Rainbows above the Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle at the Moment of the Queen's Death

[LilWabbit]

what about "a type of" is unclear to you?

What about "a real-valued random variable" is unclear to you? The discussion was about whether a Gaussian distribution concerns random variables. It does.

 

[Mendel]

(1) The probability that the rainbow would be visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle is roughly the same as at any other spot roughly within the same unpredictable weather system at the time.

(2) Due to 1, statistically the rainbow is regularly visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle after somewhat long intervals due to the low frequency of their appearance.

(2) is a non sequitur. The interval between me encountering a bagpiper is long on average, but the median is quite short as bagpipers often come in groups. The frequency of appearance allows no conclusion as to the distribution of appearances of rainbows.

Specifically, if the weather conditions are right (e.g. in the month of September), they can appear frequently and at many locations.

 

[Mendel]

What about "a real-valued random variable" is unclear to you? The discussion was about whether a Gaussian distribution concerns random variables. It does.

no, @jplaza's point was that you're describing a different type of real-valued random variable, and that calling it "Gaussian" is a mistake.

normally, this wouldn't matter much, but you keep insisting you're right, which reinforces the appearance that you don't know what you're talking about, but won't admit to it (i.e. you're bluffing)

 

[FatPhil]

@LilWabbit how likely is it that a superpower causes all rainbows in Britain all the time?

Unless there's something physically different about last week's one and previous ones, common cause is the only parsimonious conclusion. If so, what did the previous thousand rainbows represent? Do we get 10000 days of post-dated mourning, or do they all have to be taken simultaneously? And why did he snub Scotland, that's still unanswered; the place where the Queen chose to end her days - is that aspect not important to this superpower?

 

[FatPhil]

Not a claim anyone has made.

Whether only some are, or they all are, caused by superpower intervention is a direct consequence of claims that have been made: namely that there could be at least one insance of a superpower bringing about one rainbow for symbolic reasons. Do not propose that extraordinary claim, and the some/all dichotomy evaporates. Propose that claim, and you reify the question.

 

[AmberRobot]

In short, 'intelligence' and 'power over physics' are logically reasonable components of the deterministic contraposition to chance in this particular case.

Had the rainbow appeared on a clear day with no raindrops in the sky then I’d be impressed by the claim of “power over physics”.

 

[LilWabbit]

(2) is a non sequitur. The interval between me encountering a bagpiper is long on average, but the median is quite short as bagpipers often come in groups.

An actual non sequitur in response to an alleged one.

The frequency of appearance allows no conclusion as to the distribution of appearances of rainbows.

No such conclusions have been made.

Specifically, if the weather conditions are right (e.g. in the month of September), they can appear frequently and at many locations.

That's a possiblity indeed. Now we need data to support such a claim. At the moment the rough data we have doesn't suggest they're all that frequent and all that concurrent at different locations.

 

[FatPhil]

Gaussian distribution in the way it was applied in my argument means two things:

(1) The probability that the rainbow would be visible at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle is

a discrete random variable: visible or not visible. Continuous random variables, and their distributions, do not apply here. The change of the probability of visibility dependent on geographical location is not a "probability distribution".

Normals may appear everywhere when you start averaging large groups of data, as per the Central Limit Theorem, but that doesn't mean normals appear everywhere.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm assuming the death of monarchs and rainbow appearances are more or less random variables. Obviously, using the Gaussian model here is a theoretical approximation of a more nuanced real-world variable, employed as a rough tool.

Monarchs' deaths are pretty much an exemplar for the Poisson distribution. And when lambda is so low - not many monarchs would be expected to die per day - Poissons are almost as different from Gaussians as it's possible to be, with their reciprocal skew and kurtosis.

 

[LilWabbit]

Discrete uniform distribution is the proper word for the probability distribution partially applicable to rainbows and the deaths of monarchs I was describing. Not Gaussian/normal. Thanks for the correction @jplaza.

 

[LilWabbit]

Monarchs' deaths are pretty much an exemplar for the Poisson distribution. And when lambda is so low - not many monarchs would be expected to die per day - Poissons are almost as different from Gaussians as it's possible to be, with their reciprocal skew and kurtosis.

