Why are they blocking this out ? (part of space)

Lone Stone

So someone showed me this on google sky and told me told me has been blacked out on every simaler astronomy program's the exact same location of space is being covered up with a black "stary" patch in google sky,and just a blacked out box in wikinski, in this link i have the infared option turned on and you can clearly see what i think is a brown dwarf star in the center with soething orbiting it , but its blacked out only you can see the trail of the object orbiting it .

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=-8.05889&longitude=28.742499&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=1&mI=-1&oI=-1

Ive been searching around about it on the internet and alot of people seem to think its the planet nibiru "the the 10th planet" according to the sumerians.

What do you think ?

Lone Stone

Lone Stone wrote: »

So someone showed me this on google sky and told me told me has been blacked out on every simaler astronomy program's the exact same location of space is being covered up with a black "stary" patch in google sky,and just a blacked out box in wikinski, in this link i have the infared option turned on and you can clearly see what i think is a brown dwarf star in the center with soething orbiting it , but its blacked out only you can see the trail of the object orbiting it .

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=-8.05889&longitude=28.742499&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=1&mI=-1&oI=-1

Ive been searching around about it on the internet and alot of people seem to think its the planet nibiru "the the 10th planet" according to the sumerians.

What do you think ?

Because Google sky is made from a mosaic of images with the infrared image overlaid and there obviously isn't any infra-red images from that section of the sky. Probably interference from the object.
If you notice the historical overlay you'll see it's on the epileptic, so the object is probably a known planet.

What leads you to believe that it's a brown dwarf exactly?
And you realise that when something obits something it doesn't leave an infra-red trail right?

And why exactly didn't they censor out the entire thing if they're trying to hide it?
They haven't censored either the visible light one or the microwave one.

And how exactly do you hide a brown dwarf that's meant to be this close to the Earth?
Brown dwarfs are much much bigger than Jupiter. Surely some astronomer would notice it or at the least the effect of it's massive gravity on the other planets?

espinolman

Lone Stone wrote: »

So someone showed me this on google sky and told me told me has been blacked out on every simaler astronomy program's the exact same location of space is being covered up with a black "stary" patch in google sky,and just a blacked out box in wikinski, in this link i have the infared option turned on and you can clearly see what i think is a brown dwarf star in the center with soething orbiting it , but its blacked out only you can see the trail of the object orbiting it .

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=-8.05889&longitude=28.742499&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=1&mI=-1&oI=-1

Ive been searching around about it on the internet and alot of people seem to think its the planet nibiru "the the 10th planet" according to the sumerians.

What do you think ?

Do you know that Hoaglands hyperdimensional physics predicted that the sun would have a companion star orbiting it about the size of a brown dwarf star , you see the thing is accurate predictions have been made in the past with hyperdimensional physics concerning the outer planets .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Do you know that Hoaglands hyperdimensional physics predicted that the sun would have a companion star orbiting it about the size of a brown dwarf star , you see the thing is accurate predictions have been made in the past with hyperdimensional physics concerning the outer planets .

Translation nutbar Richard C. Hoagland makes up his own physics and uses it to back up his similarly nutbar ideas.

There is no scientific evidence that such a companion brown dwarf exists.
And even if it did, you wouldn't need "Hyperdimensional Physics" to predict it.
Normal, non-fictional physics would predict it just find.

Lone Stone

Ow i have no idea what it is , All i know is that its blacked out on google sky , wikiski & WWT , all accesable by anyone. If you enter the co-ordinates of it into google sky for example that area doesnt show up, It's only there if you find it manually. The other program's i mentioned have the area literaly blacked out with big ass black square. what i find interesting about the thing is that it has a tail and the planet nibiru in sumerian txt's was described as having a tail. and its in the orbit they have said it was in.

And there has been reports of strange gravational effects on other planets, And its not visable because its coming in from behind the sun, But there are people reporting seeing but i have no idea if there seeing nibiru or something else.

here i found this topic about it from google

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406335/pg1

hmm i guess we will find out in a about 2 years if it is nibiru then you can quickly post here and say dam you lone stone dam you for fore warning us about some thing we can do nothing about !!

thecommander

Lone Stone wrote: »

here i found this topic about it from google

Wouldn't you think that if Google were part of the conspiracy they'd delete any references to it in their search databases?

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Do you know that Hoaglands hyperdimensional physics predicted that the sun would have a companion star orbiting it about the size of a brown dwarf star , you see the thing is accurate predictions have been made in the past with hyperdimensional physics concerning the outer planets .

Pseudo-physics.

