Stars of the Hill Map

a reply to: tanka418

My thinking is "stuck in the 1970's" because I reject a star on spectral type? Do you have any idea what that sptype says about a star?

Yes, I do. I am also familiar with the debates currently going on in planetological and exo-biological circles. For example, some astrodynamicists believe that M type stars would be unsuitable because planets in the "Goldilocks zone"would be tidally locked. Exo-meteorologists, on the other hand, have proposed atmospheric models that would circulate the heat in an evenly distributed way. Meanwhile, exo-biologists invoke extremophile organisms to suggest that biology may be possible under circumstances far more alien than one might think.

So here is he deal...you go an actually read my paper, it attempts to explain "WHY" stars of some spectral types are unsuited for the kinds of life we are looking for. For instance a Class "A" star, like Sirius. Not a good candidate for advanced life...do you know why?

I am sure you have good reason for your assumptions, but they are still assumptions. I agree that A type stars would not be good candidates, if only because their high rotational speeds suggest they did not shed angular momentum as solar systems. Lucky for you, you chose a data set that was intrinsically biased against red dwarfs and stars more massive than F.

Did you know that with slight improvements to current Terrestrial technologies; a trip to Zeta Reticuli might be possible for a young crew? They probably would have a one way trip, but, they could easily get there without any "novel" science or technology...

How is that relevant?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Your image seems a bit...wrong! Why is it backwards?!!!?

What difference does it make? You challenged me to connect a random series of dots in such a way as to match the "template." I chose to use random stars.

No...not quite. The challenge is to produce a match to Hipparcos stars...as Ms. Fish and I have done.

originally posted by: DJW001

Yes, I do. I am also familiar with the debates currently going on in planetological and exo-biological circles. For example, some astrodynamicists believe that M type stars would be unsuitable because planets in the "Goldilocks zone"would be tidally locked. Exo-meteorologists, on the other hand, have proposed atmospheric models that would circulate the heat in an evenly distributed way. Meanwhile, exo-biologists invoke extremophile organisms to suggest that biology may be possible under circumstances far more alien than one might think.

Better...

I'm not doubting, nor debating the existence of life on any planet around any class so ever. What I am saying is that statistically, there are better probabilities around stars of a narrower class range. Thus, while not impossible, it is rather unlikely we will find a highly evolved being capable of interstellar travel, living around a class "M" star.

I am sure you have good reason for your assumptions, but they are still assumptions. I agree that A type stars would not be good candidates, if only because their high rotational speeds suggest they did not shed angular momentum as solar systems. Lucky for you, you chose a data set that was intrinsically biased against red dwarfs and stars more massive than F.

And for those class "A" stars; statistically they don't live very long. A few hundred million years but, typically, not much more (although there a very few over 1 billion years). These planets literally do not have enough time to evolve significantly evolved life.

Yes, my dataset; your opinion is a bit uninformed. Firstly, I have already given one reason for not using 2MASS, the only other viable option at this time.

A second reason is that by using this "intrinsic bias" I can apply a sort of "built-in" noise filter. Resulting in a more relevant dataset. If I used a dataset like 2MASS I would have to implement that same "filtering" in code, something I'd rather avoid.

I've not noticed any bias on the other end of the spectrum, with the possibility of distance (applied equally).

a reply to: tanka418

Please explain what you mean by "intrinsic bias" in this context, and why it would require filtering.

a reply to: tanka418

No...not quite. The challenge is to produce a match to Hipparcos stars...as Ms. Fish and I have done.

How would that prove that your "template" can be fitted on to any given set of data points if given sufficient degrees of freedom, as you have done?

ETA:

Yes....when are you going to actually show something...do the math, show how this can be explained with completely random data...

[Edit--DJW001]

Next...you need to show us that the "map" is indeed random...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have demonstrated that the template can be imposed on random data points, therefore fitting it to a biased data set proves nothing.

originally posted by: DJW001
How would that prove that your "template" can be fitted on to any given set of data points if given sufficient degrees of freedom, as you have done?

