It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stars of the Hill Map

page: 20
23
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius


HD 10700


Hmmm... Tau Ceti?


Observations have detected more than ten times as much dust surrounding Tau Ceti as is present in the Solar System. Since December 2012, there has been evidence of possibly five planets orbiting Tau Ceti, with two of these being potentially in the habitable zone.[10][11][12] Because of its debris disk, any planet orbiting Tau Ceti would face far more impact events than Earth.


en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, science only matters when it agrees with you.




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


I have already done that! And, to many of those specific issues...


Okay, then just copy and paste your answers to those specific objections. I must have missed them. Your theory does not stand until you can prove it, and you cannot prove it unless you can answer the burgeoning list of objections. In case you haven't noticed, your problems have become metaphysical and epistemological as well as merely scientific.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: moebius


HD 10700


Hmmm... Tau Ceti?


Observations have detected more than ten times as much dust surrounding Tau Ceti as is present in the Solar System. Since December 2012, there has been evidence of possibly five planets orbiting Tau Ceti, with two of these being potentially in the habitable zone.[10][11][12] Because of its debris disk, any planet orbiting Tau Ceti would face far more impact events than Earth.


en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, science only matters when it agrees with you.


According to the open exoplanet database...Tau Ceti has 5 planets...confirmed.
June 15, 2015 update...



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Are you a Thelemite Tanka?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


I have already done that! And, to many of those specific issues...


Okay, then just copy and paste your answers to those specific objections. I must have missed them.


Uh-huh...kind of disingenuous don't ya think? www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your theory does not stand until you can prove it, and you cannot prove it unless you can answer the burgeoning list of objections. In case you haven't noticed, your problems have become metaphysical and epistemological as well as merely scientific.

Oh really?!!!? Then Relativity doesn't stand either!

You kind of have that a bit confused there lad... When I "prove" my theory it becomes "law". but that sort of thing very rarely ever happens in science, most theories remain just theories...as mine will.

Your list of objections has been answered! I have done my due diligence...time for you to do yours...



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Are you a Thelemite Tanka?


yes



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Oh really?!!!? Then Relativity doesn't stand either!


Relativity made numerous falsifiable predictions that have been experimentally confirmed.

Here we go, then:


Oh... is there another world where it could have happened?


As a Thelemite, you know there is, so your assumption is naïve.


Yes I suppose that I do assume that the "aliens" were physical, but then, how else could betty have received knowledge of the physical? And as for the "other star system"...Betty did come out of that with knowledge of the stars that did not exist on Earth at the time...


Was Aiwas physical? Also, you have still not proven that Betty received knowledge of the physical... that is what you are trying to prove. The fact that Betty describes their craft as behaving in a manner impossible for material objects in our universe should be suggestive.


I think what Betty saw was a Graphical User Interface...


If it represents the relationship of points in space, it is a map. You are interpreting it as one by trying to relate the various points to bodies in space.


Given that there can be only ONE Universe, This is not an assumption...and before you go off on the multi-verse hypotheses...I would invite you to check on the definition of the word "UNIverse"..."there can be only one"....

But all that not withstanding...this is not an assumption, unless and until you can prove there is another option.


I don't even know where to begin with that one. You can reject modern cosmological thinking if you want, but what about the other planes of existence implicit in the Thelemite worldview?


I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...course, you don't want any logic or reason here as it destroys your little fantasy.


I thought you said it was a "graphical interface," not a map. Besides, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it included planets in its stylized depiction of trade routes:




Betty's drawing; is accurate by definition. As it is the template being used...in reality it doesn't matter how accurate the template is. It only matters that it matches an area of space; which it does quite well.


How can it be accurate by definition if you consider her description of it, "stars and planets," to be inaccurate? And, again, why do you assume it must match an area of space? And why do you keep forgetting that it has been demonstrated that it can match nearly any set of points, including other stars and cities in Britain?


Again, not an assumption! Betty drew it on a bit of notebook paper, after a hypnosis session. Thus, it can not be an accurate engineering version of what she saw, and therefore, a somewhat less than precise template.


I though you said it is "accurate by definition?"


A "randon set" of??? What you are trying to do is show that the template can be "fit" to a random set of dots, which yo have proven is true.


Which renders any further attempt to match it to another data set meaningless. Please try to understand the concept of a "control."


Unfortunately, we are not trying to "fit" it to random dots, we are trying to fit it to Hipparcos stars.


Why? If you can impose the pattern on random data, you can impose it on Hipparcos stars. The results are meaningless.


I have proven that it does in fact "fit" Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec...something that you are trying to disprove with no success what so ever.


No, I am not denying that you can impose the pattern on Hipparcos stars, I have been vainly trying to convince you that the exercise is meaningless.


Perhaps an assumption, but, until there is better data, it will continue to transcend the "assumption" classification.


If the aliens can drift through Earth's gravitational field as though it were not there, they clearly know some things about physics that we don't.


No actually that is not an assumption either. Any ET's visiting this world would necessarily be "local" (within 100ly)...and of course with this being the only Universe...


Why do assume they would "necessarily be local?" If they know enough about physics to overcome gravity, they may be able to warp space. if they can warp space, distance becomes meaningless....


11. You assume that they reason like us, although their craft has a wide windshield that they turn their backs to when operating their craft.

Huh? You're not making any sense here...


If you had bothered to read the book, you would know what I was talking about. It is Betty's story that makes no sense.


12. You assume that the theories of stellar, planetary and biological evolution developed in the 1960's and 70's are fact.

You are very mistaken! I'm not even sure how you came to this illogical conclusion!!! But...it is wrong!


Because you judge all of the stars on your map to be habitable base on the work of Stephen Dole that I linked to. You just never read the original report, you got it all second and third hand.


13. You assume that the aliens would come from an F, G, or K class star because of the above.

Again, not an assumption...but a reflection of the realities involved.


The realities first outlined in the RAND Corporation report I linked to. You should really read it.


Yes the bias inherent in the Hipparcos dataset...I mean the nerve of science to build a machine that filters out all the interesting stars above class "F". And of course all those small, cold stars, that were actually too small to detect.


Bias is bias.

And you still refuse to admit that data without context is meaningless.

edit on 24-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: moebius


HD 10700


Hmmm... Tau Ceti?


Observations have detected more than ten times as much dust surrounding Tau Ceti as is present in the Solar System. Since December 2012, there has been evidence of possibly five planets orbiting Tau Ceti, with two of these being potentially in the habitable zone.[10][11][12] Because of its debris disk, any planet orbiting Tau Ceti would face far more impact events than Earth.



en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, science only matters when it agrees with you.


According to the open exoplanet database...Tau Ceti has 5 planets...confirmed.
June 15, 2015 update...


And a dangerous amount of debris.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
As a Thelemite, you know there is, so your assumption is naïve.


How about we leave religion out of this argument...okay?



Was Aiwas physical? Also, you have still not proven that Betty received knowledge of the physical... that is what you are trying to prove. The fact that Betty describes their craft as behaving in a manner impossible for material objects in our universe should be suggestive.


Actually I have proven Betty received knowledge of the physical...you go to extremes to deny that as a fact, but, the data, evidence strongly indicates that you would be wrong...after all Betty's map has proven to be "knowledge of the physical" Your interpretation of the mathematics is completely wrong, your interpretation of probability is completely wrong, and quite illogical.



I don't even know where to begin with that one. You can reject modern cosmological thinking if you want, but what about the other planes of existence implicit in the Thelemite worldview?


Okay, you want to play the "other plane" card...then you are aware that there are only 4 planes of existence, and that they do not correlate to four different "Universes". Even in the Enochian, with its 30 Aethyrs, there only persists One Universe, and all things are dependent on the structure of the All...which is fundamentally your infinite "field", but on a much larger scale.

After all there is Nuit...infinite space...the infinitely large, and Hadit ; the infinitely small...this leaves little room for any others...




I thought you said it was a "graphical interface," not a map. Besides, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it included planets in its stylized depiction of trade routes:


Your willed ignorance, and attempts at deception are unwanted, please stop!!!