Lone Stone wrote: »

Ow i have no idea what it is , All i know is that its blacked out on google sky , wikiski & WWT , all accesable by anyone.

All of which, as far as I know, use the same source for their images.

If you enter the co-ordinates of it into google sky for example that area doesnt show up, It's only there if you find it manually. The other program's i mentioned have the area literaly blacked out with big ass black square.

It's not blacked out, it's just not there. Images like this, as KingMob has said, are made in a mosaic fashion. That isn't the only square missing, infact with a quick scroll around I can find a good few others.

what i find interesting about the thing is that it has a tail and the planet nibiru in sumerian txt's was described as having a tail.

Planets don't have tails.

and its in the orbit they have said it was in.

The Sumerians could predict and describe orbits without Newtonian and Keplerian physics? I have to say that's impressive.

And there has been reports of strange gravational effects on other planets

Which isn't unusual.

And its not visable because its coming in from behind the sun, But there are people reporting seeing but i have no idea if there seeing nibiru or something else.

It would still be visible, due to reflected light. Infact, if it was coming in from the opposite side of the Sun, relative to the Earth, it would be at its brightest. Unless of course you're saying it's obscured by the Sun, which is just baloney. What a complicated dance it would have to perform to remain obscured by the Sun while both the Earth and it moves in their own orbits.

Lone Stone

Lone Stone wrote: »

Ow i have no idea what it is , All i know is that its blacked out on google sky , wikiski & WWT , all accesable by anyone. If you enter the co-ordinates of it into google sky for example that area doesnt show up, It's only there if you find it manually. The other program's i mentioned have the area literaly blacked out with big ass black square.

But they're not blacked out, there just no infra red data.
The visible light data is still there.

If they were trying to hide it wouldn't they just hide it better than with an obvious black square?

And who is doing the blacking out exactly?

Lone Stone wrote: »

what i find interesting about the thing is that it has a tail and the planet nibiru in sumerian txt's was described as having a tail. and its in the orbit they have said it was in.

But you say that Niburu is behind the Sun how can this be it then?

Which Sumerian text describes it's orbit before orbits could be calculated?

Also brown dwarfs don't have a tail, neither do planets.

Lone Stone wrote: »

And there has been reports of strange gravational effects on other planets, And its not visable because its coming in from behind the sun, But there are people reporting seeing but i have no idea if there seeing nibiru or something else.

Gravitational effects such as...?
How do they point to the existence of a 10th planet?

And how come no scientist has come forward with this evidence?
Or are all scientists in on it?

Lone Stone wrote: »

hmm i guess we will find out in a about 2 years if it is nibiru then you can quickly post here and say dam you lone stone dam you for fore warning us about some thing we can do nothing about !!

But if it's 2 and a bit years away we'd be feeling the effects now.
If it's a brown dwarf then it's at least 13 times the mass of Jupiter (the smallest definition of a brown dwarf) and would be inside Jupiter's orbit by now.
It's something you'd notice at night.

GerardKeating

thecommander wrote: »

Wouldn't you think that if Google were part of the conspiracy they'd delete any references to it in their search databases?

Or just make up an image to hide the fact that they are blocking a region of space ???

rikerdonegal

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or just make up an image to hide the fact that they are blocking a region of space ???

Yes, if is was something important wouldn't they do a better job of hiding it?

I did this in Paint in under a minute. Imagine if I had time and decent software.

Very easy to make it look like abosolutely nothing unusual and have nobody talking about it and looking at it and wondering: what is that?


====
http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/

espinolman

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Pseudo-physics.

Do you think cydonia is a natural formation , Hyper-dimensional physics is not suppressed in Russia but it is here and that is the reason i think you are calling it Pseudo-physics .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Do you think cydonia is a natural formation ,

It is.

Rarely do you hear of the other faces on Mars.

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001314/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galle_%28Martian_crater%29

And what has Cydonia have to do with Hoagland's made up branch of physics?

espinolman wrote: »

Hyper-dimensional physics is not suppressed in Russia but it is here and that is the reason i think you are calling it Pseudo-physics .

Or it's possible that Hoagland is a crank who is claiming his "theories" are being suppressed to cover the fact they're bull****.

Why do you need "hyperdimensional" physics to predict something that actual physics would predict?

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Do you think cydonia is a natural formation

No, I don't. I've read The Mars Mystery, and although it puts forward a compelling case, I still don't believe that any structures on Mars have unnatural origins.

Hyper-dimensional physics is not suppressed in Russia but it is here and that is the reason i think you are calling it Pseudo-physics .