Again; it is not MY template, it is Betty Hill's.

And it can not be "fitted" to any given set of data points. It may however be "fitted" to a specific set of data points. WHERE: data points = Hipparcos stars.

I have demonstrated that the template can be imposed on random data points, therefore fitting it to a biased data set proves nothing.

No actually you haven't. When you can identify each star in your "match", and show that it is relevant to the context, perhaps...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Please explain what you mean by "intrinsic bias" in this context, and why it would require filtering.

You seem to completely miss almost everything I say...

You are the One who brought up "intrinsic bias"...I was just telling you how that bias can be useful in data acquisition is all...as a noise filter.

a reply to: tanka418

You seem to completely miss almost everything I say...

Trust me, I know the feeling.

You are the One who brought up "intrinsic bias"...I was just telling you how that bias can be useful in data acquisition is all...as a noise filter.

Okay, three quarters of the stars in the known universe are class M. Red dwarfs are not very luminous, so they are more difficult to detect the further away they are. Because of the inverse square law, the larger the volume of space sampled, the fewer M class stars will be detected at the greater distances. On the other hand, the stars above F are a smaller population, which means they are less likely to be present in a given volume of space. In other words, your data set under-represents M types, and is naturally devoid of stars above F. This means that your data set is skewed towards F, G, and K stars. Thus, any pattern you impose upon them will favor those types. What does your filter do to correct this bias?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

This means that your data set is skewed towards F, G, and K stars. Thus, any pattern you impose upon them will favor those types. What does your filter do to correct this bias?

I suppose you can look at it that way; however, it is the real world...

I do nothing to correct this bias...beyond keep in mind that of those 3 classes "K" will dominate,

The number of M class stars approaches 77% of all main sequence stars, "K" class is about 12%, "G" is 6%, "F" about 3% leaving almost nothing for A, B class.

If we attempt to apply a statistical bell curve to the stars, in our search for intelligent life we actually find that these "natural", and technological limitation, your "bias" are limiting our selection of stars to the curve. And, yes, this method will miss some...it is however a first approximation, so that data loss is acceptable.



And, Hipparcos still contains a large number of class "M" stars, which are included in all my queries.

a reply to: tanka418

Given that we have yet to discover any life other than on Earth, your bell curve is completely meaningless.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: tanka418

Given that we have yet to discover any life other than on Earth, your bell curve is completely meaningless.

Yet science is beginning to think that planets are ubiquitous, as well as "life" (in a generic sense) making my bell curve very relevant and meaningful...

Course you actually have to think it through...

a reply to: tanka418

Yet science is beginning to think that planets are ubiquitous, as well as "life" (in a generic sense) making my bell curve very relevant and meaningful...

Course you actually have to think it through...

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, right? If life is ubiquitous, your bell curve is meaningless.

a reply to: tanka418

I do nothing to correct this bias.

Exactly. You have forced a pattern onto a biased data set, as several people have been trying to make you understand. You have proven nothing and spent days vigorously defending your confirmation bias.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Yet science is beginning to think that planets are ubiquitous, as well as "life" (in a generic sense) making my bell curve very relevant and meaningful...

Course you actually have to think it through...

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, right? If life is ubiquitous, your bell curve is meaningless.

Read much???

That curve is for advanced sentient life...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

I do nothing to correct this bias.

Exactly. You have forced a pattern onto a biased data set, as several people have been trying to make you understand. You have proven nothing and spent days vigorously defending your confirmation bias.

Ya know...this seems a bit like that comment you made about the bell curve...you know, where you completely missed the whole point and thought it useless?

Reality check; the dataset is not biased...

So...you do realize that that "bias" as you want to put it is not what you want it to be. You see, it is not a bias that I introduced...it was introduced and enforced by nature...not something that can be compensated for, but rather something we get to work with....unless you know a way to change the stars themselves into something that more closely approximates your idealized universe...