But wouldn't you say the death of monarchs is a discrete uniform distribution in terms of the historical locations and times of death? As a theoretical model, they could die just as likely in England on the 8 September 1315 as they would in France or China? And a monarch on planet earth could just as likely die on 8 September 1315 as he/she would on the 9th?

 

[LilWabbit]

Whether only some are, or they all are, caused by superpower intervention is a direct consequence of claims that have been made: namely that there could be at least one insance of a superpower bringing about one rainbow for symbolic reasons. Do not propose that extraordinary claim, and the some/all dichotomy evaporates. Propose that claim, and you reify the question.

No claim of a divine intervention of even one of those co-occurrences has been made. A claim of intelligent design was made as a deterministic contraposition to the claim of chance. Design and intervention are very different things.

 

[Ann K]

'Pink unicorns' is actually quite a cheap shot and a trite strawman, I would've expected a more reasonable counter-point from you. I

I'm appalled that you cannot see the resemblance between pink unicorns and a powerful "intelligence". The two are equally invisible, equally evidence-free for their existence, and equally devoid of any plausible mechanism by which to influence either atmospheric conditions or the timing thereof.

 

[FatPhil]

But wouldn't you say the death of monarchs is a discrete uniform distribution in terms of the historical locations and times of death? As a theoretical model, they could die just as likely in England on the 8 September 1315 as they would in France or China? And a monarch on planet earth could just as likely die on 8 September 1315 as he/she would on the 9th?

Geographical location of death appears to be irrelevant - given the corroborated evidence we have at hand.

I'm saying that over time it's a Poisson distribution. You appear to be trying to say the same thing, but not having the right vocabulary for it.

 

[Mauro]

That's a possiblity indeed. Now we need data to support such a claim. At the moment the rough data we have doesn't suggest they're all that frequent and all that concurrent at different locations.

'We' don't need any data. You need data to support your claim (and I have seen none).

 

[FatPhil]

No claim of a divine intervention of even one of those co-occurrences has been made.

Yet in post #1, you said: "I have no personal commitment whatsoever to the claim that these rainbows are a sign."

 

[LilWabbit]

Yet in post #1, you said: "I have no personal commitment whatsoever to the claim that these rainbows are a sign."

And that statement holds.

Not having a commitment to either claim doesn't mean I glibly dismiss either because of bias either way. I'm genuinely interested in exploring both.

 

[LilWabbit]

Geographical location of death appears to be irrelevant - given the corroborated evidence we have at hand.

I'm saying that over time it's a Poisson distribution. You appear to be trying to say the same thing, but not having the right vocabulary for it.

But isn't Poisson distribution a kind of uniform distribution overtime?

What I'm looking for is the proper name for a probability distribution characterizable as equiprobability of a monarch's death at any date.

 

[LilWabbit]

I'm appalled that you cannot see the resemblance between pink unicorns and a powerful "intelligence". The two are equally invisible, equally evidence-free for their existence, and equally devoid of any plausible mechanism by which to influence either atmospheric conditions or the timing thereof.

So no, you're not addressing any explicit points I've made but rather your own caricatures and strawmen. Whether some sort of an 'intelligence' as the origin of seeming design in existence and a pink unicorn fall under the same epistemological category is a separate discussion and in no way disproves the contraposition outlined for this specific case.

However, if you cannot see any bias of your own at play in your consistent trivialization of the mourners' meaningful experience of a 'sign from heaven' as just another Pink Unicorn claim, then we have very little to work with. But at least this discussion provides interesting back-and-forths for the anonymous viewer.

 

[LilWabbit]

I'm not very woke but if I were, what's the gender-neutral formulation of strawman?

A straw person?

 

[Ann K]

So no, you're not addressing any explicit points I've made but rather your own caricatures and strawmen. Whether some sort of an 'intelligence' as the origin of seeming design in existence and a pink unicorn fall under the same epistemological category is a separate discussion and in no way disproves the contraposition outlined for this specific case.