Because something isn't suppressed in Russia doesn't add to its validity.

I'm calling it pseudo-physics because that's what it is.

bonkey

hyper-dimensional physics (hdp) were introduced to the thread when Espinolman said that "the thing is accurate predictions have been made in the past with hyperdimensional physics concerning the outer planets".

I'd be very interested in hearing what these accurate predictions were.

Of particular interest would be the sequence of the following events in relation to such "accurate" predictions:

1) When was the hdp prediction made.
2) When was the hdp prediction published (anywhere....even on the internet)
3) When were the observations made which confirmed the accuracy of the hdp prediction.
4) When did conventional science explain or predict the same observations.

If, as espinolman has suggested, the merit of hdp has been established, then
there should be evidence of this. Rather than engaging in what could be an endless punch-and-judy-show as to whether or not its pseudo-science, why don't we look at teh basis for this claim.

So...does anyone have evidence of these accurate predictions that hdp is supposed to have made?

The only "predictions" I could find was that HDP predicted that Barack Obama would be elected.
This was released in November 2008 mind.
He also predicts that the Supreme Court will rule Obama was actually born in Hawaii.

It also predicts that vast amounts of energy originating from dimensions we cannot perceive are available at latitudes 19.5° both south and north on the sun and every planet in the solar system. Hoagland points to the colossal volcano, Olympus Mons, on Mars as the supreme example.
However The center of Olympus Mons is at 18.3°N 227°E.and the massive shield spans 16°N to 20°N.
And there is no other examples on other planets to confirm this hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Hyperdimensional_Physics

Chances are when it's one lone crank fighting the rest of the scientific community they are talking out their ass.

Booswig

It took me an hour to read this page and all the references. Thank for confusing me more. Now I know of another field that I am totally ignorant about.

DigiGal

God, don't get me started on the 4million reasons why Nibiru couldn't possibly exist
I'm sick of all the Nibriu tards saying its visible in the night sky crossing the path of mars....the oblect is "supposed to be" 8 Earth Masses roughly the size of jupiter, If that was crossing behind Mars any amateur with a telescope could clearly see it....clearly. It wouldn't be that big of a conspiracy that every person with a telescope with ignore the obvious 10th planet.
Apparently our sun is a binary star, but If it did have a dwarf companion It would have crossed us a good few times in the life time of the human race, judging by the estimated pull of the Sun's gravity, an lliptical orbit as large as those rumoured are by the laws of physics impossible and thats without taking into account the new theory being demonstrate by Michio Kaku and other leading theoretical physicists that the planet itself actually bends time and space arund it rather than gravity being in control.
Also if it is a big conspiracy and people think the governemnt are going to keep it under wraps till 21/12/2012 well its not possibe as if something 8 earth masses was coming into our solar system, that close to us it would appear almost a a second sun from 2011 onwards.....

Does anyone know if Michio Kaku has a stance on Planet X?

Lone Stone

DigiGal wrote: »

God, don't get me started on the 4million reasons why Nibiru couldn't possibly exist
I'm sick of all the Nibriu tards saying its visible in the night sky crossing the path of mars....the oblect is "supposed to be" 8 Earth Masses roughly the size of jupiter, If that was crossing behind Mars any amateur with a telescope could clearly see it....clearly. It wouldn't be that big of a conspiracy that every person with a telescope with ignore the obvious 10th planet.
Apparently our sun is a binary star, but If it did have a dwarf companion It would have crossed us a good few times in the life time of the human race, judging by the estimated pull of the Sun's gravity, an lliptical orbit as large as those rumoured are by the laws of physics impossible and thats without taking into account the new theory being demonstrate by Michio Kaku and other leading theoretical physicists that the planet itself actually bends time and space arund it rather than gravity being in control.
Also if it is a big conspiracy and people think the governemnt are going to keep it under wraps till 21/12/2012 well its not possibe as if something 8 earth masses was coming into our solar system, that close to us it would appear almost a a second sun from 2011 onwards.....

Does anyone know if Michio Kaku has a stance on Planet X?

Ive only seen him speak about civilization type's, Life in space and robot scouts to find life in space, the only thing he has said about 2012 is the possibility of an electric magnetic disruption in correlation to the peak sun spot cycle in 2012.He is someone i like to listen tho he always has some stimulating idea's.

I didnt think you people in this forum took this stuff so seriously lol i was just wondering what people thought about. Interesting reply's.

