We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

reply to post by dragonridr


obviously tanka is not going to be very helpful. what you need to do is a restore using sql server management studio. its not hard but if you are not familiar with the tool, its not that intuitive. Let me check out what the express version will give you and I will get back to you. There indeed does seem to be a ".bak" file there.

A couple of things though, if it is indeed a legit database, it is still meaningless without knowing exactly how he processed the data obviously. So it will be another round of trying to get this info from him. Most people that have some awesome code and data to share will actually share it. Obviously hes not willing to do this to easily. As he has shown, it takes little effort to back up and zip up a database. There are lots of places to share code projects on the web like github or google code.

I guess I could write my own code and come up with my own results. This is obviously a waste of time.

The backup wasnt done with sql server so what did you use?

ah, just caught this. more games

reply to post by ZetaRediculian



See hes using this same with nstar Gliese Near Star catalog is the standard reference work for budding young starmap makers. It contains all known stars within 25 parsecs (81.5 light years). Version 2.0 was compiled in 1969, while version 3.0 was done in 1991.Now the key is ESU didnt release their updates until 93.And the other thing he doesnt know is Gliese Near Star catalog states quite clearly in the documentation that some of the parallaxes are based on photometric readings, not on triangulation. Meaning there is errors in the distances to stars.You know the same points the astronomer he dismissed pointed out when he looked at fishs map.Funny part is he want to claim were clueless wow.

ZetaRediculian
A couple of things though, if it is indeed a legit database, it is still meaningless without knowing exactly how he processed the data obviously. So it will be another round of trying to get this info from him. Most people that have some awesome code and data to share will actually share it. Obviously hes not willing to do this to easily. As he has shown, it takes little effort to back up and zip up a database. There are lots of places to share code projects on the web like github or google code.

You still don't get it!!! There is NOTHING SPECIAL about my database! All I've done is add some data to the original table that has Right Ascendant and Declination expressed as decimal values (float data type) as opposed to base 60 values (string data type). I guess I shouldn't expect non-software people to understand...it's a data type issue...and HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DATA ITSELF.

edit on 13-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by dragonridr


Actually, I'm fully aware of the differences in parallax and have compensated for that. You do know that I'm not limited to a single table in a given query...right?

There is no "Gliese Near Star catalog" the Gliese and NStars catalogs are separate catalogs, compiled independently. The data they contain IS consistent with HIP, though HIP has better parallax data...something I notced with the obsolete data in NStars; the Right Ascension and Declnation never varies by more than a few microseconds of arc. Most of the Parallax measurements are similarly precise.

What this has allowed me to do is use either the new Right Ascension data or Declination data to "join" the different tables (catalogs) and use data from any or all with one query.

tanka418

You still don't get it!!! There is NOTHING SPECIAL about my database! All I've done is add some data to the original table that has Right Ascendant and Declination expressed as decimal values (float data type) as opposed to base 60 values (string data type). I guess I shouldn't expect non-software people to understand...it's a data type issue...and HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DATA ITSELF.

Obviously there is no way to verify that. So should I write my own code?
here. I got it open with sql server express 2012 for free while pooping (not kidding).

so now I have a database of stars to write my own code and make my own claims.

Thanks!!!!

ZetaRediculian
Obviously there is no way to verify that. So should I write my own code?

No way to verify what? You can compare it to the original...I provided you links .

Or you can query the database and check on any of over 100,000 stars...you can see that the data has not been affected. Here's an idea; as there are only a few stars, why don't you query the ones on the "map" and see if I got the position correct.

You do know how; right?

So...get over yourself. The data are just fine, always has been...you just [I]have[/I] to oppose and hold yourself back! You could learn so much more if you simply allowed yourself the opportunity.

reply to post by tanka418


Obviously without knowing
a. if it is the data you actually used
b. what code you used to interpret the data
I cant verify squat.

please forgive me if I have a hard time trusting you after the BS you try to pull.
a. You didn't know you could load it in SQL Server Express for free...which makes you not very knowledgeable about what you are doing
b. You did know and lied about
i.the cost
ii. the OS needed
iii. the version needed

I'm going with "b" which means that you will not be trustworthy going forward.

I would not mind working on a project like this. It is really a shame that you feel the need to act like a jackass. All I can say is that your data is as meaningless as it was before.

good luck getting someone else who knows how to do this help you out.

ZetaRediculian

Obviously without knowing
a. if it is the data you actually used
b. what code you used to interpret the data
I cant verify squat.

