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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
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?




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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?


NO.

Your "math" uses probabilities, just like mine does, no difference. The number of factors are only involved in determining the probabilities of individual objects (elements in our equations). It only seems "more" testable and provable because you only have 52 terms, the "billions" as you put it; is intimidating you.

This process can work somewhat like the Drake equation, except instead of a number of possible species, we can get the probability of a specific star harboring appropriate life. And, our probabilities only need be general in nature to yield a very good result. This sort of thing happens every day billions of times over, and is performed by everyone in their day to day life. It is used not unlike the way I have done here in science, technology, business, medicine, and, yes JadeStar, in Astronomy and relied upon by the professionals who use it.

This is the very process that your insurance company uses to determine the degree of risk you are.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



It only seems "more" testable and provable because you only have 52 terms, the "billions" as you put it; is intimidating you.


So you are contending that the 80% example i gave is not testable? As if there are not millions upon millions of data points to draw from that give you an exact number? Are you really saying that?

So NOW you are saying its the exact same math problem where before you said it didn't relate at all?

Billions is not intimidating me at all and neither are you. Quite the opposite since math is math. Applied to a small dataset, it is the same no matter how large your dataset. Your data is made up of guesses and imagination though.

I could not get to an 80% number if I did not know what was in the deck. However, you can get to a 90% number?

There is no mystery here and what you presented is not impressive.

The difference between all the day to day stuff you site is that the day to day stuff deals with documented known outcomes.

That there are humanoid life forms living out there is not known.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

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.


About the only scientists who consider myths data are cultural anthropologists. But since we're supposedly studying the the possibility of alien life, not Earth cultures, this is not data. It's noise if it is anything at all.



However we have all seen that there is a very high probability that there actually IS people living around Zeta Reticuli.


Based on nothing more than the retelling of stories and modern myth.



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?


It's impossible to predict reality based on fictional stories. Do you not get this?



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%.


Based on myths again? Because we all know there is no scientific data to make such a bold prediction.




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.


And you don't know what you're talking about here.

Without our magnetic field our planet would have been bathed in ionizing radiation. Organic compounds (you know, the stuff that is what life is based on?) tend to break down in ionizing radiation, meaning it is doubtful that the types of complex molecules which lead to life would have ever been able to form.

Likewise, take away plate tectonics and many of the chemicals and minerals essential for life would have stayed locked up in subsurface layers. It is because we have volcanos which gave the earth it's early atmosphere. It is because of crust upheaval that we have things like phosphates etc. In other words, stuff that is essential to life.

Of course, this is basic astrobiology. I don't expect you to know or even understand how significant such things are.

Reality is not the game of Spore.



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 magnetic field = ionizing radiation = No complex molecular bonds = no life arising. That's a physical reality.

You can ignore it all you want so as to continue making grand proclamations which have no scientific basis but I am tiring of this discussion since it is clear you have little idea what you're talking about.




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.


Because it's not. It's speculation based on such "data" as mythical stories. That's not science, no matter how much you want to play dress up with "sciency" language.



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)


Why wouldn't we have a grasp if we evolved from something like a trilobite? We evolved our fingers from something like lobster afterall. The reason dolphins don't have hands is due to their environment. If dolphins lived on land perhaps they would have hands...

It's all speculation of course but at least mine is rooted in the vast possibilities of evolution, not in pulp sci-fi which always depicts human looking intelligent aliens.

There are many evolutionary roads to hands with fingers. There is no biological reason why one could not have 4 or 6 arms with 4 or 6 "hands".




"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."


You're not predicting. You're speculating while ignoring most of the history of life on Earth. Other creatures evolved ways of manipulating their world AND THEY LOOK NOTHING FREAKING LIKE US. God, do you not look at insects at all? Or go to a zoo?





Well, actually there is science behind it, and very little speculation.


This is laughable at this point to anyone who has intelligence and has been patient enough to read through it all.



How well versed are you in Quantum mechanics?


Not my field of study but it is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion of ASTROBIOLOGY. Of course you'll throw out sciency things you've heard of but it seems you have no idea of how anything relates to each other.

That said, I probably know more about it than you. I know enough to know its mostly irrelevant to the subject we have been discussing.



How about string theory?


I know that it is also mostly irrelevant to the subject we're discussing as it has to do with the fabric of the universe itself, not the prevalence of life within it.



or "M" theory?


A branch of string theory which postulates many universes separated by membranes. But since we're talking about life in our small corner of the galaxy in THIS universe, again, irrelevant to this discussion.

But I see what you're trying to do here: Throw out a bunch of physics buzzwords in an effort to look more intelligent and maybe divert this discussion away from stuff you've been called out on.

I won't bite. This will be my last reply to you as I have no interest in these time consuming games.


You will be going through all of these n the understanding of "Enochian Physics"


Enochian Physics Definition: Enochian Physics is a form of mysticism put forth by Gerald Schueler an author, free-lance writer, editor, and artist and a retired systems analyst put forth in his book Enochian Physics: "The Structure of the Magical Universe" (Llewellyn's High Magick Series).

Llewellyn is a New Age book publisher with books on such things as Channelling, "Walk Ins", Psionics, etc. It's unfortunate that the author who also wrote a book called "An Advanced Guide to Enochian Magick" chose to use the word "Physics" in an effort to sound more sciencey.

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 you from this point on.
edit on 30-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Once you see the real deal UFO's clear as day as you would see an airplane or helicopter flying over your head you will know they are real like I did myself.Now some of them cleary in todays world are government technology drones.I saw triangular flying ships and a green and yellow oval light glowing which tells me it was a oval disc shaped ship.Our governments in the world do not have any such technology as what I saw.
Even so almost all the UFO sightings are misindentification,as I said above there is lot of government drone technology and testing of secret new ways to travel.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Keylogger
 


Going by your first post,.and the cases you mention, i don't think you know much about the subject at all. You bring up cases that are weak, just to make your point. Im not saying ufos are ET, but i expect someone who says they have researched the subject for a long time would would come up with better examples than this.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 



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.


