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 Buzz Aldrin's object. Part II. Apparent magnitude and first set of odds.

page: 2
9
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:01 PM

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: onebigmonkey

If you have a random event, probability is defined as the ratio between the number of an observed value divided by the size of the sample (the greater the size of the sample, the smaller is the error associated to that probability).

While I agree that the larger the sample size the lower the probability that your results are due to chance, I don't think this is what your numbers are measuring. You are comparing the surface areas of different size spheres - in what way is this demonstrating that the SLA panel was not the object observed by the Apollo 11 crew?

The postulate is that it's a random event. My next post on this will be to show that it's a random event and that the odds associated with that event are very, very, very, low.

Sounds like you have decided in advance what the conclusion will be.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: onebigmonkey

"A man jumps from a window on the 10th floor, a group of people cries "-He's going to fly!!", one person responds "-No, he won't ... the fool is going to die! What are the odds he can fly?", the group answers "- Why don't you tell us? And we believe your analysis is biased because you already think that he's going to die."
Well the merit of the analysis will be on the physics and mathematic (you can dispute the physics and the mathematics involved).

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:55 PM

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

While I agree that the larger the sample size the lower the probability that your results are due to chance, I don't think this is what your numbers are measuring. You are comparing the surface areas of different size spheres - in what way is this demonstrating that the SLA panel was not the object observed by the Apollo 11 crew?

No, I've calculated the probability of an observer to be in the path of the light, at a distance L, knowing the surface size illuminated at that distance and the surface size of half the sphere.
To make things easier, you may use a discrete approach (the probabilistic results will be the same): for example, imagine a roulette, where green is the lighted surface and the roulette will have as many pockets as the total surface of half a sphere divided by the lighted surface (we are talking of areas, both calculated at distance L), this will give you the number of units of surface that are the same size of the lighted surface, or pockets in the roulette. You can calculate the odds of that roulette. Using these discrete approach or just dividing the illuminated surface by the surface of half the sphere are the same.

If you don't grasp this ... you have a serious problem.
edit on 17-11-2014 by 2timesOO because: Typo

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:38 PM

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Phage

Well, a man of science must accept when an observation, or the representation of the observation through a sound physical model, don't fit its previous knowledge, and seek for a new set of tools that explains that observation. Well I believe he saw something, I don't know what, but with a pretty basic use of trigonometry and some very solid physical concepts, I can show what he didn't see (or the odds associated with what he claims he saw).
The funny thing, and I wouldn't expect this from people with any formation in the science fields (just joking ... people are people), that people with a science background can use science to discredit any observation of an unknown aerial phenomena, many times in a bias and ridiculous way, and feel offended when a scientific aproach is used to show that the main stream theory on a subject is completely bogus.

You are aware that several Apollo crews and numerous Earth-based astronomers reported such lights accompanying outbound missions -- but never returning missions [when there were no SLA panels]. If I read your probability numbers correctly, this is danged near impossible to have happened. Where's the disconnect?

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:42 PM

originally posted by: 2timesOO

... If you don't grasp this ... you have a serious problem.

What I do grasp is that you rarely if ever have watched Earth satellites at dawn/dusk, including flat panels such as solar wings, which despite your equations are visible at much broader aspect angles than just narrow specular reflecting beams.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:30 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

We can elaborate on that in a civilized way.
Now, what my numbers show is that the probability of an SLA panel to be a non-flashing object, observed for a long period of time from the spacecraft, have a very low probability. I don't know what it was. I'll never shout "Alien" in the Hollywood sense. I believe it has a much more prosaic explanation, and I could provide much better explanations than the panel (but that would be a little embarrassing for our heroes - and believe me that I consider them true heroes).
But why the mystification that you can see and hear in Buzz Aldrin own words of the event... and why call it a panel, he should of know better that that wouldn't hold for some... but as a principle, I always criticizes when people begins discussing science and end up discussing grammatics, or psychology as is the case.

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

I have seen a few ... to be completely honest, in the last 10 years, very few, because my eyes aren't that good anymore. I will give you the numbers on the surface (for example of the communication disk (antenna) and the corresponding zone band ... the same thing you can find in the satellite ephemera's almanacs). But first I'm going to dinner (that's terribly late in my time zone).
edit on 17-11-2014 by 2timesOO because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: 2timesOO

Now, what my numbers show is that the probability of an SLA panel to be a non-flashing object, observed for a long period of time from the spacecraft, have a very low probability.

Your calculations are completely meaningless. The panels would not flash, they would have an irregular light curve as they rotated on three axes. The tumble might be dampened over time by a combination of light pressure and the solar wind. If it tumbled slowly enough, Aldrin might not have observed it long enough to discern a visible change in brightness.

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:10 AM
a reply to: DJW001

That was not the postulate (the postulate was the best observation scenario). What you are saying actually decreases the odds that it was the panel ... but you didn't know that that would be the case, did you?

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:34 AM

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: 2timesOO

... If you don't grasp this ... you have a serious problem.

What I do grasp is that you rarely if ever have watched Earth satellites at dawn/dusk, including flat panels such as solar wings, which despite your equations are visible at much broader aspect angles than just narrow specular reflecting beams.

I decided to make another topic on that, because I believe that science must be explained. I began to prepare your answer but I can see that the rules of reflection hadn't dawned on you. So you speculates, pun intended.
I will show you why a specular surface (like a mirror) can light a huge surface on Earth, without bending the rules of reflection. I will show you why you can take a picture of the ISS through a telescope and see it in great detail, without bending the rules of reflection. In the process, I will seed some hints that will help you foresee other explanations. But first, the odds for the strange movent of the object/panel (if you want, we can try what was suggested by DJW001, but the results will hurt a little more ...).