Yes, I know...you need to learn the "SQL" programming language. Good luck.

please forgive me if I have a hard time trusting you after the BS you try to pull.

I pull BS?!!!!!? ZR, that's just more "S" for your pile. I haven't yet laid any BS on anyone. You are just so convinced that what I say is BS that you make everything I say into what ever flavor of BS you want t to be...Dude; its all on you!

a. You didn't know you could load it in SQL Server Express for free...which makes you not very knowledgeable about what you are doing
b. You did know and lied about
i.the cost
ii. the OS needed
iii. the version needed

Wrong! Yes I did know that you could probably load into express, the database is kind of largish, but not much...definitely less than a couple of gig.

No, I did not lie about the cost
nor the OS
nor the version

Your ignorance of SQL server makes it "seem" that way. For instance, I run mine on windows 7, but, it will not run on say...XP...only Vista or newer.

And as you could see, in the purchase link I provided $5000 is about right for the basic system. I only use SQL Server 2008 on my development server

I'm going with "b" which means that you will not be trustworthy going forward.

sorry man; you don't know what "trust" or "trustworthy" even mean. To know the meaning of those words One must posses "honor" and you do not!

I would not mind working on a project like this. It is really a shame that you feel the need to act like a jackass. All I can say is

I am not the One who started the "pissing match". That was you with your incorrect assertion that my Bayesian Inference was incorrect...Which as we have all see isn't...even by your own admission. Then of course my data was wrong, and that has been proven a fallacy as well...Gee you ain't doin do well; You might want to stay away from a project like this...it's a bit over your head...in all the assertions you have made you have not been right yet. And, you continuously show that you are quite simply lying about knowing anything related to this line of discovery.

So...perhaps it would be wise to be quiet, stop disturbing the class, then maybe we can all learn something new.

reply to post by tanka418

Wrong! Yes I did know that you could probably load into express, the database is kind of largish, but not much...definitely less than a couple of gig.

seriously? its 111 megs! well that certainly is less then a couple of gigs. why do you keep doing this? The Express version gives you 10 gig.

sorry man; you don't know what "trust" or "trustworthy" even mean. To know the meaning of those words One must posses "honor" and you do not!

Screw you, I'm going home...

Whoa...I didn't expect this thread to get so many replies.

reply to post by tanka418


Ok once again gleiss nstar relies on parallax photography to distance stars. And as i suspected your datas off See my previous post you said your data was correct no its not. Did you create any plotting info at all? Now we could use one of the stars in her map as our reference you claim you did so post your plotting info and we can go from there ill throw it into a cad program and we can have a look. Or in other words i want your trig calculations so i dont have to do it. by the way only 15 stars should take you but a moment.OH by the way do you understand right ascension and inclination and parallax and what they are? Because in your info it uses parallax data and some of it looks like you entered numbers where did you get these?And some of the data you seem to have mixed from two different sources one appears to be arcsecond the other milliarcseconds. And i dont think you realized. Our astronomy guy said it would take him a week just to straighten it out and he suggested to just download the hipp data.

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418

 

Ok once again gleiss nstar relies on parallax photography to distance stars. And as i suspected your datas off See my previous post you said your data was correct no its not.See your coordinates are based off inclination and earths location and distance isnt actually calculated but brightness of the star as viewed from earth thanks to the guys in our astronomy dept your charts can only we used for telescopic observation and not actual 3d rendering. Apparently you havnt used this data to plot anything you cant even use this data to plot a realistic image of the stars because we need a 3rd point of reference. Now we could use one of the stars in her map as our reference you claim you did this so which star did you use and lets see your plotting info and we can go from there ill throw it into a cad program and we can have a look. By the war do you understand right ascension and inclination and what they are? Because in your info it uses parallax data and some of it looks like you entered numbers where did you get these?and some of the data you seem to have mixed from two different sources one appears to be arcsecond the other milliarcseconds. And i dont think you realized. Our astronomy guy said it would take him a week just to straighten it out and he suggested to just download the hipp data.

Okay...you need to compare the parallax of several random stars in both the HIP table with those in the "nsc_5AUG10" table (NStars); the first thing you should notice is that they are all within a few micro-seconds of arc. If y look at the right ascension , and declination y will notice quickly that they are all within a few milliseconds of arc.

By using Right Ascension, Declination and Distance; X/Y/Z coordinates can be easily calculated...the equations for dong this are all over the Internet.

The stellar data as have said is from NStars. I've checked the stars in question, there are no significant differences in position.

