UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[4merper4mer]

12 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-reveals-odds-life-evolving-194243028.html

 

New research reveals the odds of life evolving on alien worlds

 

"In Bayesian inference, prior probability distributions always need to be selected," Kipping said. "But a key result here is that when one compares the rare-life versus common-life scenarios, the common-life scenario is always at least nine times more likely than the rare one."

This life-friendly probability distribution is based on the fact that life developed so quickly after Earth's formation. The earliest life forms emerged during the first 300 million years in Earth's history.

Sitcom math but insert an "h" as the second letter.

[Marv's Neighbor]

Not a UFO, it's a Chinese ventilator.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

17 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-reveals-odds-life-evolving-194243028.html

 

New research reveals the odds of life evolving on alien worlds

 

"In Bayesian inference, prior probability distributions always need to be selected," Kipping said. "But a key result here is that when one compares the rare-life versus common-life scenarios, the common-life scenario is always at least nine times more likely than the rare one."

This life-friendly probability distribution is based on the fact that life developed so quickly after Earth's formation. The earliest life forms emerged during the first 300 million years in Earth's history.

Direct quotes from the article you cited:

 

1.  "Bayesian statistical inference uses a set of founding beliefs about a system before predicting probabilities."

 

2.  "But a key result here is that when one compares the rare-life versus common-life scenarios, the common-life scenario is always at least nine times more likely than the rare one."

 

Executive summary - - If your "founding belief" is that life elsewhere in the universe is common, it is much, much more likely that any mathematical model you construct based on that belief will predict (1) a greater chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe, than if (2) your "founding belief" is that life elsewhere in the universe is rare.  Shocking.

 

And as some sort of mathematical wizardry beyond the understanding of average folks with no PhD in astronomy or mathematics, if you adjust your "founding belief" so that you start with the assumption that life is even more common than you first thought, then the mathematical model you construct based on that belief will predict a greater chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe than you first thought.

 

In other news, if you knew absolutely nothing about water but had a founding, speculative belief that it was fairly dry, any mathematical model you constructed to predict the dryness of water would predict greater dryness than if your initial, speculative, founding belief was that water was fairly wet.

 

Speculative garbage in, speculative garbage out.

 

Because the founding belief on which the mathematical model is based is purely speculative, the fancy-sounding model has no predictive value whatsoever.

 

 

[Warcodered]

6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Sitcom math but insert an "h" as the second letter.

but scientist math.

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, Warcodered said:

but scientist math.

Some scientists are wishfully thinking people too.

 

Exercises like this article set back the human race, if only in a minuscule way.  The sooner we acknowledge we are alone, the sooner we realize what truly needs to be done and then we can start.  Inevitably fruitless searches for something that doesn't exist distract what are often some brilliant and ingenious people.  

Edited May 23, 2020 by 4merper4mer

[LeGOATski]

16 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

Direct quotes from the article you cited:

 

1.  "Bayesian statistical inference uses a set of founding beliefs about a system before predicting probabilities."

 

2.  "But a key result here is that when one compares the rare-life versus common-life scenarios, the common-life scenario is always at least nine times more likely than the rare one."

 

Executive summary - - If your "founding belief" is that life elsewhere in the universe is common, it is much, much more likely that any mathematical model you construct based on that belief will predict (1) a greater chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe, than if (2) your "founding belief" is that life elsewhere in the universe is rare.  Shocking.

 

And as some sort of mathematical wizardry beyond the understanding of average folks with no PhD in astronomy or mathematics, if you adjust your "founding belief" so that you start with the assumption that life is even more common than you first thought, then the mathematical model you construct based on that belief will predict a greater chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe than you first thought.

 

In other news, if you knew absolutely nothing about water but had a founding, speculative belief that it was fairly dry, any mathematical model you constructed to predict the dryness of water would predict greater dryness than if your initial, speculative, founding belief was that water was fairly wet.

 

Speculative garbage in, speculative garbage out.

 

Because the founding belief on which the mathematical model is based is purely speculative, the fancy-sounding model has no predictive value whatsoever.

 

 

I think you're simplifying it too much. They're considering known results and calculating the probability. They're not just trying to prove a hypothesis true or false.

 

Like considering hurricane season results:

1. Many hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and most will make landfall on the east coast.

2. Many hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and few will make landfall on the east coast.

3. Few hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and most will make landfall on the east coast.

4. Few hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and few will make landfall on the east coast.

 

Then calculating the probability of those results with your known contributing variables. Then adjusting the probabilities over time as the observed variables change or new variables are discovered.

 

They're not trying to determine if something is true, they're trying to determine the probability of results they know to be true.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

26 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I think you're simplifying it too much. They're considering known results and calculating the probability. They're not just trying to prove a hypothesis true or false.

 

Like considering hurricane season results:

1. Many hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and most will make landfall on the east coast.

2. Many hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and few will make landfall on the east coast.

3. Few hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and most will make landfall on the east coast.

4. Few hurricanes will form over the mid-Atlantic and few will make landfall on the east coast.

 

Then calculating the probability of those results with your known contributing variables. Then adjusting the probabilities over time as the observed variables change or new variables are discovered.