However, if you cannot see any bias of your own at play in your consistent trivialization of the mourners' meaningful experience of a 'sign from heaven' as just another Pink Unicorn claim, then we have very little to work with. But at least this discussion provides interesting back-and-forths for the anonymous viewer.

They're your words, lilrabbit: (From post number 102)
"Logically, it's either (1) a very unlikely chance occurrence or, by contraposition, (2) more likely a purposefully timed appearance orchestrated by 'something intelligent and powerful' whatever that may be (the specifics are irrelevant)."

I have never trivialized the mourners, but I plead guilty to trivializing what seems to be your pretense of "I'm just asking questions" as a means of claiming validity for your views, while never acknowledging or accepting what others have to say on the subject. It seems that you really don't want hard answers to your ever-changing but fuzzily phrased questions.

Over and out.

 

[LilWabbit]

They're your words, lilrabbit:
"Logically, it's either (1) a very unlikely chance occurrence or, by contraposition, (2) more likely a purposefully timed appearance orchestrated by 'something intelligent and powerful' whatever that may be (the specifics are irrelevant)."

That's the contraposition based on limited data, yes. But we don't have sufficient data to really back it up. More data may swing these probabilities around. How does your 'pink unicorns are silly and gods are equally silly' trope disprove that these are the logically alternative claims?

Such a mode of argumentation is beating 'strawpeople' to a pulp to defend your own bias that is feeling threatened and triggered. Me pointing this out does not translate into me claiming validity to the 'sign' claim. That's another 'strawperson'. I've only called for focus and giving the matter more serious thought.

If there are 'hard answers' that actually resolve or disprove the specific points raised, they remain to be presented.

ever-changing

The gist of the OP question has never changed nor lost relevance. Whether a rainbow 'appears' above or right in front of the Buckingham Palace, or whether they coincide the Queen's death or it's public announcement 2 hrs later, is a case in point in having little impact on the main semantic content of the claims.

But to latch on to them as if they somehow significantly change the main question is in itself an indication of an emotional compulsion to find any excuse to ignore a personally uncomfortable brand of claims (confirmation bias), no matter how reasonable they be.

 

[FatPhil]

How does your 'pink unicorns are silly and gods are equally silly' trope disprove that these are the logically alternative claims?

Because it demonstrates that if you wish to have a scientific argument in the twenty-first century, if you want to bring *either* of those two things into the discussion, then you need *extraordinary evidence*.

"There was a rainbow" is not extraordinary. It's mundane.

Noone's saying the two alternatives aren't alternatives, we're just saying your probabilities are not supported by the world of modern science.

 

[deirdre]

And why did he snub Scotland, that's still unanswered; the place where the Queen chose to end her days - is that aspect not important to this superpower?

Lil rabbit never said superpower.

Granted he muddied the thread with the use of the word divine. But in his comment about "intelligence and power", he never said divine or super power.

*cloud seeding is "powerful" and intelligent. (when done purposefully by man, i'm not referring to Mother Nature now)

The gist of the OP question has never changed nor lost relevance

yes it has.
There's a huge difference between:
is this a rare occurrence?
is this a rare occurrence that is divine?
is this a rare occurrence that suggests intelligence? (much different from divine, the crowd themselves could have invoked it and they are not divine. Prince Philip is not divine. etc) ie. a sign.

etc.
I told you you shouldn't have brought up the God stuff (ie divine) in this thread.

That said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because i didnt spend 20 hours searching all sites for rainbows doesn't prove there arent 50 "double rainbow over Buckingham Palace" pics on AP Images or the palaces own social media feeds.

It's the same premise as when i told you: just because 2 barely known websites suggest "heavenly" explanations does not mean the majority (or even many) of people see the rainbow as a sign of the divine. I doubt many people who believe in God actually think God can tell the difference between a Queen and a pauper, or the Queen and a healthcare worker.

Plus even if the rainbow IS exceedingly rare and IS a 'sign" (of peace etc) there really is nothing to prove the rainbow came because of her death. It is just as likely her death came that particular afternoon because of the future rainbow. Now psychic abilities are not "intelligent" or "powerful".. they just "are".