Oh I see, that's his video? So he is Anthra Andromeda? AnthtraAndromeda was a poster here that claimed he was an alien and had alien DNA. He was banned after he had a meltdown. Just do a search. I think we have all been had. I wouldn't worry to much about the plagiarized material in the videos. They are virtually unwatchable.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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.
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.

Please correct this:
Poker Math & Probability


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



hopefully people are getting it



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



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


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.

Go and do some reading and get past your hold card. You are very "out of date" as it were.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

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


Without the spiritual aspect you can never be truly complete.

Upsilon Andromedae is one of three stars in that general location; along with Gliese 67, and another star some 140+ light years away (too far). I was looking for another because from the "viewpoint" Gliese is in the wrong position, Upsilon Andromeda is, as I said, one of only a few stars and at the top of my list. When you announced that the stars new identity was position Andromeda, I "left it at that". That was indeed my bad; like you I forgot to take into account the offset of the "viewpoint". So we were both wrong; me, perhaps a bit more for several reasons.

I'll remake the video and paper.

You be sure to have fun...



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



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.

Its very relevant. The relevance is math. math is math. Poker probability is based on a known finite set. That's why we can get very specific probabilities that are provable. As has been pointed out, there is no difference except that the "known" part is removed when we talk about the unknown cosmos in which case you guess, assume and speculate and your very specific numbers are not provable. At best they are speculative based on imagination, not actual data. your 90% is meaningless. My 80% is a known fact.

Of course, if you want to keep your "math" very mysterious and unknowable, you proceed as you do. Unfortunately for you, I am pointing out that there is no mysterious, magical "METHOD" that applies only to this specific instance which mysteriously gives you a "90% probability of being correct".

I quite honestly have no idea what you are arguing. here are your statements.



Actually the probabilities that may occur in a deck of 52 cards is rather different than what I'm talking about; mathematically that is.

its rather different


Your "math" uses probabilities, just like mine does, no difference.

no difference


Thus the methods of calculating the probabilities are somewhat different

somewhat different


Poker has as much to do with Mathematical probability as it has to do with Egg salad.

its egg salad


The method employed to determine the relevant probabilities is quite different when One is talking about Cards, as opposed to stars.

its quite different


The math involved with / in poker is the very same probability that is applied to the cosmos;

its the very same


As I have tried to point out, the methods employed are different when One is talking about a deck 52 cards

its different


There is nothing "more provable" about poker as opposed to the Cosmos.

its the same


Your "math" uses probabilities, just like mine does, no difference.

no difference


What you are describing, and thinking is not probability.

and finally, its not probability right after you said it was.
what is it?

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.



Go and do some reading and get past your hold card. You are very "out of date" as it were.

well, lets "get jiggy with it" as it were....and they are called "hole" cards.
edit on 30-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You seem unable to separate the forest from the trees.

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.



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.


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.







edit on 30-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You seem unable to separate the forest from the trees.

quite the opposite



Again, IF you know something I don't show us. Prove me wrong using the very math I'm trying to use.
Quite frankly, there is nothing to show. "trying" is the key word here.


and if you can't please give the courtesy of remaining silent.

I cant and you cant either because you are only "trying" and its not actual math. How should I keep silent? these are letters typed on a screen.


Your incessant raving about irrelevant method is boring.

its not irrelevant.


You seem afraid to assign probabilities to the unknown.

I have no fear. I assign made up probabilities to the unknown all the time.


It is only your opinion that those probabilities are "unattainable";

no, its actually unattainable.



while I've spent a long and fruitful career dong exactly that; assigning probabilities to the unknown.

So you are a charlatan?


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.

I spent a few minutes thinking, and nothing happened.


Again, you accused me of only using words; that was when I gave you slid numbers. Time for you to do the same.

yes, I believe the numbers "slid" right of your butt.
here: (4/52) x (3/51) = (12/2652) = (1/221) ≈ 0.45%.


Unless your true mission here is to disrupt, confuse, obfuscate, and generally distract others from truth.

really? you think I have a true mission? You made a statement that was wrong. I called you on it. The information I provided is easily accessible and demonstrates the "non mystery" of probability.



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.

ummkay. care to play some poker to test your assumption?





edit on 31-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Keylogger
 


No amount of counterfeit bank notes make the real bank notes fake. Ufology is being deliberately destroyed by disinformation. Nobody knows what's going on any more...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

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.
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



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
yes, I believe the numbers "slid" right of your butt.
here: (4/52) x (3/51) = (12/2652) = (1/221) ≈ 0.45%.


Thank you! Now we all know you are talking about simple probability. Not at all what I'm talking about...apples and oranges!



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



-- alien.wolfmagick.com...

Just to be clear...these are the equations being used...you will notice they are nothing like yours. The reason is that I am using bayesan inference, as opposed to and differentiated from simple probability

In as much as t is quite clear you have no idea what I'm talking about, and appear to not want to learn anyting; this discussion is over. I have no desire to attempt discussion with someone who will not learn the reality of what is being discussed.



P(H/E) = (P(E/H) * P(H))/P(E)
P(E) = (P(E/H) * P(H)) + Pc

edit on 31-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Dec 31 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Quote Crash Course

edit on Tue Dec 31 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 

So I read the same Wikipedia article. But You are referencing your web site? Oh my!

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.

You have some extremely erroneous statements on the "simple" math discussed. There is no special mysterious math.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 31-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Can you guys get a room or do this in private, all this wanking is boring


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)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join