2012 will come come and pass like any other year.And even something is coming bleh what hell could anyone do anyway.

michio kaku
http://vodpod.com/watch/1239102-youtube-michio-kaku-on-aliens-on-physics-

DigiGal

Lone Stone wrote: »

Ive only seen him speak about civilization type's, Life in space and robot scouts to find life in space, the only thing he has said about 2012 is the possibility of an electric magnetic disruption in correlation to the peak sun spot cycle in 2012.He is someone i like to listen tho he always has some stimulating idea's.

I didnt think you people in this forum took this stuff so seriously lol i was just wondering what people thought about. Interesting reply's.

2012 will come come and pass like any other year.And even something is coming bleh what hell could anyone do anyway.

michio kaku
http://vodpod.com/watch/1239102-youtube-michio-kaku-on-aliens-on-physics-

Ah yes I've seen all those. love Michio Kaku.
I'm sure 2012 will be fine, at least I hope!

faceman

OK so Steve Woods worked for CERN but cant spell curiousity or clarity.

I still dont know what the conspiracy is. Is the Death Star approaching?

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

.........

It also predicts that vast amounts of energy originating from dimensions we cannot perceive are available at latitudes 19.5° both south and north on the sun and every planet in the solar system. Hoagland points to the colossal volcano, Olympus Mons, on Mars as the supreme example.
However The center of Olympus Mons is at 18.3°N 227°E.and the massive shield spans 16°N to 20°N.

interestin

And there is no other examples on other planets to confirm this hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Hyperdimensional_Physics

well, the red spot on Jupiter is close enough to this magical 19.5 degree marker, and thats a lot of energy.

Neptune seems to have storms around that latitude in the norhten and southern hemisphere at different times.

a cursory glance at our own planet reveals that most of the MAJOR storm activities annually start within the tropics somewhere around this 19.5 degree mark.

so there is something to support this guys theories

Chances are when it's one lone crank fighting the rest of the scientific community they are talking out their ass.

of course, much as Copernicus was a lone crank questioning established 'Fact'
:rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

interestin
well, the red spot on Jupiter is close enough to this magical 19.5 degree marker, and thats a lot of energy.

Not really.
It's at 22 degrees south.
How much error is "close enough"?

There's another large storm way to the south as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oval_BA#Oval_BA

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Neptune seems to have storms around that latitude in the norhten and southern hemisphere at different times.

Again the Great Dark spot on Neptune is not at 19.5 degrees either.
It is at 22 degrees.

And surprise, there are other large storms on Neptune as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Dark_Spot

Mahatma coat wrote: »

a cursory glance at our own planet reveals that most of the MAJOR storm activities annually start within the tropics somewhere around this 19.5 degree mark.

Tropicial storms on earth originate at 10 degrees not 19.5 degrees.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so there is something to support this guys theories

Well no there isn't.
The one example he gives is a mountain while the examples you give are storms. I don't see how the same non-detectable magical energy cause both.
Oh and the fact that none of those examples are at 19.5 degrees.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

of course, much as Copernicus was a lone crank questioning established 'Fact'
:rolleyes:

Yea but here's the thing you're missing, Copernicus had evidence and logic to back up his claims.
Hoagland doesn't.

bikeblues

whatever it is its close to Alpha -vir ( spica ) in the virgo constellation .
(and could be m-vir )

so get a good telescope and have a look .

Mahatma coat

Close enough is close enough, are we going to measure everything and only accept it as conclusive if the magical 19.5 degrees mark is met, or are we going to look at this objectivley and consider that there may be 'something' to this theory

BTW

wiki wrote:

Tropical cyclones move westward when equatorward of the subtropical ridge, intensifying as they move. Most of these systems form between 10 and 30 degrees away of the equator, and 87% form no farther away than 20 degrees of latitude, north or south.[44][45] Because the Coriolis effect initiates and maintains tropical cyclone rotation, tropical cyclones rarely form or move within about 5 degrees of the equator, where the Coriolis effect is weakest.[44] However, it is possible for tropical cyclones to form within this boundary as Tropical Storm Vamei did in 2001 and Cyclone Agni in 2004.[46]

10 to 30 degrees for storms, so that'd be an average of around 20 degrees then!!

here have a look at this
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Global_tropical_cyclone_tracks-edit2.jpg its a composite map showing the tracking of tropical storms during a season, now can you tell me what average latitude the storms form at --- Edited to link to image instead of pasting[/img]

Maybe people are looking at the chain of causality wrong here.

Do the storms/volcanoes/etc. form at ~20 degrees and comply with Hoagland's calculations, or, is ~20 degrees Hoagland's magical number because so many phenomenon form at this latitude (i.e. did he pick that number because of all that happens in that region)?