 

[FatPhil]

Lil rabbit never said superpower.

He used "... hypothesis of an intelligent timing by 'a higher power'" on the front page.

The "scarequotes" are just a gloss for a more wordy "what might be called 'the quoted thing'", which implied that he's not particularly attached to that particular phrase, and accepts that other people might call it something slightly different. (For example, he might not call his use of quotes "scarequotes", which is fine.)
Mendel changed it to "superpower", IIRC, and I don't seem to remember that causing any confusion until now. When Mendel says "superpower", he means the same as when Lil Wabbit says "a higher power". Or at least that's how I interpret them both. We all simply mean some agent outside the realm of naturalistic explanation. Fussing over which specific term is used to refer to the same concept looks like an unnecessary derailing of the thread even more than it is already.

 

[LilWabbit]

Because it demonstrates that if you wish to have a scientific argument in the twenty-first century, if you want to bring *either* of those two things into the discussion, then you need *extraordinary evidence*.

While we fully agree that all scientific claims require sound objective evidence to back them up, Carl Sagan's popular slogan, whilst poignantly poetic, is not an established scientific standard. Sagan's slogan is often misused by populist science writers/personas to describe science operating as some infallible arbiter between outlandish and mundane claims. Science is not about brokering between extraordinary and unextraordinary claims regarding headline-making popular events, which we subsequently need to support with evidence by the courtesy of Google and Flickr. That's what happens only on vitriolic Facebook and MetaBunk debates between valiant internet warriors the likes of me and you who perhaps think they're more clever than they actually are.

In classical natural science we have a carefully observed phenomenon in need of an internally consistent logical explanation which is also fully consistent with all the observations. The best explanations are able to predict measurement outcomes. There're always rival logical explanations to the same set of facts / phenomenon. As long as they are parsimonious, consistent with the facts and internally consistent, they're all worth exploring without bias, irrespective of how extraordinary or unextraordinary they subjectively feel to a particular scientist.

In our case, we have a seemingly extraordinary observable phenomenon. A seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence of beautiful rainbows, royal palaces and royal deaths. If it indeed were just a rainbow appearing on any other rainy September day of no significance, right above Auntie Pat's cabbage patch, then your "there was a rainbow" obfuscation of the phenomenon at issue would be an accurate description of a mundane state of affairs. But it wasn't Auntie Pat's cabbage patch on Sunday afternoon, was it.

Chance and determinism have been outlined as the two logical contrapositions to explain this seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence. If there's a third one, let me know. The properties of 'intelligent design' and 'power over physics' are reasonable components of any deterministic (non-chancy) hypothesis where some unknown non-random deterministic process seems to bring together a sociopolitically significant event and an awe-inspiring natural event with uncanny timing. And the co-occurrence of which reminds a casual observer of a commemoration at human funerals but now on a grander scale with nature taking part. The OP suggests that this is a reasonable alternative claim to chance rather than just a delusional one such as a pink unicorn farting bubbles in the sky. However, all further talk about 'gods' or 'divine' is unparsimonious at this point. There's simply no scientific need to go there, nor to prove them as fuller theoretical constructs. Which is what you are unreasonably insisting. We only need to focus on the said specific theoretical 'properties', rather than any hypothetical theological beings and entities people may speculate these properties to belong to.

My task is done if an intellectually honest reader of this discussion is able to see that both of the presented claims, if he/she really reads them with thought as described in the above, are logical and reasonable, even if neither can be proven with sufficient objective evidence. The fact that many of the regulars on MB won't gel well with 'intelligent design' is to be expected.

Maybe the universe has been brilliantly calibrated in just the right way for two random events (the official announcement following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and rainbows appearing at her chief seats of reign) to meaningfully coincide on 8 September 2022 at 1830 hrs, without any need for a deus ex machina 'divine intervention' to manipulate the laws of physics. But it would still be intelligent design/calibration. Maybe that same brilliant calibration has had, and will have, similar uncanny co-occurrences in store for rare occasions. But if not, that's fine too. Then the co-occurrence in question was just an amazing coincidence. And not even all that amazing if indeed rainbows appearing at Buckingham Palace on a September afternoon are a daily occurrence.

