Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on September 17, 2004, 04:41:58 PM
-
"In the year 1999 and seven months
from the skies will come a great king of Terror
Reviving the great king of the Mongols
Before and adter there will be war"
Who believes this was fullfilled on Septeber 11, 2001?
I know this came up allot after 9/11 but with recent events in Russia and Iran's progress towards making a bomb it got me thinking about it again and what if's. Personally I don't really have an opinion on Nostradamous either way as you can read into it what ever you like. However this one is rather uncanny and how events have unfolded.
The Year 1999 in Nostradamous time (Georgian Calander) is September 2001. The airplanes of course came from the sky and brought with them the wrost terroist attack in history, so the great king of terror.
Reviving the Great King of The Mongols, obviously refering to Genghis Khan. Which today could be read as Osama Bin Laden, and seen as coming from the east same as Genghis Khan.
Before and after there will be war, Predicting World War III is about to begin as a result of this king of Terror. Nostradamous has other predictions of course saying that there will be a war between Islam and Christianity (the west). This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants.
Interesting now how Russia has come on board after Beslan and talking about pre emptive strikes. And how Iran is obviously bidding for time against Europe as it's busy enriching uranium. Though I'm not sure how Russia looks upon Iran these days.
Just a few points of interest is all.
...-Gixer
-
Mongols are asian though. Osama is arabian.
-
Nostradamus is a farce....History channel special on him awhile ago basically said he was full of ****. People overinterpret stuff after the fact to fit in with events that have already unfolded.
-
The entire verse as posted isn't mentioned at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm), but some of it is.
Some more here (http://people.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus.htm) and here (http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus.htm).
Regardless, I have no faith in the "prophecy" of Nostradamus on anything else either.
-
this is almost the same as the bible code. it happens and you can go back and look and make up some thing where it made a prediction.
comppletely false.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The year 1999 in Nostradamous time (Georgian Calander) is September 2001.
Michel de Nostredame was born on December 14, 1503 in St. Remi, France.
The Gregorian Calendar introduced in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, altered the year by omitting 10 days to bring in to sync astronomical observances. The Julian calander did not figure leap years correctly and was slowly shifting observances. The Gregorian also shifted the first of the year to January whereas it had hitherto commenced on March 25th.
Any date between January 1st and March 25th might be reckoned in either of two years, 1582 or 1583, according to the style of reckoning adopted, civil or ecclesiastical.
Outside of these three months, the difference is only 10 to 12 days not two years.
-
http://www.astrodatabank.com/DCH/55calendarchanges.htm
-
Gixer, back away from the crack pipe....
-
This verse got me going.
Note, this verse is an original one, not a later made hype.
"Five and forty steps the sky will burn
Fire approaching the large new city
Instantly a great thin flame will leap
When someone will want to test the Normans. "
The sky will burn 45 steps? Sounds like a lot, since the sky is burning. A nuke?
A large new city? A new-something.
A great thin flame leaping ? A nuke?
Test the Normans. Well, test is fight. Normans capital close up to Nostradamus time was York.
There is nothing that the extreme terrorists would rather do than Nuke N.Y. , we know that....
-
if you play the same lottery numbers long enough you will win.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
if you play the same lottery numbers long enough you will win.
Failed logic, just like the one about enough monkeys and typewriters and the complete works of Shakespeare.
-
Originally posted by Angus
This verse got me going.
Note, this verse is an original one, not a later made hype.
And after this far stretched interpret of Nostradamus scripts, what useful information did we gain?
-
New city of Normans, leaping fire....
Just saw a film of a tactical nuclear weapon going off. Pretty good to describe it as leaping thin fire.
Dreadful really.
:(
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Failed logic
no
-
Originally posted by Angus
New city of Normans, leaping fire....
Just saw a film of a tactical nuclear weapon going off. Pretty good to describe it as leaping thin fire.
(
But now that Nostradamus foresaw this happening, there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so enjoy the show.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
no
Yes, becuase when you reach a certain limit of probability, it is no longer physically possible to achieve it. Google on it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, becuase when you reach a certain limit of probability, it is no longer physically possible to achieve it. Google on it.
