[Roger Hunter]

(02-09-2017, 10:59 PM)Duffy Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:23 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I am still convinced that this is not the way to go about this, but I will oblige you and try your method first.

If you are using a 90 degree distance from sub-solar, I will of course have to change the dawn/dusk bands to sunrise/sunset for this to be comparable with your method.  It will take me 2 or 3 days to compare my results in this manner, so I want to make sure this is acceptable. Also, I use to be able to calculate orbital purturbations of asteroids in years past, but I've never been able to figure odds. I would appreciate a quick 101 on this, or perhaps you can work the figures out for me when I get them !

I would still like to try a real-time test again, if your still willing to provide the data ... I will need it by the 15th if you are.


Duffy

Sorry Roger,that won't work because it will negate the whole idea of the test.  The data from my results is as follows;

Dawn contacts = 5
Dusk contacts  = 11
Sunrise           = 7
Sunset            = 5

You can see from this, dusk was the more influential of the bands. Your program would have to allow for this by 18 degrees.  But even this could be difficult because although sunrise/sunset can have a fixed distance, the dawn/dusk bands alter with the sun's North and South motion ... am I understood on this point before I continue ?

Duffy

Duffy;

I understand but I have no way to compute dawn/dusk since they are not fixed distances.

Impasse

I'll look for a program to do it. More later.

Probability here is just success divided by trials or number of ways something can happen. Odds on rolling a 3 on a single die are 1/6 because there are 6 sides and only one #3. Establishing odds is what I was doing. It works where there a lot of unknown possibilities, so you just try it many many times and log the results to get the expectable results.

Roger

[Roger Hunter]

(02-09-2017, 11:12 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:59 PM)Duffy Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:23 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I am still convinced that this is not the way to go about this, but I will oblige you and try your method first.

If you are using a 90 degree distance from sub-solar, I will of course have to change the dawn/dusk bands to sunrise/sunset for this to be comparable with your method.  It will take me 2 or 3 days to compare my results in this manner, so I want to make sure this is acceptable. Also, I use to be able to calculate orbital purturbations of asteroids in years past, but I've never been able to figure odds. I would appreciate a quick 101 on this, or perhaps you can work the figures out for me when I get them !

I would still like to try a real-time test again, if your still willing to provide the data ... I will need it by the 15th if you are.


Duffy

Sorry Roger,that won't work because it will negate the whole idea of the test.  The data from my results is as follows;

Dawn contacts = 5
Dusk contacts  = 11
Sunrise           = 7
Sunset            = 5

You can see from this, dusk was the more influential of the bands. Your program would have to allow for this by 18 degrees.  But even this could be difficult because although sunrise/sunset can have a fixed distance, the dawn/dusk bands alter with the sun's North and South motion ... am I understood on this point before I continue ?

Duffy

Duffy;

I understand but I have no way to compute dawn/dusk since they are not fixed distances.

Impasse

I'll look for a program to do it. More later.

Probability here is just success divided by trials or number of ways something can happen. Odds on rolling a 3 on a single die are 1/6 because there are 6 sides and only one #3. Establishing odds is what I was doing. It works where there a lot of unknown possibilities, so you just try it many many times and log the results to get the expectable results.

Roger

Duffy;

Since I can't compute sunrise I decided to try expanding the radius, If sun center was 90 degrees, maybe sunrise was 91 degrees. The results were very interesting.

91 0.382
92 0.414
93 0.410
94 0.416
95 0.460

These are odds on a hit with a 0.25 halfwidth band.
As you can see, there is no magic to sunrise or moonrise. I suspect almost any radius would have it's share of hits.

Roger

[Duffy]

Roger

When you said in an earlier post, you took a random quake every 20.5 days to use as signal, am I assuming correctly that these would similarly represent crosses on a map in longitude and latitude.  If so, does this mean you can input any independent co-ordinate in your program that you have desire to test, and run it against a 90 degree distance ? 


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(02-10-2017, 12:41 AM)Duffy Wrote: Roger

When you said in an earlier post, you took a random quake every 20.5 days to use as signal, am I assuming correctly that these would similarly represent crosses on a map in longitude and latitude.  If so, does this mean you can input any independent co-ordinate in your program that you have desire to test, and run it against a 90 degree distance ? 


Duffy

Duffy;

I can enter any two lat/lon pairs and get the distance in degrees.

Why?

Roger

[Duffy]

(02-10-2017, 12:45 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 12:41 AM)Duffy Wrote: Roger

When you said in an earlier post, you took a random quake every 20.5 days to use as signal, am I assuming correctly that these would similarly represent crosses on a map in longitude and latitude.  If so, does this mean you can input any independent co-ordinate in your program that you have desire to test, and run it against a 90 degree distance ? 


Duffy

Duffy;

I can enter any two lat/lon pairs and get the distance in degrees.

Why?