Unless there is some maths behind his claim, I'm guessing the chain of causality is the second case. Although, I did read in the Wiki article that he uses Maxwell's equations, which could be interesting.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Close enough is close enough,

Not following you here.
If any latitude between 10 and 30 is close enough how the hell can you distinguish what's caused by the magic energy and what's causes by normal processes?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

are we going to measure everything and only accept it as conclusive if the magical 19.5 degrees mark is met, or are we going to look at this objectivley and consider that there may be 'something' to this theory

Well considering he is claiming that the energy is at 19.5 degrees then yea I would only accept it if they hit that mark.

But lets look at it objectively.
Which part of the currently accepted theory for the formation of storms needs the presence of Hyper Dimensional Energy exactly?
How would this energy explain it better?
How can you detect it?
(This is the stuff Copernicus was able to show btw.)

Mahatma coat wrote: »

10 to 30 degrees for storms, so that'd be an average of around 20 degrees then!!

So then are all storms in that range caused by this magical energy?

Not possible that there is a good rational explanation for that?
Like say the air pressure at the equator due to it's higher temperature?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doldrums

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its a composite map showing the tracking of tropical storms during a season, now can you tell me what average latitude the storms form at

---
Edited to link to image instead of pasting

I notice that most of these storms are over the sea. Therefore the sea must have some kind of magic energy that causes storms!

I also notice that none of them are volcanoes or mountains like the one example Hoagland gives.

Also, it should be noted that storms form within the Tropics because of the higher average temperature of those latitudes. The Tropics are located at ~23.5 degrees north and south of the equator not because of some magical magnetic energy, but simply because that's the vertical angle of Earth's inclination relative to the ecliptic (i.e. Earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees).

Mahatma coat

close enough???????

its like me sayin

Oi mob, watch out for that Angry 600KG gorilla thats behind you

and then you turn round , look at the gorilla and say

ah but that gorilla is only 550KG therefore you are wrong there is no 600KG Gorilla

and you promptly get eaten by the (now established) 550KG Gorilla

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

close enough???????

its like me sayin

Oi mob, watch out for that Angry 600KG gorilla thats behind you

and then you turn round , look at the gorilla and say

ah but that gorilla is only 550KG therefore you are wrong there is no 600KG Gorilla

and you promptly get eaten by the (now established) 550KG Gorilla

No.
It's like saying a certain phenomenon exists at a certain latitude and showing examples of the effects.
However turns out none of those examples are at that certain latitude.

Oh wait that's exactly what it is.

Gonna answer my other points?

Mahatma coat

OK what I am saying is that if you hunted long enough you would find at least one anomaly that fit neatly, however the more important thing as far as I am concerned is seeing if there is anything in or around this band of latitude Say plus or minus 10 degrees that looks interestin.

theres 4 planets in our solar system with energy concentrations inside this latitude band thats 'technicaly' half the planets, now to look at the others and the moons and see if anything else pops up.

the thing is I am willing to look at this and consider it with an open mind, it might be true, it might be bollox, I dont know until I reseaqrch it for meself.

How is it that you 'know' catagoricaly that you are right???

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK what I am saying is that if you hunted long enough you would find at least one anomaly that fit neatly, however the more important thing as far as I am concerned is seeing if there is anything in or around this band of latitude Say plus or minus 10 degrees that looks interestin.

But then how do you know what's caused by this new energy and what's caused by natural processes?
How do you exclude confirmation bias?
What about the fact that all of these thing have natural explanations and don't require the existence of a magical energy to form?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

theres 4 planets in our solar system with energy concentrations inside this latitude band thats 'technicaly' half the planets, now to look at the others and the moons and see if anything else pops up.

Well considering that "anything else" can include anything between mountains and storms what exactly should we look for?
Or would any formation or phenomenon at all do regardless of how it actually formed?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the thing is I am willing to look at this and consider it with an open mind, it might be true, it might be bollox, I dont know until I reseaqrch it for meself.
How is it that you 'know' catagoricaly that you are right???

And which part of me asking for evidence to back up this theory and asking for a better explanation is not open minded exactly?

But there reason I don't believe this theory is frankly it throws up every single warning sign of a pseudo-science.

Mahatma coat

why does this energy have to be 'new' surely gravity existed before it was understood and I'm sure that pre Newton there were a multitude of reasonable scientific explanations for why things fall down.

as for formations, well I supose that anything that had a strong energy signature and was found in this region would tend to point at this being plausible, one storm or one mountain wouldnt be much, but if you find a pattern repeating over several planets then hey maybe there is something to it.

as for asking for evidence, I have provided you wit examples of phenomona that occur within the limits of this theoretical energy band.