By the way...the data was imported via SQL queries into a custom application that produced a Python script that could be executed by "Poser Pro". So...I've already "thrown" it into a "CAD" program and the image in the paper is the result. By the way...you won't see that image unless your camera is in the right location.

I don't know what you were talking about with the jibberish about 3D rendering. But, It isn't difficult to compute the location of each an every star in that database and plot them in 3D space...just time consuming. I've already done that for the NStars table.

Oh yes...the HIP catalog uses milliarcseconds for parallax, all others use arcseconds. All astronomical databases seem to use string data for Right ascension and declination...one of the reasons I created the substitute data objects; and numerical data is easer to search and sort (order) than string data...especially if they represent numbers in the first place.

tanka418

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418

 

Ok once again gleiss nstar relies on parallax photography to distance stars. And as i suspected your datas off See my previous post you said your data was correct no its not.See your coordinates are based off inclination and earths location and distance isnt actually calculated but brightness of the star as viewed from earth thanks to the guys in our astronomy dept your charts can only we used for telescopic observation and not actual 3d rendering. Apparently you havnt used this data to plot anything you cant even use this data to plot a realistic image of the stars because we need a 3rd point of reference. Now we could use one of the stars in her map as our reference you claim you did this so which star did you use and lets see your plotting info and we can go from there ill throw it into a cad program and we can have a look. By the war do you understand right ascension and inclination and what they are? Because in your info it uses parallax data and some of it looks like you entered numbers where did you get these?and some of the data you seem to have mixed from two different sources one appears to be arcsecond the other milliarcseconds. And i dont think you realized. Our astronomy guy said it would take him a week just to straighten it out and he suggested to just download the hipp data.

Okay...you need to compare the parallax of several random stars in both the HIP table with those in the "nsc_5AUG10" table (NStars); the first thing you should notice is that they are all within a few micro-seconds of arc. If y look at the right ascension , and declination y will notice quickly that they are all within a few milliseconds of arc.

By using Right Ascension, Declination and Distance; X/Y/Z coordinates can be easily calculated...the equations for dong this are all over the Internet.

The stellar data as have said is from NStars. I've checked the stars in question, there are no significant differences in position.

By the way...the data was imported via SQL queries into a custom application that produced a Python script that could be executed by "Poser Pro". So...I've already "thrown" it into a "CAD" program and the image in the paper is the result. By the way...you won't see that image unless your camera is in the right location.

I don't know what you were talking about with the jibberish about 3D rendering. But, It isn't difficult to compute the location of each an every star in that database and plot them in 3D space...just time consuming. I've already done that for the NStars table.

Oh yes...the HIP catalog uses milliarcseconds for parallax, all others use arcseconds. All astronomical databases seem to use string data for Right ascension and declination...one of the reasons I created the substitute data objects; and numerical data is easer to search and sort (order) than string data...especially if they represent numbers in the first place.

edit on 13-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

Ok first of course miliarcseconds are used there more accurate and the reason star charts use strings is there much easier to plot on spreadsheets and 3d rendering. Now let me try this again you said you plotted the locations of the stars in her map using the data you gave me. now i want to see the math you used to do so get it. You said you plotted the star positions im assuming using zeta reticuli as the starting point like fish did. Remember her models thats what she did took the stars aligned them from earth then when she did that she plotted the stars on her map in relation to one another. See this is where the problem comes in her information was wrong. Now we can plot the positions of these stars from earth but as you so claimed the map wasnt drawn from earth. Which means we have to have them plotted from zeta rituculi.I have a 3d rendering of the area i want to see your and why you think it matches. The only way i can do that is to see how you plotted the stars in relation to each other.

You did do this didnt you because if you didnt then the astronomer who discussed the map did thats why he explains several of the stars in fishs map are not in that area but are much further away.

reply to post by tanka418

I am not the One who started the "pissing match". That was you with your incorrect assertion that my Bayesian Inference was incorrect...Which as we have all see isn't...even by your own admission.

What "pissing match"? What are you talking about? we agreed that your initial assertion was wrong and updated the priors to match what had been done at Princeton. Then we agreed that some of what you were doing wasn't really Bayesian but something different but agreed that it was still OK as long as we consider it speculation.

You do come off as a little condescending but explained that wasn't your intention and its not my intention to come off argumentative. I find your responses "fun" and whimsical which makes for a colorful discussion. You are what makes ATS that special place for me and I thank you. Most people just ignore me but I can have a discussion with you for pages and pages.

