Monday, 28 March 2011

The Statistical Probability?

In my last blog on Long Barrow navigational markers we will look at the mathematical probability of these unique ancient monuments only being found in this part of the world.

My last blog we showed that 'Long Barrows' are found in only 9 countries of the world and that the last northern ice cap that covered Europe was concentrated over the SAME 9 countries. Consequently, some well known Geologists have cried 'coincidence', but is it really? - only mathematics can prove us right or wrong!

The probability of a single country having 'Long Barrows' is simple calculation for there are 195 countries in the world - so the probability of just one having long barrows is 195 divided by 9 (number of counties with long barrows)- that's 22:1.  The odds of having a polar ice cap over your country in the last ice age is less as (although not impossible) the likelyhood is that the countries on the equator would be exempt - so we are looking for a figuare of half - lets say 10:1.

Therefore the chances of having a polar ice cap over a country that results in 'Long Barrows' is 220:1

The fact that 9 countries are together under the same ice and resulting in Long Barrow increases that figure by a factor of 9 - so the final probability of this happening at random is just under 2000 to 1.

So it's quite overwhelming  odds that we are correct!!
















5 comments:

  1. Robert,

    You write,

    “ … probability of this happening at random is just under 2000 to 1.

    So it's quite overwhelming  odds that we are correct!!” Correct about what?

    Robert, what this shows is that “ ...'Long Barrows' are found in only 9 countries of the world...” correlates well with “...the last northern ice cap that covered Europe...” . I agree with that, but don't agree with the navigational use of these long barrows that you claim.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you suggesting that the same 9 countries in the world have 'long barrows' and was covered by the last ice cap is a coincidence?

    To quote from the blog:

    "My last blog we showed that 'Long Barrows' are found in only 9 countries of the world and that the last northern ice cap that covered Europe was concentrated over the SAME 9 countries. Consequently, some well known Geologists have cried 'coincidence', but is it really? - only mathematics can prove us right or wrong!"

    Consequently, if my statistics are correct you are you have a 2000:1 chance of being right!! For that's the odds of it happening at random.

    As I explained at length how I got my figures - if you disagree with the odd statistics let me know what you believe to be incorrect and I will be happy to recalculate.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,

    It is easy to make a counter- argument against something that was not said or suggested!

    You write, “Are you suggesting that the same 9 countries in the world have 'long barrows' and was covered by the last ice cap is a coincidence?”

    No! This is NOT a coincidence, and I said so as much in my previous post! What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of what that means.

    You like it to mean that this somehow statistically proves the existence of some lost advanced civilization that 'constructed' these long barrows.

    What I am saying is that such long barrows could have been formed by Nature when the ice sheet melted.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  4. Long Barrows are Natural??

    They are boat shapped with moats surrounding them and stone built chambers in the rear enclosed by gigantic sarasen stones.

    Do you think round barrows are natural as well?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert,

    The defining difference between your theory and mine is that you believe that all the geomorphology associated with 'prehistoric monuments' were made by men, while I believe (and can convincingly argue) that ice and Nature played a far greater role in making these landmarks.

    Certainly there was some human intervention and effort involved. But not nearly to the extend that would require 'great technologically advanced lost civilizations'.

    Take, for example, the round barrows! These could have been formed by the natural soil and debris deposits made when melt water collected in cylindrical basins formed by an ice hole. Clearly, with water flowing into the basin from all around, the deposits would collect in the middle of the basin where there is less water flow. Thus forming the round conical barrows we see today.

    Robert, many excavations show that there is NOTHING inside these barrows other than dirt and what would naturally be carried and collect in them along with dirt!

    Of course, you can always let your imagination run wild and make up isolated explanations that are disjointed from the rest of History. But that's no different than explaining these by using 'extraterrestrial visitations' or 'magical Marlin wizards'.

    Robert, it's all explained at length in my article, "The un-Henging of Stonehenge" !

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete