 terms, the "billions" as you put it; is intimidating you.
tanka418
"
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."
Sorry, it is another source of data. There is a mythos around Zeta Reticuli. It says there are people living there...we both understand those are "just stories"...myth.
However we have all seen that there is a very high probability that there actually IS people living around Zeta Reticuli.
Don't strain your eyes too much...
There are the same kinds of "stores", myth about Tau Ceti.
Are they wholly unfounded? What of the probabilities?
Not quite. The probability that I'm correct about life around Zeta 2 Reticuli is far greater than 50%...more on the order of 90%.
e of the greatest minds in the relevant fields do not know.
Actually, statistically you will find that every single planet that is capable of producing and supporting life, has life.
Magnetic fields are not required, plate tectonics are not required.
These may help to shape the eventual nature of the life a planet sports, but there is no requirement other than the capability of supporting a life form; period.
No, I don't have all the answers, but what I do have is actually supported by mathematics. And, I utter those words all the time because there are lots of things "I don't know".
Actually; why don't we call my speculation what it really is: probability based prediction.
I guess here is one of the places where I'm going to ask that you re-evaluate the "gist" of the above paragraph. Please think about what it takes, in terms of physical performance, to actually build the required technology to leave Ones home world.
Hint: A multi armed / legged creature with no grasp is wholly incapable of building very much, and certainly nothing complex, regardless of its intelligence (take a look at Dolphins)
"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."
Well, actually there is science behind it, and very little speculation.
How well versed are you in Quantum mechanics?
How about string theory?
or "M" theory?
You will be going through all of these n the understanding of "Enochian Physics"
This along with your absolute failure to acknowledge your blatant plagiarism of some of my research in your Zeta Reticuli / Hill Starmap video leaves me with little choice but to ignore you from this point on.
Okee Dokee. I did not say it was probability I said it was probability. which is different. I would like to hear your take on it. Please elaborate.
tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
What you are describing, and thinking is not probability.
It is truly sad you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, and even worse that you won't learn about it.
Pre-Flop Probabilities: Hand vs. Hand
Players don’t play poker in a vacuum; each player’s hand must measure up against his opponent’s, especially if a player goes all-in before the flop.
Here are some sample probabilities for most pre-flop situations:
Pre-Flop Probabilities Chart
JadeStar
I have no interest in myths, mysticism, speculation pretending to be predictive models or pseudoscience so this is where we part company Tanka. This along with your absolute failure to acknowledge your blatant plagiarism of some of my research in your Zeta Reticuli / Hill Starmap video leaves me with little choice but to ignore
I'm not arguing whether poker can be associated with, or described by probability;
I'm arguing its relevance in this instance. What you are trying to do is compare apples and oranges.
Actually the probabilities that may occur in a deck of 52 cards is rather different than what I'm talking about; mathematically that is.
Your "math" uses probabilities, just like mine does, no difference.
Thus the methods of calculating the probabilities are somewhat different
Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad.
The method employed to determine the relevant probabilities is quite different when One is talking about Cards, as opposed to stars.
The math involved with / in poker is the very same probability that is applied to the cosmos;
As I have tried to point out, the methods employed are different when One is talking about a deck 52 cards
There is nothing "more provable" about poker as opposed to the Cosmos.
Your "math" uses probabilities, just like mine does, no difference.
What you are describing, and thinking is not probability.
Go and do some reading and get past your hold card. You are very "out of date" as it were.
So what I think you are saying is that the math is the same math but the "methods" are different because the "method" you are using is made up and not actual math.
tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
You seem unable to separate the forest from the trees.
Quite frankly, there is nothing to show. "trying" is the key word here.
Again, IF you know something I don't show us. Prove me wrong using the very math I'm trying to use.
and if you can't please give the courtesy of remaining silent.
Your incessant raving about irrelevant method is boring.
You seem afraid to assign probabilities to the unknown.
It is only your opinion that those probabilities are "unattainable";
while I've spent a long and fruitful career dong exactly that; assigning probabilities to the unknown.
Course then again; the "unknown" isn't really so "unknown"...if ya spend a few minutes thinking about it. Hah; if ya think about it, we really know quite a bit. Way more, I'm sure, than you suspect.
Again, you accused me of only using words; that was when I gave you slid numbers. Time for you to do the same.
Unless your true mission here is to disrupt, confuse, obfuscate, and generally distract others from truth.
Please! You seriously need to learn just the very basics of probability before you embarrass yourself more. Seriously man, your knowledge of probability is virtually non-existent. So...please, please go read, then maybe we can have a discussion.
well said the event over washinton in 1952 always had me thinking it was the goverment that had the tech if it was not them then who else aliens and we are still wondering 61 years later
ccross
I can't believe how many people are so convinced that aliens exist. I will not go so far as to say they don't exist, but everything I have seen can be easily explained away. Start by recognizing that the major governments of the world have already admitted to possessing technology many decades ahead of what they let "the people" be aware of. Every time we see evidence for their experiments they of course would spread alien propoganda, to throw you off the scent of what they are building or trying to do. They simply redirect the curious energy to aliens or what have you, and ignore or deny any involvement or knowledge of anything at all.
ZetaRediculian
yes, I believe the numbers "slid" right of your butt.
here: (4/52) x (3/51) = (12/2652) = (1/221) ≈ 0.45%.
-- alien.wolfmagick.com...
In statistics, Bayesian inference is a method of inference in which Bayes' rule is used to update the probability estimate for a hypothesis as additional evidence is learned. Bayesian updating is an important technique throughout statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics: Exhibiting a Bayesian derivation for a statistical method automatically ensures that the method works as well as any competing method, for some cases. Bayesian updating is especially important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a range of fields including science, engineering, medicine, and law. [wikipedia]
Bayesian inference derives the probability as a result of two antecedents, a prior probability and a "likelihood function" derived from a probability model for the data to be observed. Bayesian inference computes the posterior probability according this equation:
equation for bayesian inference
tanka418
ZetaRediculian
And it's as meaningless as anything else you provided. I already referenced 3 articles on the bayseian stuff and you still haven't commented.
Actually I have commented on your inappropriate examples; as I said simple probability as compared to Bayesian probability...apples and oranges. When will you understand that your simplistic math doesn't apply here quite the way you want?
You have some extremely erroneous statements on the "simple" math discussed. There is no special mysterious math.
The "simple math" as you put it is irrelevant; it uses inappropriate mathematical method for determining the probabilities involved in this instance.
What "special math" are you referring to? The equations posted? Check it out man, it the real deal. And if ya don't like the Wiki stuff...go to any University Math Dept. and ask!
edit on 31-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)