Anyway, the star map is ridiculous, hence, my name.

dragonridr
Ok first of course miliarcseconds are used there more accurate and the reason star charts use strings is there much easier to plot on spreadsheets and 3d rendering.

Roflmao...

Seriously?!?? Dude, I don't know where you heard this, but, it is wholly untrue! You should leave the representation to professionals...

Using milliseconds as opposed to seconds has not inherent advantage...it is simply a different way to represent a sub-division of standard time. The use of strings is simply stupid, it has absolutely no advantage, and, makes the searching and ordering of the data more difficult (stings order differently than numbers)...and it may actually be a serious and currently overlooked procedural error

In any case, you are wholly wrong about this representation of numerical data.

Now let me try this again you said you plotted the locations of the stars in her map using the data you gave me. now i want to see the math you used to do so get it. You said you plotted the star positions im assuming using zeta reticuli as the starting point like fish did. Remember her models thats what she did took the stars aligned them from earth then when she did that she plotted the stars on her map in relation to one another. See this is where the problem comes in her information was wrong. Now we can plot the positions of these stars from earth but as you so claimed the map wasnt drawn from earth. Which means we have to have them plotted from zeta rituculi.I have a 3d rendering of the area i want to see your and why you think it matches. The only way i can do that is to see how you plotted the stars in relation to each other.

You did do this didnt you because if you didnt then the astronomer who discussed the map did thats why he explains several of the stars in fishs map are not in that area but are much further away.

Firstly...I never used "her" map. I used the stars that were created long before either Hill, Fish, me, or You were even thought of...they for practical purpose are immutable (its a context thing).

What I did was take (I've already explained this) the right ascension, declination, and distance...plug them into standard equations (you know the ones you learn in your introduction to trigonometry)

Here is a bit of code for that...

double xval = (R * (Math.Cos(decl) * Math.Cos(ra)); // x
double yval = (R * Math.Sin(decl)*Math.cos(ra)); // y
double dist = (R * Math.Sin(ra)); // z

Where: ra, decl are double precision values retrieved from a SQL source.
R is distance...computed from parallax...(r= 2AU * Math.Tan(r); r=parallax)

This produced an accurate model of the region of space selected for modeling...
The other software I used is commercial.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I don't know what world you live in sir, but that last response is pure fiction.

reply to post by tanka418

I don't know what world you live in sir, but that last response is pure fiction.

maybe you misinterpreted something? I reread the entire thread last night and we agree on the majority of things. We agree on the Bayesian issue as you just stated.We agreed on a couple of other points as well. Right now I'm working with the database you shared and am making some modifications that should impress you. I know I might come off as a little edgey but I will try to tone it down. Just trying to keep you honest. Not sure what you are using for 3d rendering...

ZetaRediculian

maybe you misinterpreted something? I reread the entire thread last night and we agree on the majority of things. We agree on the Bayesian issue as you just stated.We agreed on a couple of other points as well. Right now I'm working with the database you shared and am making some modifications that should impress you. I know I might come off as a little edgey but I will try to tone it down. Just trying to keep you honest. Not sure what you are using for 3d rendering...

Misinterpreting? maybe...I'll give you a "perhaps", at any rate, you have my attention. What modifications?

See, one of the issues I have with astronomy data is that the databases were all designed by astronomers. I know that almost sounds like it "should" be; but, the problem is they know absolutely nothing about "data types", and using the right data type can make life with that data so much easier.

3D rendering: is done using "Poser Pro" circa 2009 (from SmithMicro). It contains an engine that can execute "Python" and a fair function library. So it's not too difficult to write a desktop application for Windows that produces a Python script...in this case to draw bucky-balls at appropriate locations in 3D space.

And, I don't mind at all someone "trying" to keep me honest.

tanka418

dragonridr
Ok first of course miliarcseconds are used there more accurate and the reason star charts use strings is there much easier to plot on spreadsheets and 3d rendering.

Roflmao...

Seriously?!?? Dude, I don't know where you heard this, but, it is wholly untrue! You should leave the representation to professionals...

Using milliseconds as opposed to seconds has not inherent advantage...it is simply a different way to represent a sub-division of standard time. The use of strings is simply stupid, it has absolutely no advantage, and, makes the searching and ordering of the data more difficult (stings order differently than numbers)...and it may actually be a serious and currently overlooked procedural error

In any case, you are wholly wrong about this representation of numerical data.