NOW

I'm gonna ask this simple question.

as you are arguing that this is pseudo-science, you must obviously be qualified to make that diistinction.

would you like to briefly outline what those qualifications are please.

y'know I might ask a mod to split this off into another thread as its getti a bit off topic, but its still an interestin concept.

Now why are google blockin out an area of space???

Nibiru/PlanetX

could it be this 'planet' http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-676/tenth-planet-discovered-orbiting-the-sun.html
which orbitsthe sun at 45 degrees to our orbits??

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why does this energy have to be 'new' surely gravity existed before it was understood and I'm sure that pre Newton there were a multitude of reasonable scientific explanations for why things fall down.

I meant "new" as in previously unknown.

And Newton also was able to back up his theories.
Seeing a pattern here?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for formations, well I supose that anything that had a strong energy signature and was found in this region would tend to point at this being plausible, one storm or one mountain wouldnt be much, but if you find a pattern repeating over several planets then hey maybe there is something to it.

But he only gave one example of a mountain. Your examples are all storms.
You can see the difference.
The storms on Earth are small and last a few days.
The storms on the gas giants are huge and last years.
I am failing to see a connection between them.

Can you explain why the hyper dimensional energy causes these things?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for asking for evidence, I have provided you wit examples of phenomona that occur within the limits of this theoretical energy band.

First you made up this "theoretical energy band". Hoagland claims exactly 19.5 degrees.
Second you have provided nothing to support the idea that any of these things where caused by this magical energy.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

NOW

I'm gonna ask this simple question.

as you are arguing that this is pseudo-science, you must obviously be qualified to make that diistinction.

would you like to briefly outline what those qualifications are please.

The most comprehensive list of red flags of pseudo-science is Brian Dunning's.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

Let's see how Hoagland's theory lines up.

1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?
Nope.

2. Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge?
Possibly

3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?
Certainly wasn't scientific channels.

4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon?
Yep.

5. Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?
You bet your ass he does.

6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?
Yep

7. Is the claim supported by hokey marketing?
Do shilling at conventions count I wonder?

8. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?
Nope.

9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?
Yep.

10. Are the claimants up front about their testing?
Testing? Ha!

11. How good is the quality of data supporting the claim?
Data? Double Ha!

12. Do the claimants have legitimate credentials?
Nope.

13. Do the claimants state that there's something wrong with the norm?
Yep

14. Is the claim said to be "all natural"?
15. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?
The last two don't really apply I think.

I also recommend Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Now why are google blockin out an area of space???

Nibiru/PlanetX

could it be this 'planet' http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-676/tenth-planet-discovered-orbiting-the-sun.html
which orbitsthe sun at 45 degrees to our orbits??

Then that can't be Niburu because the area "blocked out" is on the ecliptic.

indough

but you dont have to be a scientist to recognise pseudo science, all it requires is a bit of scientific knowledge and a helping of common sense

if a theory isnt able to hold up against logical thinking and provides no evidence then its more than likely hocus pocus

Mahatma coat

but you are not Brian Dunning or Karl Sagan.

I asked what particualry made YOU an expert on these things??

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK what I am saying is that if you hunted long enough you would find at least one anomaly that fit neatly, however the more important thing as far as I am concerned is seeing if there is anything in or around this band of latitude Say plus or minus 10 degrees that looks interestin.

There are 180 degrees of latitude (-90 to +90).
By allowing +/-10 around the exact line that Hoagland specified, you're picking two 20-degree bands, or a 40-degree "window" of latitude. If we ignore, for the moment, the fact that each degree of latitude does not cover the same area, you're picking roughtly between 20% and 25% of the total available...and arguing that its interesting if we find anomalies there.

I would argue that we'd expect to find somewhere between one-in-four and one in five anomalies there....depending on how we define anomaly.

And therein lies the even bigger problem. If we look at these regions and go "oh, there's something interesting", then of course we'll find interesting stuff. On the other hand, we can do that with any region.

theres 4 planets in our solar system with energy concentrations inside this latitude band thats 'technicaly' half the planets, now to look at the others and the moons and see if anything else pops up.

How many of hte planets have energy concentrations outside those latitudes? 100% would be my guess, given how indefined "energy conentration" currently is. If I have the same flexibility to pick what consitutes something anomalous as seems the case here, I'm sure I can find that 100% of teh planets have energy concentrations outside this region.

the thing is I am willing to look at this and consider it with an open mind, it might be true, it might be bollox, I dont know until I reseaqrch it for meself.