In short, 'intelligence' and 'power over physics' are logically reasonable components of the deterministic contraposition to chance in this particular case. God/Atman/Gaia/Earth Mother/Iluvatar/The Universe/The Cosmic Consciousness/What Have You are unnecessary and unprovable further speculations.

 

[FatPhil]

In our case, we have a seemingly extraordinary observable phenomenon.

You have repeatedly made claims as false as that in this thread and I reject them all as entirely unsupportable.

It's just a rainbow. It's not extraordinary, nor does it seem that way to anyone I would consider rational.

But you've now made me repeat myself, and I refuse to get stuck in a loop, so like Ann K, I'm out.

 

[Ravi]

While we fully agree that all scientific claims require sound objective evidence to back them up, Carl Sagan's popular slogan, whilst poignantly poetic, is not an established scientific standard. Sagan's slogan is often misused by populist science writers/personas to describe science operating as some infallible arbiter between outlandish and mundane claims. Science is not about brokering between extraordinary and unextraordinary claims regarding headline-making popular events, which we subsequently need to support with evidence by the courtesy of Google and Flickr. That's what happens only on vitriolic Facebook and MetaBunk debates between valiant internet warriors the likes of me and you who perhaps think they're more clever than they actually are.

In classical natural science we have a carefully observed phenomenon in need of an internally consistent logical explanation which is also fully consistent with all the observations. The best explanations are able to predict measurement outcomes. There're always rival logical explanations to the same set of facts / phenomenon. As long as they are parsimonious, consistent with the facts and internally consistent, they're all worth exploring without bias, irrespective of how extraordinary or unextraordinary they subjectively feel to a particular scientist.

In our case, we have a seemingly extraordinary observable phenomenon. A seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence of beautiful rainbows, royal palaces and royal deaths. If it indeed were just a rainbow appearing on any other rainy September day of no significance, right above Auntie Pat's cabbage patch, then your "there was a rainbow" obfuscation of the phenomenon at issue would be an accurate description of a mundane state of affairs. But it wasn't Auntie Pat's cabbage patch on Sunday afternoon, was it.

Chance and determinism have been outlined as the two logical contrapositions to explain this seemingly extraordinary co-occurrence. If there's a third one, let me know. The properties of 'intelligent design' and 'power over physics' are reasonable components of any deterministic (non-chancy) hypothesis where some unknown non-random deterministic process seems to bring together a sociopolitically significant event and an awe-inspiring natural event with uncanny timing. And the co-occurrence of which reminds a casual observer of a commemoration at human funerals but now on a grander scale with nature taking part. The OP suggests that this is a reasonable alternative claim to chance rather than just a delusional one such as a pink unicorn farting bubbles in the sky. However, all further talk about 'gods' or 'divine' is unparsimonious at this point. There's simply no scientific need to go there, nor to prove them as fuller theoretical constructs. Which is what you are unreasonably insisting. We only need to focus on the said specific theoretical 'properties', rather than any hypothetical theological beings and entities people may speculate these properties to belong to.

My task is done if an intellectually honest reader of this discussion is able to see that both of the presented claims, if he/she really reads them with thought as described in the above, are logical and reasonable, even if neither can be proven with sufficient objective evidence. The fact that many of the regulars on MB won't gel well with 'intelligent design' is to be expected.

Maybe the universe has been brilliantly calibrated in just the right way for two random events (the official announcement of the death of Queen Elizabeth II and rainbows appearing at her chief seats of reign) to meaningfully coincide on 8 September 2022 at 1830 hrs, without any need for a deus ex machina 'divine intervention' to manipulate the laws of physics. But it would still be intelligent design/calibration. Maybe that same brilliant calibration has had, and will have, similar uncanny co-occurrences in store for rare occasions. But if not, that's fine too. Then the co-occurrence in question was just an amazing coincidence. And not even all that amazing if indeed rainbows appearing at Buckingham Palace on a September afternoon are a daily occurrence.