I see your point but i still dont agree. If the lottery is not discontinued, the numbers will eventually be picked by the machine. I guess you mean that the numbers doesnt have to get picked within a persons liftime and then you are correct.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
If the lottery is not discontinued, the numbers will eventually be picked by the machine.
No, that statement is simply not true. Even if the lottery continued indefinitively.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, that statement is simply not true. Even if the lottery continued indefinitively.
yes it will eventually get picked
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
yes it will eventually get picked
google on it. The statement is simply not true because there is no memory in random numbers.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
google on it. The statement is simply not true because there is no memory in random numbers.
If you change the numbers after every draw, it is as probable to win as if you'd keep the same numbers constantly. But there is 99.999999..% chance that you win in lottery if you have indefinite amount of time to play it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The entire verse as posted isn't mentioned at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm), but some of it is.
Some more here (http://people.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus.htm) and here (http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus.htm).
Regardless, I have no faith in the "prophecy" of Nostradamus on anything else either.
Wha...? You don't believe the phophet Ripsnortian when he said "and in the year of re-election, the Seattle Seahawks will go 11-5."
-
Farce or not.
It is at the very least interesting.
I have a prediction.
I predict tomorrow when you all wake up and look out side
There will be weather:)
-
I'd like to challenge Ripsnortians viewing....
sayin.....
"NAY, my crome dome machismo girly man, thy Hawks will faulter and look like a bunch of cheap tight fitting jockey Sheep Herders"
you can but concur, says so in my bowl of rice from which I make my predictions
-
From Hortlund:
"google on it. The statement is simply not true because there is no memory in random numbers."
I tend to disagree with you about randomness.
You see, if the dice(s) is/are thrown often enough, eventually you will get all numbers in the possible range. just a question of time.
However, that IMHO does not with Nostradamus'es words about the 20th century.
He mentions the 20th century a lot.
Any of you , try to make a computer program, based on the RND function, to make prophets about the 16th to the 20th century.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
You see, if the dice(s) is/are thrown often enough, eventually you will get all numbers in the possible range. just a question of time.
So you roll the dice 452,632 times and astonishingly, you have never rolled snake eyes. On the next roll, your odds of rolling snake eyes are still 1:36, no different from any of the other rolls.
Though the odds of rolling dice a half a million times and never rolling snake eyes is extremely small, the odds of each roll independantly remain the same, 1:36. It never changes.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, becuase when you reach a certain limit of probability, it is no longer physically possible to achieve it. Google on it.
Hmmm... been awhile since I studied statistics and probability, but I'm guessing that you're referencing some limit theorem that I don't recall.
Maybe DMF knows.
-
Nostradamus is like a sixteenth-century Miss Cleo.
Take something that will obviously happen (like...say....a fire in a big city), dress it up in vague cyptic-sounding speech, and BAM, half the people (the gullible half) instantly think of you as some sort of psychic.
I'm still waiting on one of these self-proclaimed clairvoyants to correctly predict the big lottery for me two or three weeks in a row.
J_A_B
-
In the year 1999, high above Macross Island in the South Pacific, a phenominal event ocurred in the skies which altered the course of human history
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
the odds of each roll independantly remain the same, 1:36. It never changes.
Which is not what the initial example was about. If my chances of scoring in basketball is 50% and i get 3 throws, my chances of succeeding atleast once is 87.5%.
-
There is however a chance you could miss all three.
If you took a thousand shots there is still a slight chance that you could miss all of them.
Probability remains uncertain. No matter how many times you shoot, the possibility that you make just one of however many times you try never achieves 100%.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
google on it. The statement is simply not true because there is no memory in random numbers.
The same can be said for my statement then cant it? ;)
roll em enoght times and you will get there.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There is however a chance you could miss all three.
Yes, a 12.5% chance.
If you took a thousand shots there is still a slight chance that you could miss all of them.
[/b]
Of course, chance would be close to zero but nevertheless its present. Are you trying to prove something here?