Roger

Roger; 

My results showed 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S as being the most prominent bearing.  And 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S as one of the least prominent of those that actually got a hit.  I thought it might be interesting to see if this trend remained the same between 1973 and the present.  You may recall, I reported here approx 6 weeks ago that 77' W was not showing on my white board, yet I was surprised to find it figured most in my test. It is of little consequence here because one is proven, and one is not ... but I am still fishing for clues why this might be ...

Late here now, so to be continued.


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(02-10-2017, 01:28 AM)Duffy Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 12:45 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(02-10-2017, 12:41 AM)Duffy Wrote: Roger

When you said in an earlier post, you took a random quake every 20.5 days to use as signal, am I assuming correctly that these would similarly represent crosses on a map in longitude and latitude.  If so, does this mean you can input any independent co-ordinate in your program that you have desire to test, and run it against a 90 degree distance ? 


Duffy

Duffy;

I can enter any two lat/lon pairs and get the distance in degrees.

Why?

Roger

Roger; 

My results showed 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S as being the most prominent bearing.  And 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S as one of the least prominent of those that actually got a hit.  I thought it might be interesting to see if this trend remained the same between 1973 and the present.  You may recall, I reported here approx 6 weeks ago that 77' W was not showing on my white board, yet I was surprised to find it figured most in my test. It is of little consequence here because one is proven, and one is not ... but I am still fishing for clues why this might be ...

Late here now, so to be continued.


Duffy

Duffy;

I compared all 72006 quakes to your 2 locations and found 854 hits in the 0.5 degree band centered on 90 degrees.

That's about 1% of the quakes with the first point getting 753 hits to the 101 hits on the second location.

Roger

[Duffy]

Roger; 

If the trend of these numbers over a period of 43 years, equates to a similar trend over 11 days, does this suggest relevance of one point over another ?

If my understanding of probability is correct, does this result imply that for ever 8 tosses of a coin, it landed as heads 7 times ?

Could you try this again for me, using 81' 21' W - 20' 59' S and 73' 21' W - 20' 59' S with a 0.5 degree band.  These are 4 degrees East and West of the original, I just wanted to see if there was any difference outside the box so to speak.


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(02-10-2017, 02:37 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger; 

Quote:If the trend of these numbers over a period of 43 years, equates to a similar trend over 11 days, does this suggest relevance of one point over another ?

It would seem so, yes.

Quote:If my understanding of probability is correct, does this result imply that for ever 8 tosses of a coin, it landed as heads 7 times ?

How did you come up with that? A coin toss has 50% odds. This test says that for every 100 tries, 1 might fit.

Quote:Could you try this again for me, using 81' 21' W - 20' 59' S and 73' 21' W - 20' 59' S with a 0.5 degree band.  These are 4 degrees East and West of the original, I just wanted to see if there was any difference outside the box so to speak.

Sure thing. It'll take a while.

Roger

Not that long, just change a few lines and run

 722 hit signals.
 90 radius
 .25 range         (half range)
 498 Sun hits      (First location)
 224 Moon hits   (Second location)
 72006 quakes
 1.0026942e-2 odds

Roger

[Duffy]

Roger 

Forgive me but I'm not sure how I am able to make a comparison with these numbers. In your last run, 77' W had 753 sunrise/sunset hits using a 0.5 degree band. If I am making this out correctly, this run is saying 81' W  had 498 sunrise/sunset hits using a 0.25 degree band,  and 73' W had no sunrise/sunset hits, but had 224 moon hits.  I'm confused why the moon has entered the equation when I thought this was an analysis of the terminator zones.  And do these results indicate that because you used a 0.25 range, there are no hits between 0.25 and 0.5 ?.  You used 0.5 last time, if I want to get a true picture, should the bands not be the same ?

I hold my hand up at being dumb with probability or odds ... am I doing the same thing with this ? 


Duffy

[Duffy]

(02-10-2017, 04:37 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger 

Forgive me but I'm not sure how I am able to make a comparison with these numbers. In your last run, 77' W had 753 sunrise/sunset hits using a 0.5 degree band. If I am making this out correctly, this run is saying 81' W  had 498 sunrise/sunset hits using a 0.25 degree band,  and 73' W had no sunrise/sunset hits, but had 224 moon hits.  I'm confused why the moon has entered the equation when I thought this was an analysis of the terminator zones.  And do these results indicate that because you used a 0.25 range, there are no hits between 0.25 and 0.5 ?.  You used 0.5 last time, if I want to get a true picture, should the bands not be the same ?

I hold my hand up at being dumb with probability or odds ... am I doing the same thing with this ? 


Duffy

I forgot to mention, I appear to be accumulating new data, 7th Feb 10:55 ut ... 8th Feb 07:14 ut ... 9th Feb 15:32 ut. If I accumulate more, do you have any objection to this being used in conjunction with your selection ?


Duffy