Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Hi Gary,

To translate what you say above to "statistic-speak," you and others claim that there are apparent associations between patterns of stars and geographic locations. Such associations might yield a positive correlation of somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8. A positive correlation of 0.5 would account for 25% of the variance; a positive correlation of 0.8 would account for 64%. 0.9 would account for 81% and 1.0 wuld equal 100%. You wouldn't expect much higher than 0.8 because you are aware of inaccuracies both with angles and distance as well as changing patterns in the sky over time.

I think that one could break down the 7 sided figure you describe into angles and distances (convert the angles and distances into percentages and treat each angle/distance as part of one's sample). One then could carry out a Pearson product moment correlation of such a sample to get an actual correlation coefficient, r. One could also do a regression analysis with variations in star patterns over time--and test the regression for significance.

It wouldn't be saying much beyond what you've already been saying, but I think that many would find it interesting.

Ray

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Orion's Global Legacy 1102 gadavid 26-Apr-18 21:40
correlation 128 drrayeye 01-May-18 05:19
Re: correlation 127 gadavid 01-May-18 17:43
Re: correlation 104 drrayeye 02-May-18 00:25
Re: correlation 181 gadavid 02-May-18 18:37


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.