Possible link between Ursa major, Betty Hill map and OMG particle ?

originally posted by: Choice777
Verifiable data ? Which is what ? You haven't got none.

The data I've been using is all from the Hipparcos dataset...very verifiable, and from multiple sources...NASA, several Universities, European Space Agency...

And this picture, is that supposed to mean something ? A bunch of pretty line on something that doesn't originate from Betty hill, so it's worth 0.

If you actually take a look; you will see Betty's "map" at the core!

You state that as fact. You don't know that, nobody does.

Yes I state that as FACT! Because I actually went to the trouble to verify it myself. I built the 3D models, I moved my view point around, I even went to the trouble to employ computer vision template "matching" techniques. I have studied the individual stars, and their planets...

So...I should have a very good handle on this.

Now my map is based on an actual astronomy program, not some 3d nonsense which cant be used to simulate such objects with any precision which isn't laughable cause you don't have the expertize or time or knowledge or spatial precision to place and adjust all these object within a proper grid.

Oh?

Firstly; yes 3D modeling can be used in this context, with very great precision.
secondly; I am a retired Computer Scientist (Software Engineer); I "speak" more than a dozen different computer programming languages; including "C" (all dialects), and Python. "C" and Python were employed to build the 3D model.
Third; being retired gives e plenty of time...
Forth; As of late I've been working on a robotic telescope. This has required me to learn a great deal about astronomy...and have the equivalent of an associates degree...
Fifth; Spatial precision...I'm using a quad core i7, and using Microsoft Math library, as well as US Navy astronomical library, and the current standards for Astronomy software...including the ASCOM standards (ascom.standards.org...)

What is it that you have again?

Oh...by the way...what do you think that "Celestia" uses to create those pretty images of stars? If you guessed a "3D engine" you would be correct. The 3D engine I used is a commercial package that is considered one of the best available...just a wee bit short of 3D Studio (3d Studio, and Poser are used in the movie industry as well as science).

originally posted by: Choice777
i think using a 3d program is pointless. you don't have the precision to model stars light years apart.

Really? You tried to use one! But, I can't because of precision issues!

You are quite mistaken on this point...The "precision" issue is one of the reasons we use a computer n the first place...and I can use mine to very great effect.

Also this ''star splitting'' is pointless cause nobody said they evolved on that planet. they just said ''we're there''.
Don't care about one star being 300 mil years of 3 billion...it's a star, and we have a star map to go on. SO thats what i'm trying to match here. The aliens could have migrated or just use one f the stars as an outpost.

You should care...the age of a star can determine the probability of the existence of planets...for instance; it took Earth almost 1 billion years to form to the point it could support anything...liquid water, life...

One can't use a molten ball of rock as an outpost...

It took Earth 2 billion years before it had an oxygen atmosphere...

In the my interpretation of the Hill map every one of the 12 core stars are fully capable of supporting the kinds of life and civilizations we are looking for. In your map; the Host star isn't old enough to have evolved advanced life yet. And I did a quick check of the other stars...most are too young, some are close binaries, some are (seriously) variable, others are dying (sub giants). Of your map's important core stars 2 of them are of the correct class, type, and age. ALL of the others are wholly unsuitable.

How many of your stars have confirmed planets?

This is very preliminary, but is the core of my analysis...

alien.wolfmagick.com...

Well it's not every oen of the 12, it's only one. And you getting data from one source, disregarding the betty hill map, plotting it with some hack backed python script.....oh gawd . a mismatched pile of mess.
Good luck with your 3d engine working on magic python and c + or whatever. I'd rather be on top of a mountain with a laser...way waaaaaay more chances of actually getting somewhere.

edit: so you use 16000 star coordinates and plot them with scripts and a 3d modeling program and get what ? something that matches the betty hill map. you'd need trillions of tries and i'm officially calling bull#. Unless you post a youtube video of your monitor screen while doing it....and no, ,not screen capture, outside recording via phone or camera.
Or it's all just mumbo jumbo.



ps: 61 Uma is 1 bill old. And thats not even the case. We cant reliably estimate the ages of distant planets, so theres no way to know when one would be usable as a colony. no need for evolution, again, just a base.

originally posted by: Choice777
Well it's not every oen of the 12, it's only one. And you getting data from one source, disregarding the betty hill map, plotting it with some hack backed python script.....oh gawd . a mismatched pile of mess.
Good luck with your 3d engine working on magic python and c + or whatever. I'd rather be on top of a mountain with a laser...way waaaaaay more chances of actually getting somewhere.

C++, a dialect of "C" is the most commonly used high level language for all serious applications development...your operating system was written in C++. "C" is characterized by its ability to provide hardware control on par with assembly language, yet easier to write.

Python the 6th most commonly used high level language. It is particularly popular among scientists, especially Astronomers. It is characterized by its clarity and ease of human reading.

The software running on and controlling Hubble, and the New Horizons spacecraft was written in Python...which is actually one of my major objections to those device's software.

edit: so you use 16000 star coordinates and plot them with scripts and a 3d modeling program and get what ?

A 3D image...not sure where you get the 16000. I only plotted the stars within 33 parsecs, and that is more like 2826. Please understand that the stars plotted are only the stars contained in the Hipparcos dataset, and, have proper distance already computed. I did not go the trouble of using parallax to establish a star's distance from Earth.

something that matches the betty hill map. you'd need trillions of tries and i'm officially calling bull#.

Actually some of that work was already done, be Marjorie Fish around 1968. She used vastly inferior datasets, thread and beads to construct her 3D models.

So...anyway, you go ahead and call BS...I've used modern tools and a very great deal of actual science in my study of this Map and region of space.

If you like I can do the same for your stars, though it appears that virtually all of the stars in our interpretation are Gliese stars, old data that will have to be replaced with more modern data to be considered...

ps: 61 Uma is 1 bill old. And thats not even the case. We cant reliably estimate the ages of distant planets, so theres no way to know when one would be usable as a colony. no need for evolution, again, just a base.

Actually we can accurately estimate the age of a star in most cases, and this one is estimated at 0.9 - 1.6 Billion years. That makes it barely out of the planet forming stage, and quite unsuitable for supporting life...even with technology.