You have been trying to use "bias" and "skew" in a way to put my theory down; unfortunately you have been misusing those words in this context...and y'all don't even know it...sigh...(actually...I think you do know it, and are being intentionally dishonest)

If Human kind were to use your methods and techniques to continue with science and exploration, Human kind would become extinct without learning a single new thing.

So, so far you have failed utterly to do anything that questions my theory...You tried and failed to produce those 25 "dots" that match Hipparcos and shows my implementation of Betty's template as evidence for the claim that it is actually a star map of ET's territory. In fact, your efforts have strengthened that hypothesis....

So...unless you have something new...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Yet science is beginning to think that planets are ubiquitous, as well as "life" (in a generic sense) making my bell curve very relevant and meaningful...

Course you actually have to think it through...

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, right? If life is ubiquitous, your bell curve is meaningless.

Read much???

That curve is for advanced sentient life...

Do you consider "advanced sentient life" life that is capable of traveling the stars and visiting Earth?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Yet science is beginning to think that planets are ubiquitous, as well as "life" (in a generic sense) making my bell curve very relevant and meaningful...

Course you actually have to think it through...

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, right? If life is ubiquitous, your bell curve is meaningless.

Read much???

That curve is for advanced sentient life...

Do you consider "advanced sentient life" life that is capable of traveling the stars and visiting Earth?

Yes, though not necessarily quite that advanced (but nearly)...for instance; Terrestrial Humans fit that description...while Chimpanzees probably do not...

a reply to: tanka418

Again your grasp of science is truly astounding I really expect you to pull out the baking soda volcano any minute. Nature isn't biased your data is because of thr failure to detect al km thr stars.you attribute something to nature that is a limit of out technology and you seem to be clueless on how to correct for it. You know I'll say this I thought what your were doing was very cool at first. Until I realized you thought that this had some scientific purpose. It's more along the lines of a thought experiment with things we can't answer at this time. For example did you know that most stars are binaries seems so is the exception and not the rule. Though there are some that believe we do have a companion star. This alone adds new conditions to the feasibility of life.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Again your grasp of science is truly astounding I really expect you to pull out the baking soda volcano any minute. Nature isn't biased your data is because of thr failure to detect al km thr stars.you attribute something to nature that is a limit of out technology and you seem to be clueless on how to correct for it. You know I'll say this I thought what your were doing was very cool at first. Until I realized you thought that this had some scientific purpose. It's more along the lines of a thought experiment with things we can't answer at this time. For example did you know that most stars are binaries seems so is the exception and not the rule. Though there are some that believe we do have a companion star. This alone adds new conditions to the feasibility of life.

Actually, the majority of stars in our galaxy are solitary, not binary, systems.

It's just that the large majority of those are invisible to us - so far.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Again your grasp of science is truly astounding I really expect you to pull out the baking soda volcano any minute. Nature isn't biased your data is because of thr failure to detect al km thr stars.you attribute something to nature that is a limit of out technology and you seem to be clueless on how to correct for it. You know I'll say this I thought what your were doing was very cool at first. Until I realized you thought that this had some scientific purpose. It's more along the lines of a thought experiment with things we can't answer at this time. For example did you know that most stars are binaries seems so is the exception and not the rule. Though there are some that believe we do have a companion star. This alone adds new conditions to the feasibility of life.

Actually, the majority of stars in our galaxy are solitary, not binary, systems.

It's just that the large majority of those are invisible to us - so far.

Harte

Now your dealing g with what we can observe again you have problems with this. Your data doesn't represent brown dwarfs. Meningitis that about 80 percent of your data is binaries. See these are those pesky little details we have to think about in something we call science. This effects your data since you are basing your opinions of feasibility of life in a star system. Binaries are very complicated to make such assessments. For example it's believed alpha centurie even being an a type star could contain life because of thr arrangement if the binary system. The odd increases a lot if we through a brown dwarf into the mix. This would follow along the lines of the dogons who seem to think there is 3 stars there not just two.