Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

2

Comments

  • #32
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭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??


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #35
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭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


  • #36
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    but you are not Brian Dunning or Karl Sagan.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    DigiGal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,434 ✭✭✭DigiGal


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


  • #39
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #41
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭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 !


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #43
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #44
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭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


  • #45
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #47
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭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 .


  • #48
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    espinolman wrote: »
    ... and i have given the evidence that indicates this theory is true .

    If anything, you've had the opposite effect.


  • #49
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭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 . :(


  • #50
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


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


  • #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    King Mob wrote: »
    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!

    Google blocked it out, thats why you cant see it.


  • #53
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    Much of scientific advancement has occurred with respect to the biological or earth sciences. Physics is largely a theoretical field. So the truth is we just don't have a clue about the vast universe. The CT over the various space and moonlanding pictures that have a blacked out background is intriguing. I don't think it is an effort to cover us UFO's etc., but rather it is that there is so much anomalous and inexplicable phenomena in space that it literally cannot be made available to the public. Too many questions, people might try to reach their own conclusions and panic or become confused:



















  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    Much of scientific advancement has occurred with respect to the biological or earth sciences. Physics is largely a theoretical field. So the truth is we just don't have a clue about the vast universe.
    That's not strictly true.
    Astronomy and gravitational physics have made huge strides and are pretty well understood.
    If there is a brown dwarf in our solar system the gravitational effect would be obvious.

    For instance Neptune was predicted with pure maths and the gravitational perturbations of Uranus before it was actually observed.

    And that's only 1/19th the size of Jupiter.
    A brown dwarf is at least 13 times the size of Jupiter.


  • #55
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    By "size" you mean "mass", I assume?


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bonkey wrote: »
    By "size" you mean "mass", I assume?

    Yea. My bad.:o


  • #57
    DigiGal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,434 ✭✭✭DigiGal


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not strictly true.
    Astronomy and gravitational physics have made huge strides and are pretty well understood.
    If there is a brown dwarf in our solar system the gravitational effect would be obvious.

    For instance Neptune was predicted with pure maths and the gravitational perturbations of Uranus before it was actually observed.

    And that's only 1/19th the size of Jupiter.
    A brown dwarf is at least 13 times the size of Jupiter.
    Have to totally agree with King Mob here...

    This dwarf star everyone is talking about (and the same goes for all the Nibriu-tards) is supposed to be perturbing the orbits of neptune and uranus and is commonly accepted as being as large as 8 earth masses (roughly a bit bigger than Jupiter)



    Now lets point out all the thing which are wrong with this shall we

    1. If something was as big as to perturb the orbit of two of the biggest planets in our solar system it would have to be a good bit bigger than 8 earth masses....probably 12, 13 earth masses

    2. If it was That fcuking BIG like this is enormous here.....even at 8 earth masses, any idiot with a telescope and a star map would be able to see it heading straight for us. Myself being an above idiot and member of astronomy Ireland can tell you there is feck all new there. So much for your big government conspiracy.
    If its going to hit in 2012 or whenever, we will sure as hell see it before then. It will probably appear as another sun in our sky, so the government can't keep it quiet that long.

    3.Even if it is on an elliptical orbit, there is only so far the Suns gravity has pull, so it would have collided/passed earth already. Next you'll be tellin me thats what killed the dinosaurs....


    So i'd be less worried about this binary star and more worried about climate change, the earth warming 2 degrees by 2012, the earth losing its magnetic field, natural disasters or getting hit by a bus tomorrow.....

    and as for underground cities...oh come on!


  • #58
    DigiGal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,434 ✭✭✭DigiGal


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    Much of scientific advancement has occurred with respect to the biological or earth sciences. Physics is largely a theoretical field. So the truth is we just don't have a clue about the vast universe. The CT over the various space and moonlanding pictures that have a blacked out background is intriguing. I don't think it is an effort to cover us UFO's etc., but rather it is that there is so much anomalous and inexplicable phenomena in space that it literally cannot be made available to the public. Too many questions, people might try to reach their own conclusions and panic or become confused:
    [That film was pretty interesting...


