Joined: February 12th, 2006, 3:56 am

February 2nd, 2009, 9:08 am #31

Feel free to ignore the people you don't like Hawk, I do exactly the same.


But for the record, I was not trying to discourage you, I was simply stating why you could not use the numbers and calculations you were, and someone else
explained it in a different manner as well.




As far as not adding to your idea, of course I didn't, the only way I could have would have been to go look up the data and no I am not THAT interested in
your project that I'm going to look up all the necessary data for you.




You're an intelligent person Hawk, but you're not a mathematician so I don't see why you're reacting the way you are to this threads replies
when people tell you about the flaws in your calculations.
"Take care, feed your head"- Xandro
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 15th, 2005, 2:04 am

February 2nd, 2009, 2:58 pm #32

Daimon, I'll say this.




We're dealing with THEORETICAL mathematics, using a THEORETICAL equation that results in a THEORETICAL estimate based on the data provided.




For the record Frank Drake was not a mathematician either. The equation itself DOES NOT determine a precise nor reliable result even for the context it was
originally intended, but then that's not the purpose of the result. The Drake Equation gives it's result in uncertainties. Ultimately, it is not an
applied physics equation, or an applied calculus equation. We're not trying to find the exact time Train A will crash into Train B. These are estimates.
This is theory. Theory doesn't need accuracy. Theories turn out wrong all the time, and some that were once thought wrong have been proven true later on.
This prattle about hard data is meaningless to the concept of theory. Hard data is only relevant to fact. We're not trying to determine fact, we're
trying to determine theory that could possibly result in fact with some tinkering.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 20th, 2002, 12:57 am

February 2nd, 2009, 5:02 pm #33

You're an intelligent person Hawk, but you're not a mathematician so I don't see why you're reacting the way you are to this threads replies
when people tell you about the flaws in your calculations.
Actually.. yes he is, lol. He has been an engineer since long before you were born, dear Dai, lol!
Quote
Like
Share

Guest
Guest

February 2nd, 2009, 6:55 pm #34

I would be interested to know what you think of Harlot's analysis and suggestions Darkfire. Do you agree with his proposed changes to the equations?


T
Quote
Share

Joined: March 15th, 2005, 2:04 am

February 2nd, 2009, 7:28 pm #35

I don't think that those variables are necessarily unnecessary...they serve to construct a diminishing estimate. I don't think it would be unrealistic,
for the purposes of theory, to assume that n% of all births have the "potential" to be vampires, and then n% of that number developing into a vamp,
and then n% of that number being public in the community.
Quote
Like
Share

Guest
Guest

February 3rd, 2009, 8:10 pm #36

if anyone wants to complain that THEORY is supposed to be based on hard data and/or observation, then let's just say it's HYPOTHETICAL.




can we all agree this is a HYPOTHESIS?
Quote
Share

Joined: August 15th, 2005, 10:40 pm

February 4th, 2009, 1:42 am #37

I do accept that it is a theorem. My issues were with certain assumptions that may have some validity to the unknowns of astro-physics but have no relevance to
lives in being (or lives past).




As I said, if we had an anchor (such as an estimate of the number of people alive now that are vampyres) then the theorem has validity and can be used. My
comments were in relation to certain assumptions that I do not see as valid in the context.




I am not trying to rubbish the idea. If I were, I would not have gone to the trouble of pointing out why I see certain of the assumptions as invalid and
suggesting an alternative (an anchor).




I quite like the idea, I just think there is a necessary element missing. The anchor I suggested is not necessarily the only possible anchor, it was merely the
obvious one to me at the time of writing.
Quote
Like
Share

Guest
Guest

February 6th, 2009, 12:51 pm #38

Thank you for the input so far... everything useful here has been taken into account and is being worked with. The
differences between hypothesis and theory are, in my opinion, relatively small and if a person does not want to examine the "question" then that is their perogative. I would hope that people who don't want to know about this won't bother
looking in and we can exchange ideas freely without fear of having to sidetrack into pointless debate about unsupported/able opinions.




In any consideration such as this the first thing that becomes apparent is the flexibility of variables... the apparent lack of "anchors". in
discovering and applying more anchors over time a stability and reliability can be built into the proposal. For the moment I am working a series of
calculations using modifiers suggested by Harlot's post. Until I have something further to go on I believe there are over 810,000 vampyres in the world
today. (subject to revision at any time)


With compliments,


T
Quote
Share

Joined: July 20th, 2017, 8:23 pm

October 19th, 2017, 2:34 pm #39

Good morning,
I trust everyone is well?

Well, 2009 to 2017, eight years time difference and now there are literally dozens of estimates bandied about the place as to Vampire population; including estimates on how to get rid of it quick and estimates on how long it would take us to rid the planet of mundanes... LOL

Lot's of data to plug in now with the benefit of a) hindsight, b) academic studies and c) the estimations of "knowledgeable" and well-known figures in the culture.

I'm blowing the dust off and seeing where we can get to now.

Yup, I've kept the complete transcript of our discussion here for all those years and every now and then I've opened it up, re-read it all and then watched for pertinent information to come along. Long time between drinks... 😉
Blessings,
T
"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream"
~ E.A. Poe ~
Quote
Like
Share