The question is more, for me, about how someone sets out about doing this.
#
For example..you picked plus minus 10 degrees. That's from 9.5 degrees to 29.5 degrees of latitude. On earth, that means anything lying within (rougly) 690 miles north or south of Hoagland's line. On Jupiter, it would mean

What if something is at 29.6 degrees of latitude? That's only another 7 miles. Is that not still interesting?

Where do we stop? How far away is "far enough away"....and why?

Once we have an idea where we're looking, then we also need to think what we're looking for. What is an "energy concentration", exactly? Volcanoes and the like, if anything, are an example of a lack of energy....they are locations where there are weak-spots.

More importantly...does Hoagland's theory tell us what it is we should be looking for?

If we want to look at this for ourselves, we need to think about such questions before we start looking.

The most important question to ask is what does Hoagland's so-called theory predict? If its vague, poorly-defined stuff, or stuff which we choose to loosely interepret ourselves, then the first thing we have to accept is that we're discarding scientific rigour. If we do that....then we should abandon any claims that there is science at work here.

How is it that you 'know' catagoricaly that you are right???

I know this was aimed at someone else...but my answer would be that I certainly don't know that I'm right. I asked for these predictions that Hoagland made, and so far, its coming back with very little.

The closest we've gotten is some claim about a specific line of latitude that we've "smeared" out to a band covering 20 degrees, which causes some (as yet) ill-defined "interesting stuff" to be more prevalent. We haven't even shown that its more prevalent...just that it exists in these bands as well as outside them.

If this is an example of how his theory has been validated...then I'd go back to my original stance, which is that such claims are overstepping the mark.

I'm not saying Hoagland is wrong....just that from what we've seen here, its wrong to say that Hoagland has been shown to be right.

DigiGal

After reading these arguements I conclude that.....my head hurts....

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Now why are google blockin out an area of space???

Surely, the correct question is "why is there an area not properly covered", and not "why is this area being blocked"?

By suggesting in the question that it is being blocked, it seems that there is an amount of assumption already being made in just asking the question....including but not limited to the notions that good coverage exists of this area and that this coverage was intentionally not used.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but you are not Brian Dunning or Karl Sagan.

I asked what particualry made YOU an expert on these things??

You're right. I'm not a expert. I should just accept what "experts" like Hoagland say. Cause he's qualified right?

Tell us did you actually read the link?
Or the break down I did?

Is there something wrong with that checklist to identify pseudo-science?

Are you honestly saying that you need some kind of qualification to identify bull****?

You realise that you're ignoring a lot of my other points right?

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

You're right. I'm not a expert. I should just accept what "experts" like Hoagland say.

No don't just accept what Hoagland says is true , there are simple experiments you could do to determine if hyperdimensional physics is true , such as build a bedini schoolgirl radiant energy battery charger , why if it works thats evidence that it is true , of course you have to tune it correctly and actually use ceramic magnets in it , you know those cowboys , i think its mythbusters they call themselves , they did'nt even bother to put magnets on the one they tested years ago !

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

No don't just accept what Hoagland says is true , there are simple experiments you could do to determine if hyperdimensional physics is true , such as build a bedini schoolgirl radiant energy battery charger , why if it works thats evidence that it is true , of course you have to tune it correctly and actually use ceramic magnets in it , you know those cowboys , i think its mythbusters they call themselves , they did'nt even bother to put magnets on the one they tested years ago !

Or even better you could provide the equations that prove these machines work.
Or maybe answer some of my questions from the previous posts.

Or explain why noone has actually been able to show any machines like this works.

And how exactly a few magnets can harness an unknown energy?

But let me guess if I did build one these things and there was no extra magical energy it'll be because I didn't tune it properly?
Sounds nice and unverifiable.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Or even better you could provide the equations that prove these machines work.
Or maybe answer some of my questions from the previous posts.

Or explain why noone has actually been able to show any machines like this works.

And how exactly a few magnets can harness an unknown energy?

But let me guess if I did build one these things and there was no extra magical energy it'll be because I didn't tune it properly?
Sounds nice and unverifiable.