In short, 'intelligence' and 'power over physics' are logically reasonable components of the deterministic contraposition to chance in this particular case. God/Atman/Gaia/Earth Mother/Iluvatar/The Universe/The Cosmic Consciousness/What Have You are unnecessary and unprovable further speculations.

Sorry this whole post makes no sense to me. Absolutely none. I don't even know where to start.

 

[LilWabbit]

It's just a rainbow. It's not extraordinary, nor does it seem that way to anyone I would consider rational.

"Seemingly" extraordinary was the qualifier I used.

What seems extraordinary about the situation to a rational and unbiased observer isn't just a rainbow as an isolated fact. Which he/she knows full well is unextraordinary.

 

[deirdre]

We all simply mean some agent outside the realm of naturalistic explanation. Fussing over which specific term is used to refer to the same concept looks like an unnecessary derailing of the thread even more than it is already.

that's fine, except you said "he" snubbed Scotland.
Just pointing out that Mendel changed rabbits "intelligent and powerful" to superpower. then you added a he.

Sorry this whole post makes no sense to me. Absolutely none. I don't even know where to start.

lol. right?

 

[deirdre]

It's just a rainbow. It's not extraordinary,

then debunk his claim that a double rainbow at Buckingham Palace is extraordinary. I'm sure you can find some evidence (pictures) to back up your counterclaim, instead of just arguing opinions.

p.s if its not extrordinary then why did basically the entire press corp worldwide report on it? using your words

It's not extraordinary, nor does it seem that way to anyone I would consider rational.

ther eare a heck of alot of irrational news outlets out there.

 

[jplaza]

then debunk his claim that a double rainbow at Buckingham Palace is extraordinary. I'm sure you can find some evidence (pictures) to back up your counterclaim, instead of just arguing opinions.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/optical-effects/rainbows/double-rainbows

A double rainbow is a wonderful sight where you get two spectacular natural displays for the price of one.

Surprisingly, this phenomenon is actually relatively common, especially at times when the sun is low in the sky such as in the early morning or late afternoon.

Content from External Source

 

[FatPhil]

that's fine, except you said "he" snubbed Scotland.
Just pointing out that Mendel changed rabbits "intelligent and powerful" to superpower. then you added a he.

Mendel's change is not an important semantic change at all - what attributes does LilWabbit's entity have that Mendel's doesn't? Then again I've already made this point. Stop trying to Ouroboros subthreads, please.

Then again, that's less of a complaint than I have for your second utter derailing attempt, which appears to have nothing to do with anything. Personal characteristics were being attributed to this entity, so "he" is a perfectly valid semantically-singular sex-indefinite pronoun to refer to it in English. It's a shame English no longer has a male-specific pronoun, in particularly as singular "they" was also available for gender-neutral use, but that's not a problem with the language I think can be fixed any more, the sex-indefinite "he" works well enough. It worked for the Greeks too, it seems a pragmatic solution. And all of that is completely off-topic for this thread, please stop these pointless deviations.

 

[deirdre]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/optical-effects/rainbows/double-rainbows

A double rainbow is a wonderful sight where you get two spectacular natural displays for the price of one.

Surprisingly, this phenomenon is actually relatively common, especially at times when the sun is low in the sky such as in the early morning or late afternoon.

Content from External Source

we're all aware of the general science. Now show it is "relatively common" at Buckingham Palace.

 

[deirdre]

that's less of a complaint than I have for your second utter derailing attempt, which appears to have nothing to do with anything.

give me a break. youre the one who brought up "Him" and "snubbing Scotland". Am i not allowed to complain about YOUR derailments? Be fair.

 

[FatPhil]

give me a break. youre the one who brought up "Him" and "snubbing Scotland". Am i not allowed to complain about YOUR derailments? Be fair.

Snubbing Scotland is not a derailment - I still consider it one of the simplest arguments that the rainbow in a different nation was nothing to do with the Queen's death, and merely a coincidence, and o far it's looked pretty unassailable.

