Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
- From: Vend <vend82@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:22:55 -0700
On 6 Lug, 05:57, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:10 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
This is to summarize recent discussions I've had regarding my notion
that various forms of symmetry, such as reflective symmetry, can be
used with the material of granite to hypothesize deliberate artifact
with an excellent true positive and low false positive rate.
I initially presented certain parameters that were very narrowly
defined to overwhelmingly exclude any remote possibility of a
potential false positive.
After numerous comments and sometimes heated "suggestions", I'll
summarize a few of the clarifications that seem to have solved at
least a few minor cases of some confusion.
The material in question is still granite. It is not some single
crystal that may be found in granite, but granite.
The unit of measure is still meters, centimeters, millimeters, or
whatever unit of measure, or fraction thereof, seems most appropriate
to the specimen.
The quality being measured is still reflective symmetry with regard to
surface irregularities. Spheres, cylinders, spheroid, parabolic, or
rounded off shapes do not qualify as "irregularities". For additional
clarification, though I believe I've made this abundantly clear in the
past, the type of irregularities I'm looking for are those where one
flat surface forms a sharply defined angle with another flat surface.
The angle cannot be "rounded" off to less than the degree of tolerance
described below.
The basic method of measuring symmetry is still the same, but with a
few more clarifications. The distance of each surface point on one
half of the rock is measured from the center of the stone. This
distance is compared to the surface point exactly opposite as measured
from the center of the rock. For example, if a straight line is drawn
through the center of the rock, the surface points that it passes
through on either side of the rock are "exactly opposite" surface
points. The distance of each surface point is measured from the
center of the stone. This distance is compared to the distance of the
opposing surface point measured in the same way.
Also, the plane of symmetry really doesn't matter as long as it
is passes through the center of the stone. The reflective symmetry
will be the same regardless of the various number of ways this can be
done. And, the choice of the "center" of the stone also doesn't
matter. Any center that is chosen that actually aids in fulfilling
all the listed criteria is the better choice.
The degree of irregularity is still the same. At least 30% of the
surface points on one half of the rock must vary in distance from the
center of the rock by more than 10% of the average surface point
distance.
The degree of tolerance previously listed (0.001%) seems to have come
under the most heat. It remains that all of the surface point
distances on one half of the rock must match all of the surface point
distances on the exact opposite side of the rock to within the stated
degree of tolerance as a fraction of the total distance from one
surface point to the opposing surface point. For example, a granite
cube measuring 500 mm on each side could sustain a variation in
surface point distance of one side compared with the other of up to 5
microns and still pass the tolerance test. For even further
clarification, if the distance between the center of the cube and one
surface point were 5 microns smaller or greater than the opposing
distance, this variation would pass the test. In other words, the
variation relative to the total distance cannot be greater than
0.001%.
Of course, the main argument hasn't been so much one over how
to measure the degree of tolerance, but that the stated degree of
tolerance is far too restrictive to allow for anything of artifactual
nature or otherwise to pass the test. As I see it, this really isn't
an issue since if this degree of tolerance were ever achieved the
artifactual nature of such a highly symmetrical granite object would
be extremely clear. The reason this conclusion would be so clear is
because there is a clearly established pattern of greater and greater
positive predictive power for finer and finer tolerances well before
the degree of 0.001% tolerance is realized. Therefore, it is quite
reasonable to induce from this pattern that the pattern will only
continue in like manner. Beyond this, there are several examples of
manufactured granite cubes that do indeed fall within this degree of
tolerance - with respect to symmetry and the measurement of tolerance
as described above (see references listed below).
<Snippers>
This all sounds very odd to me, or at least like it's missing an
important step.
I say that any object weighing 287.86242635624263731121312121 ounces
and which is colored light pink is designed. If you cannot show me a
natural object that falsifies my hypothesis I will claim victory and
do a little dance.
What are the odds of an object weighing exactly the number that I just
made up, and being exactly the color I just specified simply by
chance? The odds weren't good to begin with, but once I actually
typed in random numbers, the odds that an object would MATCH those
numbers just seems too incredible to believe unless SOMEONE or
SOMETHING planned it that way.
Well put.
.
- References:
- Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
- From: Inez
- Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
- Prev by Date: Re: Germany is following the US into the middle ages
- Next by Date: Re: What's happened recently?
- Previous by thread: Re: Granite, Symmetry, and ID - Summary
- Next by thread: ID vs. non-ID - Predictable Pattern Limits
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