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:24 AM

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: DJW001

That was not the postulate (the postulate was the best observation scenario). What you are saying actually decreases the odds that it was the panel ... but you didn't know that that would be the case, did you?

Why are you obsessed with trying to calculate odds? The laws of motion make it a certainty that the panel dogged the spacecraft all the way to the Moon. If you want to display your mathematical gifts, why don't you calculate the original trajectory of the spacecraft based on the initial TLI burn? This would be the path the panels would follow. Then calculate the new trajectories that would result from any mid-course correction burns. Then, plot where the CSM and the panels would be at the exact time of Aldrin's sighting. This will tell you with 100% certainty whether it was a panel or not. But you already knew that, didn't you?

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:11 AM
a reply to: DJW001

No need.

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:14 AM

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: DJW001

No need.

Why not? What has been the purpose of this exercise?

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 02:36 PM
a reply to: DJW001

The purpose of this exercise was to show that the odds associated with the "non-flashing panel" are very, very, low.
Well I'm tired, I have a new project that I must dedicate myself to, my wife thinks people on ATS are nasty, and that I'm becoming a little nasty to. And she's right. So this will be my last post for a while.
Use your heads, that's your biggest asset.
My last contribution for the knowledge stock in ATS: you can see the satellites in low Earth orbit and still conserve the rules of reflection, not because of direct sunlight reflecting from the surfaces of the satellites, but because these satellites are literally taking a bath in sunlight from all directions reflected by Earth (clouds, sea, etc.), and they will reflect back to Earth, conserving the rules of reflection, in a very broad area. Only at a much higher altitudes the beams of light reflected from Earth, will reach the surface of a satellite only from a single direction (the Earth direction), and the odds are very low (depending on the orientation of the surface), that they will be beamed back to Earth and seen by someone.
The magical thing of this is that you can do your own calculations: search for the Earth albedo, refresh your trigonometry ... you know, its funny to make your own conclusions.
Best regards to all ...
edit on 18-11-2014 by 2timesOO because: Typo

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 02:47 PM

originally posted by: 2timesOO
....
My last contribution for the knowledge stock in ATS: you can see the satellites in low Earth orbit and still conserve the rules of reflection, not because of direct sunlight reflecting from the surfaces of the satellites, but because these satellites are literally taking a bath in sunlight from all directions reflected by Earth (clouds, sea, etc.), and they will reflect back to Earth, conserving the rules of reflection, in a very broad area. Only at a much higher altitudes the beams of light reflected from Earth, will reach the surface of a satellite only from a single direction (the Earth direction), and the odds are very low (depending on the orientation of the surface), that they will be beamed back to Earth and seen by someone.

The magical thing of this is that you can do your own calculations: search for the Earth albedo, refresh your trigonometry ... you know, its funny to make your own conclusions.

Best regards to all ...

This is the most preposterous description of ground-observed earth satellite illumination I have ever seen. I am having a hard time resisting the notion that 2x00 isn't spouting nonsense on purpose just to spin us up. Real observers know that they can watch a satellite enter or emerge from Earth's shadow in a few seconds, with >>99.99% of the light coming from the Sun and only the Sun, then being reflected in all directions [plus occasional flashes from specular reflections added in].

edit on 18-11-2014 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:42 PM
I'm sure the OP's wife is very good at massaging his ego, but criticising results and the assumptions behind them does not make someone nasty. My posts, at least, were not intended to insult the poster, just question the post.

As far as I can see the best that the OP can claim for his data is that he calculated the likelihood of a small object being in a particular place (if his roulette analogy applies). It is not the probability of an object not being the object in question - that is much more likely to be a achieved by using DJW001's approach of analysing the orbital mechanics of the object. Just because an object is small in a big space it does not mean it is unlikely to be observed. A small object in a big space can be spotted very quickly by brains designed to do pattern recognition when all the objects around it are known about. When you add in the information that there are 4 small objects very likely to be following you, it is far more logical to conclude that you have seen one of those than some other unknown feature.

Having taught statistics I know how easy it is to spew out numbers and attach spurious meaning to them. This is what I think has happened here.

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

No, and I'll show you how it works. Just give me time to prepare a didactic post.

posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:13 PM
a reply to: onebigmonkey

No, and if you taught statistics, it seem you have a poor knowledge of how you use it.
I'm going to post a second set of odds that I worked on in my little spare time of the last days. It will be fun to see your reactions to those odds ...

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:54 AM

originally posted by: 2timesOO

Postulates

1. Let's agree that the convex reflective surface has an albedo of 0.8 and the concave surface of 0.1.
2. Let's agree that there is no diffuse light in space. This means that the sun light is reflected by the object and strikes directly the eye of the observer, or the object will not be seen.
3. Let's agree that visible light (visible spectrum) corresponds to 40% of the total irradiance of the sun.
4. Lets agree that the position of the object in relation to the observer is a random event (the reflecting surfaces could be facing any direction).

What? 2 and 3 seem particularly egregious. Why would light not be diffuse in space? of course it is. Or if light doesn't strike your eye then of course you obviously can't see it!

As for visible light you want to know Lumens per Watt. Then you can calculate an objects brightness at a distance with the inverse square law after converting to Lux.

new topics

top topics

9