The renaissance charge is supposed to be way over unity , http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkzZd4YZKllQAr0dLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydHRjbmRzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11frgkqqa/EXP=1250439901/**http%3a//rpmgt.org/order.html
so just get it and see if they work and at the same time you could get free energy , see just get a few batteries and hook it up to an inverter and there you go , if they don't work , well then why are they selling them , you see i was thinking of buying one , they cost a lot , but you think they don't work ?

indough

espinolman wrote: »

if they don't work , well then why are they selling them

espinolman wrote: »

you see i was thinking of buying one , they cost a lot

you kind of answered your own question there

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

The renaissance charge is supposed to be way over unity , http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkzZd4YZKllQAr0dLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydHRjbmRzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11frgkqqa/EXP=1250439901/**http%3a//rpmgt.org/order.html
so just get it and see if they work and at the same time you could get free energy , see just get a few batteries and hook it up to an inverter and there you go , if they don't work , well then why are they selling them , you see i was thinking of buying one , they cost a lot , but you think they don't work ?

Why aren't every country using these to power their infrastructures? If you're going to tell me that the power companies wont allow it, then how come there aren't millions of private homes using "free energy"? Load of ballix.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

The renaissance charge is supposed to be way over unity , http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkzZd4YZKllQAr0dLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydHRjbmRzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11frgkqqa/EXP=1250439901/**http%3a//rpmgt.org/order.html
so just get it and see if they work and at the same time you could get free energy , see just get a few batteries and hook it up to an inverter and there you go , if they don't work , well then why are they selling them , you see i was thinking of buying one , they cost a lot , but you think they don't work ?

No I don't think they work because no machine like that have been shown to work, and the ones that have been tested have been shown not to work.

Then how come none of the big evil corporations who are just out for profit not selling them?
It's not like you have to show your product works before you can sell them or anything.
No one is ever busted for false advertising.

But why should anyone have to spend a whole bunch of money to see that a theory is right?
That not strike you as a scam?

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

No I don't think they work because no machine like that have been shown to work, and the ones that have been tested have been shown not to work.

Well then it must not work because after all we are living in a fairy-land world where there is no suppression what-so-ever.

King Mob wrote: »

But why should anyone have to spend a whole bunch of money to see that a theory is right?
That not strike you as a scam?

But the theory is that they can see the brown dwarf star and first saw it in 1982 and it was decided not to tell the public sheeple useless-eater riffraff about it and that they are tracking it with the infra-red telescope in the antartic , so there-fore we would have to find out if this is true ourselves and hyperdimensional physics predicts an object about the size of a brown-dwarf star must be orbiting the sun and radiant energy is an indication that hyperdimensional physics is correct , therefore it seems this is true , this would also explain why underground cities have been built in various locations , in australia and norway and they have built seed vaults and god knows what else for when the red-dwarf star passes throught the plane of the solar system and disrups earth and i have given the evidence that indicates this theory is true .

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

... and i have given the evidence that indicates this theory is true .

If anything, you've had the opposite effect.

espinolman

thecommander wrote: »

If anything, you've had the opposite effect.

Well that is why i do not bother with this forum anymore , because of the amount of insults put out on this forum , i've done a lot of research on this over the last few months and look at the thanks i get here for putting out information , no wonder hardly any-one bothers to post on this forum .

6th

espinolman, if you see insults please report them and highlight the insult in the reported post message.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Well then it must not work because after all we are living in a fairy-land world where there is no suppression what-so-ever.

So then there isn't any evidence for it working?
Then maybe you can show evidence for supression?

How do you know that the people that are claiming this stuff aren't lying?

espinolman wrote: »

But the theory is that they can see the brown dwarf star and first saw it in 1982 and it was decided not to tell the public sheeple useless-eater riffraff about it and that they are tracking it with the infra-red telescope in the antartic ,

And by "theory" you mean "something someone made up" right?

espinolman wrote: »

so there-fore we would have to find out if this is true ourselves and hyperdimensional physics predicts an object about the size of a brown-dwarf star must be orbiting the sun and radiant energy is an indication that hyperdimensional physics is correct , therefore it seems this is true , this would also explain why underground cities have been built in various locations , in australia and norway and they have built seed vaults and god knows what else for when the red-dwarf star passes throught the plane of the solar system and disrups earth and i have given the evidence that indicates this theory is true .

You have given no evidence what so ever.
You said that perpetual energy machines work then said that this is because of this magic energy. You claim that this made up science predicts the existence of a brown dwarf which emits an undetectable magic energy which prove it exists.
You logic is incredibly flawed.

If this brown dwarf exists normal physics would predict it.
The is no reason that Hoagland's made up physics would predict it while actual physics wouldn't.
Can you please explain this discrepancy?

And if this planet was completing a thousand year cycle in 3 years and is a brown dwarf, we'd be able to ****ing see every night!
It'd be the brightest star in the sky!