-
I explained the statistical fallacy of the following statement:
You see, if the dice are thrown often enough, eventually you will get all numbers in the possible range. just a question of time.
Hortland correctly stated that there is no memory in random numbers.
A statement similar to the one above that would be correct is "The longer your series of throws of the dice, the greater your chance of covering all the combinations within that series." but the chance never attains dead bang certainty. If you want that last combination the chance of each throw is still 1:36.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A statement similar to the one above that would be correct is "The longer your series of throws of the dice, the greater your chance of covering all the combinations within that series." but the chance never attains dead bang certainty. If you want that last combination the chance of each throw is still 1:36.
But there is a problem with infinite throws, because the test stops only when all the numbers have been thrown. If there is only one possible outcome, then you dont have to even start throwing, you already know the result.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... been awhile since I studied statistics and probability, but I'm guessing that you're referencing some limit theorem that I don't recall.
Maybe DMF knows.
Okay... I'm guessing that some hypergeometric distribution applies.
DMF?
-
Holden and Hortlund are correct on the probability theories.
The likelyness of your numbers being a match do not increase with the number of times numbers are picked. You'd be just as likely to win (if not more likely) picking random numbers every time.
-
Discussion of Borel's Law
The first is Probability and Life, a 1962 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1943 as Le Probabilites et la Vie. The second is Probability and Certainty, a 1963 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1950 as Probabilite et Certitude. Both of these books are "science for the non-scientist" type books rather than scholarly treatments of the theory of probability.
In Probability and Life, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:
When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.
It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.
The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.
Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6 (one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".
To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).
To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1 inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.
Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.
-
Interesting...
The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.
In essence, Nilsen is arguing that it is mathematically possible while Borel's Law says it's so close to impossible, you might as well call it impossible.
Right?
-
You guys are placing the word "Will" into the place of the word called "May." Meaning that there are equal chances of a certain number being picked each time.
But don't forget to use murphy's law. Your lottery number will never get picked until you acknowledge that and change the number.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Interesting...
In essence, Nilsen is arguing that it is mathematically possible while Borel's Law says it's so close to impossible, you might as well call it impossible.
Right?
Actually, Nilsen is arguing that it is likely, not probable... given enough drawings. Borel's law says it's just as probabable (very very very very very unlikely) that it will happen... to the point of being impossible.
There is a difference... especially given the context of nilsen's statement.
-
The way I see it, Borels law is the Occhams razor of probabilities.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
In the year 1999, high above Macross Island in the South Pacific, a phenominal event ocurred in the skies which altered the course of human history
Great, just great, Zentraedi's.......
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Great, just great, Zentraedi's.......
oh, they don't show up until 10 years after the "Visitor" gets here. Since it hasn't gotten here yet, the countdown until they show up hasn't started. ;)
Then, are you gonna go by the Harmony Gold version (Masters and Invid) or the regular versions of Macross, II, and Plus? :)
As for the probability stuff, it just depends on if Borel's Law would apply to the 1:22,957,480 odds of say the Florida Lottery, and also how you interpret the Law. If you interpret "negligible probability" to mean "at this probability, this event will NEVER happen" then Borel's Law does NOT apply to a lottery. Simple explanation is the fact people do win lotteries, so obviously their numbers have been picked.
So, 1:22,957,480 odds for a lottery, IMO, does not fall under Borel's Law. The chance is not small enough to say that it will never happen. Again, it seems that what the law applies to and when it applies are subjective.
-
Actually, that's a missinterpretation.
Most (nearly all) people playing the lottery will never wind. If they lived to be a million and the lottery were running during that time, they'd still never win. That's what makes the statement "if I kept playing the same lottery numbers eventually I'd win" wrong. Most likely, you'd never win.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
oh, they don't show up until 10 years after the "Visitor" gets here. Since it hasn't gotten here yet, the countdown until they show up hasn't started. ;)
Then, are you gonna go by the Harmony Gold version (Masters and Invid) or the regular versions of Macross, II, and Plus? :)
I am in fact preparing to contact Roy Fokker and Rick Hunter. Minmei I heard is busy