And on the word-usage thing, now you're just thrashing. I did not *bring up* "him" - you did. I merely *used* "him" the word, as a perfectly valid pronoun for the context. You failed to understand English pronoun usage, and went off on a pointless rant. Your complaint was nothing more than "you ascribed gender to an entity about which we know nothing, not even its existence", and my respose is "wrong - learn some English grammar". Which I notice you're refusing to do.

And for a final stab - at no point did I capitalise "Him" - that's a fabrication purely of your own.

No break given. Stop doing this to yourself.

 

[jplaza]

we're all aware of the general science. Now show it is "relatively common" at Buckingham Palace.

Define "relatively common". Respect to what?

Spotting rainbows from Buckingham Palace is more or less frequent/rare than Westminster? Greenwich? Dover? Why are Buckingham/Windsor special?

I had a look at the cloud cover at England on 8th Sep, 17:30 UTC (18:30 London time). White/gray regions are clouds. Green regions are clear sky. Dark blue are clear sky over sea. Light blue means rain at ground level.

The sun was at an azimuth of 268º (ray lights coming from West). I don't think it is enough to conclude where a rainbow can be seem from, but I guess it sets a minimum condition: to have an opening in the sky by which light can be reflected on the droplets of a cloud to the ground to create a rainbow.

Anyway, the opening goes all the way from London to South East England. And there also some other openings. So from all those places there a rainbow might be seen. What's special about Buckingham/Windsor?

Looking at previous times, the clouds are moving counter clockwise, and even if the openings vary on size, the London-to-SE England one existed one hour before the announcement of the death.

 

[LilWabbit]

Some more maps indicating cloud cover over England and Southern England at 1730 hrs UTC (1830 hrs London time) on 8 September 2022. Windsor is roughly at Slough. Difficult to come by sharper maps indicating microclimates and small clouds.





It's impossible to draw conclusions on the probability of seeing rainbows based on these maps, but they do indicate a lot of choppy cloud cover over Southern England.

I would also like to revisit the matter of probability distributions and why the Normal/Gaussian Distribution also came to mind earlier (visually) with its bell-curve, whilst inapplicable to the specific variable of rainbow appearances and me confusing terms.

If the historical frequency of the 2 somewhat random variables deaths of monarchs and rainbows appearing at the seats of their reign roughly follows Discrete Uniform Distribution overtime and/or Poisson Distribution;

Does the probability distribution of days when the two variables fail to coincide on the same day follow roughly the Gaussian/Normal Distribution with a low standard deviation or just another Uniform Distribution? (Ignoring for a moment the non-trivial fact that the 8 September coincidence occurred not only within the same day but within minutes of the official announcement).

In other words, most of the values in the resulting bell-curve (unless it's a not a bell-curve but rather a uniform distribution with a pyramid-like graph), indicating the probability of coincidence within a fixed time-period, say a week or a month, tend to be close to the mean (a low standard deviation) of 0 likelihood of coincidence while the likelihood of coincidence increases as we move either backwards (left) or forwards (right) along the time coordinate (x) by centuries or millennia from a particular documented coincidence.

I guess Binomial Distribution could also present the same data in a different manner. Open to corrections.

 

[LilWabbit]

A NASA Earth Data satellite picture (cross marks London):

 

[Ann K]

Define "relatively common". Respect to what?

Spotting rainbows from Buckingham Palace is more or less frequent/rare than Westminster? Greenwich? Dover? Why are Buckingham/Windsor special?

If you'll permit a childish simplification, here's a quick and dirty sketch made from the weather map of the USA yesterday. The essential requirements are rain, the end of the cloud cover, and the sun low enough to come underneath. It wasn't a completely solid rain cloud, but fairly close.

But ... this one particular band stretched from Tallahassee, Florida to Washington DC at the time I looked at the weather map, roughly a distance greater than Land's End to John O'Groats, and rainbows would have been in sight of many, many millions of people, had they looked out the window. And, of course, every single one of them would have seen it in a different place. The one over the farmer's cowshed would have been no different from the one over the Capitol.