 

They're not trying to determine if something is true, they're trying to determine the probability of results they know to be true.

 

 

They are leaving out multiple factors that don't support their wished outcome.

[Captain Caveman]

On 5/21/2020 at 5:56 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Sorry for the lack of a link but in the news today are claims of discovery that a parallel universe exists where physic are the opposite and time moves in reverse.

 

Think it through....I won't give you hints......one parallel universe where time runs backwords from ours can't really exist.  There would have to be infinite parallels.  Why?

I have a feeling it has to do with losing against NFC opponents to improve our playoff tiebreaker position.

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Any updates on this?

Nah, ET is steering clear of Earth for a while...

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/navy-ufo-reports.html

 

Navy Reports Describe Encounters With Unexplained Flying Objects

While some of the encounters have been reported publicly before, the Navy records are an official accounting of the incidents, including descriptions from the pilots of what they saw.

Lt. Ryan Graves last year described a close encounter off Virginia Beach with what looked like a flying sphere encasing a cube.Credit...Tony Luong for The New York Times

By Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean May 14, 2020 

 

Navy fighter pilots reported close encounters with unidentified aerial vehicles, including several dangerously close, in eight incidents between June 27, 2013, and Feb. 13, 2019, according to documents recently released by the Navy.

 

Two happened on one day, according to one of eight unclassified Navy safety reports released in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act by news outlets, including The New York Times.

 

Last month the Defense Department authenticated three videos of aerial encounters previously published by The Times, accompanying accounts of Navy pilots who reported such close encounters.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Math hardest hit. ?  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/06/15/there-are-36-intelligent-alien-civilizations-in-our-galaxy-say-scientists/amp/

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Math hardest hit. ?  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/06/15/there-are-36-intelligent-alien-civilizations-in-our-galaxy-say-scientists/amp/

 

<<It assumes that intelligent life comes to occur on other planets much as it has done on our own planet.>>

 

If you make that assumption to start with, even though we don't understand how life "came to occur" on earth, you're begging the question.  The point is, an assumption is just that.  It's not evidence of anything.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

<<It assumes that intelligent life comes to occur on other planets much as it has done on our own planet.>>

 

If you make that assumption to start with, even though we don't understand how life "came to occur" on earth, you're begging the question.  The point is, an assumption is just that.  It's not evidence of anything.

 

No disagreement. I was just busting 4mer's chops a bit  

[Warcodered]

27 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Math hardest hit. ?  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/06/15/there-are-36-intelligent-alien-civilizations-in-our-galaxy-say-scientists/amp/

But I mean is this even featured on a sitcom?

[njbuff]

It's King Ghidorah. ?

[LeGOATski]

16 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

<<It assumes that intelligent life comes to occur on other planets much as it has done on our own planet.>>

 

If you make that assumption to start with, even though we don't understand how life "came to occur" on earth, you're begging the question.  The point is, an assumption is just that.  It's not evidence of anything.

I mean....its just establishing a minimum based on things we know...

 

Interesting, but not super meaningful at this point. 

 

Big picture: we just need to find the right targets for when the day comes that we can cross that great divide...

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

8 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I mean....its just establishing a minimum based on things we know...

 

Interesting, but not super meaningful at this point. 

 

Big picture: we just need to find the right targets for when the day comes that we can cross that great divide...

 

No.

 

It's not establishing a minimum, it's assuming a minimum, and that assumption is based on a guess or an opinion, not "on things we know" (i.e., actual facts).  We know that life exists on earth.  That is a fact.  We don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe.  Nobody has ever found any, but there's plenty of places we haven't been able to look.

 

Speculative assumption in, speculative "calculation" out.

 

So yeah, it's "not super meaningful" because it's not meaningful at all.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

On 6/15/2020 at 5:44 PM, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

<<It assumes that intelligent life comes to occur on other planets much as it has done on our own planet.>>

 

If you make that assumption to start with, even though we don't understand how life "came to occur" on earth, you're begging the question.  The point is, an assumption is just that.  It's not evidence of anything.

 

Aren’t most (all) theories based off of an assumption? 
 

   

[LeGOATski]

35 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

No.

 

It's not establishing a minimum, it's assuming a minimum, and that assumption is based on a guess or an opinion, not "on things we know" (i.e., actual facts).  We know that life exists on earth.  That is a fact.  We don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe.  Nobody has ever found any, but there's plenty of places we haven't been able to look.

 

Speculative assumption in, speculative "calculation" out.

 

So yeah, it's "not super meaningful" because it's not meaningful at all.

The calculation is based on a model of our own existence and produces an estimate. I think you're taking it too seriously, or your criticism is more justly aimed at the tone of the reporting. The headline isn't exactly accurate to begin with...

 

This doesn't mean the model isn't legitimate. It's one model out of many that could be constructed, which don't have any data to verify themselves with yet.

 

But if you think of it like a storm path model. Hundreds of estimates layed over one another and then you find the points at which they cross over each other the most. Those are the points we start looking at once we have the capability to look...