|
Post by gwen on Feb 1, 2007 20:30:33 GMT -4
I was getting at the difference between seeing the effect with our eyes and looking at it rendered on a flat piece of paper (or screen). It's easier to mislead someone by drawing arrows every which way over it. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 1, 2007 21:27:33 GMT -4
Quite true, there are many things that don't "look right" when taken from a 3D-world and put onto a 2D peice of paper. Of course understanding it allows us to cheat it as well and that results in allowing us to end up with stunning artworks and illusions.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Feb 1, 2007 21:49:33 GMT -4
Gwen, no need to apologize. It was clear what you were getting at. Your post just got me wondering: We look at photos all the time and never think the shadows are odd. How is it that a conspiracy theorist shows us a photo and all of a sudden we find it odd?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Feb 1, 2007 21:52:03 GMT -4
Phantom Wolf: Heh. The quote at the top of the optical illusion site seems to fit the business of conspiracy theory rather well: "Advertising: The science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it. - Stephen Leacock"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 1, 2007 22:42:53 GMT -4
The Quotes are random just a selection:
The colder the X-Ray table, the more of your body needs to be on it. All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand. Half the people you know are below average. 62.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. OK, so what's the speed of dark? Love may be blind, but marriage is a real eye-opener. Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place. - Johnny Carson
and another for our CT friends:
Decide promptly, but never give any reasons. Your decisions may be right, but your reasons are sure to be wrong. - Lord Mansfield
I would debate #3. Averages aren't a 50/50 split, that is the Medium. Say I take 6 people. One is 6'7, two are 6'3, one 6', one 5'6 and one 5'1. In this case our average height is 5'11 (and a bit) and so we have 4 above average and only two below average heights. Thus only a 1/3 of people in the example are below average. If I'd taken the medium (5'9) then we'd have 3 above and 3 below, a true 50/50 split.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 2, 2007 6:31:33 GMT -4
I think you mean the median. There are three mathematical averages, the mean, the median and the mode. For a sufficiently large normally-distributed population, all three have the same value, so in general #3 holds true: your example fails because of the small number in the sample.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 11:38:39 GMT -4
I like number 4 - made up statistics. I heard that one years ago, and have used it regularly since.
Of course, I use a different number everytime.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 3, 2007 6:50:35 GMT -4
For a sufficiently large normally-distributed population, all three have the same value
Depends on what you are looking at. Only in cases where the population fits into the standard distribution curve can you get them about the same. Where the numbers are distrubuted evenly they fall over, for example wages. The Median and the Mean are generally poles apart. Over here our mean wage is about $43,000 but the Median is still about $23,000.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 3, 2007 8:29:47 GMT -4
That's sort of what I meant by "normally distributed"
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Feb 3, 2007 11:44:04 GMT -4
I like using numbers like "eleventeen" when faking statistics.
Pete
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Feb 3, 2007 17:02:14 GMT -4
I like using numbers like "eleventeen" when faking statistics. Pete Peter, That is being quite lax & unprofessional. The correct mathematical term is leventyleven.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Feb 5, 2007 5:07:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 5, 2007 16:11:03 GMT -4
I sure hope he won't blame me for showing this to you guys and screwing his dreams up.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 5, 2007 16:20:16 GMT -4
Yeah, and his plan to avoid detection of the LEO CSM by accellerating to a 25000mph orbit speed...
Oh, that's cute! Is he aware that this is the velocity needed to go to the Moon? Perhaps you should thank him for admitting that we really did have the technology to go in 1969!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 5, 2007 17:06:38 GMT -4
The standard response to that is that they didn't have the computing power to get to the moon. Apparently one of Kepler's long-lost laws of orbits is that computing power needs increase proportional to orbital altitude.
|
|