  • #59
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    Too many people have an almost religious belief in the explanatory power of science. I think this is foolish, especially regarding space. There is the problem of refutability (cf. Karl Popper):

    Imagine that a scientist encounters some swans and, using scientific methodology, begins to record/observe the colour of each swan he encounters. He catalogs and even dissects 500 swans. His conclusion: 500/500 swans are black. He then arrives at a primary hypothesis: "all swans are white". But he wants to be sure so he allows that others should repeat the process. Top professors from all over the world see the importance of his work and repeat the project, strictly adhering to the methodology. French scientists examine 2700 swans; 2700/2700 are verified to be white... British scientists observe 4000 swans (trying to best the french) and indeed 4000/4000 swans are white. This happens all over the world, over and over, using the best minds and the best equipment to make absolutely sure that these swans are indeed white. The international scientific community congregates and proudly announces to the world that "all swans are white" -an entry is made in all the text books.

    Then, an Australian Professor submits his findings: we have a few black swans over here! He has falsified the primary hypothesis. It only takes one unknown, one black swan to refute even a vast body of research!

    So even if many many scientists observe say the law of gravity... one day it may well be falsified!

    So you see, science has no real foundations and is in a constant state of update and change. It offers no absolutes!

    At one time top scientists declared that the world was flat (they even developed highly sophisticated charts and rounds of data to support the hypothesis. Some people began to say the world is round! They were dismissed as nuts and charlatans.

    So............. maybe, just maybe space is so vast that it is full of inexplicable phenomena, so much so that it threatens the currently held belief system/scientific worldview? This is being suppressed (again) in order that society have a stable belief system?


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    Too many people have an almost religious belief in the explanatory power of science. I think this is foolish, especially regarding space. There is the problem of refutability (cf. Karl Popper):

    snip

    Then, an Australian Professor submits his findings: we have a few black swans over here! He has falsified the primary hypothesis. It only takes one unknown, one black swan to refute even a vast body of research!
    So then one black swan means there are no white swans?

    Or are the text books just modified to say "most swans are white except for a very small population of black swans."
    worldrepublic wrote: »
    So even if many many scientists observe say the law of gravity... one day it may well be falsified!
    Really?
    Then masses don't attract each other?
    Cause every single experiment shows they do.

    It would take something fairly convincing to show otherwise.
    worldrepublic wrote: »
    So you see, science has no real foundations and is in a constant state of update and change. It offers no absolutes!
    That's how science works.
    But that doesn't mean that current science is worthless or doesn't work.
    In fact most of the modern theories pretty well.
    Especially those of gravity and planetary motion.

    Just recently a guy use a purely mathematical model to predict a transit of two of Jupiter's moons so exactly that he was able to catch the shadow of one crossing the other.
    And he was an amateur.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/08/20/two-moons-circling/
    worldrepublic wrote: »
    At one time top scientists declared that the world was flat (they even developed highly sophisticated charts and rounds of data to support the hypothesis. Some people began to say the world is round! They were dismissed as nuts and charlatans.
    Not actually true.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

    worldrepublic wrote: »
    So............. maybe, just maybe space is so vast that it is full of inexplicable phenomena, so much so that it threatens the currently held belief system/scientific worldview? This is being suppressed (again) in order that society have a stable belief system?

    So science could be wrong therefore Hoagland's untestable and nonsensical physics is real?

    Cause the one difference between him and the "nuts" who claimed the earth was round, the nuts had actual evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    Excuse me? I did not say or even imply that science is "worthless". My point is that it cannot deliver absolutes. Most scientists of course accept this, but a small (and vocal) minority have become almost religious or dogmatic about science.

    You should also note that arguments are made concerning the prejudice attached to some of the scientific language. For example, leading feminists criticise the hypothesis stage of scientific experiments purporting to explain gender traits, for example "active" (male) versus "passive" (female) (cf. Judith Butler).

    There are many arguments, but rest assured that scientific dogma is not in vogue with the left.


Advertisement