Now let me try this again you said you plotted the locations of the stars in her map using the data you gave me. now i want to see the math you used to do so get it. You said you plotted the star positions im assuming using zeta reticuli as the starting point like fish did. Remember her models thats what she did took the stars aligned them from earth then when she did that she plotted the stars on her map in relation to one another. See this is where the problem comes in her information was wrong. Now we can plot the positions of these stars from earth but as you so claimed the map wasnt drawn from earth. Which means we have to have them plotted from zeta rituculi.I have a 3d rendering of the area i want to see your and why you think it matches. The only way i can do that is to see how you plotted the stars in relation to each other.

You did do this didnt you because if you didnt then the astronomer who discussed the map did thats why he explains several of the stars in fishs map are not in that area but are much further away.

Firstly...I never used "her" map. I used the stars that were created long before either Hill, Fish, me, or You were even thought of...they for practical purpose are immutable (its a context thing).

What I did was take (I've already explained this) the right ascension, declination, and distance...plug them into standard equations (you know the ones you learn in your introduction to trigonometry)

Here is a bit of code for that...

double xval = (R * (Math.Cos(decl) * Math.Cos(ra)); // x
double yval = (R * Math.Sin(decl)*Math.cos(ra)); // y
double dist = (R * Math.Sin(ra)); // z

Where: ra, decl are double precision values retrieved from a SQL source.
R is distance...computed from parallax...(r= 2AU * Math.Tan(r); r=parallax)

This produced an accurate model of the region of space selected for modeling...
The other software I used is commercial.

edit on 14-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

Ok now ive come to the conclusion your a clueless idiot let me explain why. See an arc second comes from one minute of arc being of course 60 arc seconds in one minute of arc. Has nothing to do with time like you stated you idiot.A minute of arc is an angular measurement used in math again nothing to do with time. Now a milliarcsecond is one arc second divided into a million equal sections meaning when we use this its much more accurate. Now i know you didnt plot crap and blowing smoke when you dont even understand degrees of arc. POh and once again its not a different representation its a more accurate representation.Oh and im sorry if your to stupid to figure out how astronomers use strings but it makes is easier but then again you dont understand degrees of arc either so im not surprised.

Im done trying to even see what you see i figured maybe there was something there but i see now you're a clueless UFO nut that thinks they discovered something with research and you have done nothing other that look at it on a star chart.Its because of people like you that UFO research will never be taken seriously i have a PHD in physics an entire astronomy department i can talk to with colleagues and you know if you showed me something i could actually got people to look into it.

dragonridr
Ok now ive come to the conclusion your a clueless idiot let me explain why. See an arc second comes from one minute of arc being of course 60 arc seconds in one minute of arc. Has nothing to do with time like you stated you idiot.A minute of arc is an angular measurement used in math again nothing to do with time. Now a milliarcsecond is one arc second divided into a million equal sections meaning when we use this its much more accurate. Now i know you didnt plot crap and blowing smoke when you dont even understand degrees of arc. POh and once again its not a different representation its a more accurate representation.Oh and im sorry if your to stupid to figure out how astronomers use strings but it makes is easier but then again you dont understand degrees of arc either so im not surprised.

Im done trying to even see what you see i figured maybe there was something there but i see now you're a clueless UFO nut that thinks they discovered something with research and you have done nothing other that look at it on a star chart.Its because of people like you that UFO research will never be taken seriously i have a PHD in physics an entire astronomy department i can talk to with colleagues and you know if you showed me something i could actually got people to look into it.

Wow...yu completely misunderstand...

Right Ascension is expressed as time: in hours, minutes, and seconds. One (1) hour of right ascension = 15 degree of arc.
Declination is expressed in degrees minutes and seconds of arc

Both are base 60 numbers and must be converted to decimal before calculations begin.

Milliseconds are thousandths of a second (1/1000)...they are not more accurate, just smaller.

I know how astronomers use those strings...they represent numbers, so they are converted before use...And I'm not surprised you don't know these things...after all you don't "speak" or use "C/C++/C#" or SQL (Structured Query Language), and I do. You don't know about data structures and representations, you are a Physicist, however, I am a computer scientist (MSCS, MSEE), so I know a wee bit about data. I also am required to know a bit about math...computers are funny that way (Bachelor of Science in Mathematics). I've also studied physics, microbiology, genetics, and astronomy and have the equivalent to a A.S. in each.

Oh boy a Phd... and in physics. (see above) Sorry man you don't pass muster, I don't believe you. The simple errors you have made in this discussion kind of belie your claim to a Phd. Quite simply you do not demonstrate the level of understanding a Phd would possess.