PS: Why do I bother? On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs > when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point > during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in > the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. > > So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning: > > An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a > thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will > have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters > nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare > in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. The actuary cries > "Eureka!" and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research > program to get to the bottom of this improbable event. > > The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written > by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say: > > 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event > demonstrates you have not understood clustering." > > 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time > and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but > your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of > Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to > an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company." > > ? > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins < > alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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?**** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
