Random events cluster. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:16 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. >>> >>> >>> 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: >>>>>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction" >>>>>> >>>>>> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your cite, Terry? >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
