Are you familiar with "clustering"? just because a rare event happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Think about this like an actuary, folks: > > When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model > says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and > the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs > revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that > model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- > if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one > might not invest all that much money in revising the model. > > However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of > nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction > events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the > model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out > of line with reality. > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a >> million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that >> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day: >> >> 1/(365*100)^2 >> = 1/1332250000 >> >> Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for >> whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million. >> >> This is not a coincidence. >> >> PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor >> of >> 1000<http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/> >> . >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object >>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and >>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main >>> mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible >>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology. >>> Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can >>> come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the >>> source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time >>> correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with >>> a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments. >>> >>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events >>> -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events >>> seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero: >>> >>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become >>> advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of >>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public >>> announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest >>> approach on Feb 15, 2012. >>> >>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause >>> widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves >>> correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades. >>> >>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor -- >>> appear statistically independent. >>> >>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're >>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the >>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of >>> public announcement. >>> >>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard >>> for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land, >>> and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we >>> can increase the expected frequency only a few fold at best. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms >>> <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >>> >>>> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent >>>> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows. >>>> As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere, >>>> where is the common sense? >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s >>>> **** >>>> ** ** >>>> ** ** >>>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in >>>> this Russian video, in slo-mo.**** >>>> ** ** >>>> The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving >>>> object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at >>>> about 27 seconds).**** >>>> ** ** >>>> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian >>>> military, why not give it some credence?**** >>>> ** ** >>>> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.**** >>>> ** ** >>>> ** ** >>>> ** ** >>>> ** ** >>>> NASA's blog >>>> states<http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments> >>>> :**** >>>> >>>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.**** >>>> ** ** >>>> What is your cite, Terry?**** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