How can it be accurate by definition if you consider her description of it, "stars and planets," to be inaccurate? And, again, why do you assume it must match an area of space? And why do you keep forgetting that it has been demonstrated that it can match nearly any set of points, including other stars and cities in Britain?

I though you said it is "accurate by definition?"



Did you have fun with that little episode of BS? I hope so...now if we ca get a little more serious...and knock off the attempts at deception.



Which renders any further attempt to match it to another data set meaningless. Please try to understand the concept of a "control."


Here is where you switch from simply trying to confuse the context to outright deception. Since I don't believe you to be quite that uneducated...logically this is a deliberate attempt at deception. I thought you better...

Matching the template to an infinite field of "random" dots is not what we are attempting to do here, nor is it a part of the statistic I've developed, and you are fully aware of that.

What I've tried to get you to do, is match that template to a non-random dataset...something you have gone to extremes to avoid doing.



Why? If you can impose the pattern on random data, you can impose it on Hipparcos stars. The results are meaningless.



And as for "imposing" the template on Hipparcos...you have utterly failed to produce any such evidence of a match of the quality of mine...and until you do...my results stand...


No, I am not denying that you can impose the pattern on Hipparcos stars, I have been vainly trying to convince you that the exercise is meaningless.


Perhaps vainly; but only because you won't do the work...you have this thing you are on about how the probability, the mathematics works...you are wrong...and until you address that, you have no hope...



Why do assume they would "necessarily be local?" If they know enough about physics to overcome gravity, they may be able to warp space. if they can warp space, distance becomes meaningless....


Says the man who knows nothing about space warps...even Terrestrial science isn't prepared to make a statement like that. Sorry man, but, logically, going from place to place takes time, whether you are a Terrestrial in your car, or ET in a starship...takes some amount of time. And, given the vast distances, it seems logical that ET would visit nearby stars/planets first...which makes the greater probability of ET being local...



Because you judge all of the stars on your map to be habitable base on the work of Stephen Dole that I linked to. You just never read the original report, you got it all second and third hand.


You have no idea how wrong you are...sorry man, but, you have made a really bad assumption there. My thoughts are based on the best of modern thought, and my own logic...


Bias is bias.

And you still refuse to admit that data without context is meaningless.


Well...bias isn't necessarily bias, but you won't recognize the differentiation will you? Cuz, ya know, there is bias that One injects into the data, and there is "bias" that exists naturally...you want the two to be interchangeable, and they are not...

(course then again; there is also bias in a vacuum tube, or a FET...but they don't apply either)

But that is just another of your methods to twist reality, and confuse the context.

If you wish to believe that my data has no context, there is little I can do to prevent the folly and deception.

So anyway man, here is the bottom line:

I have presented my theory, I have presented evidence to support it...
You have tried to disprove it, but, you have not presented any viable science or mathematics...you have provided nothing but misrepresentation of the science and mathematics involved.

So...again...Put your money where your mouth is! Put up or shut up...you get my drift.

edit on 24-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: moebius


HD 10700


Hmmm... Tau Ceti?


Observations have detected more than ten times as much dust surrounding Tau Ceti as is present in the Solar System. Since December 2012, there has been evidence of possibly five planets orbiting Tau Ceti, with two of these being potentially in the habitable zone.[10][11][12] Because of its debris disk, any planet orbiting Tau Ceti would face far more impact events than Earth.



en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, science only matters when it agrees with you.


According to the open exoplanet database...Tau Ceti has 5 planets...confirmed.
June 15, 2015 update...


And a dangerous amount of debris.


Like the Kuiper belt?

No one said anything about there being advanced life there, on either HZ planet, but, I promise you, there is life on each...


edit on 24-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

I had a chance to look over your website and I don't understand. Is it written as a fantasy piece or what you believe to be fact? In reference to the Hill case and your map, it looks like you take astronomical data (science) and spin in belief (science fiction) and call it science by association. An example is listing discovered stars- aka observable scientific data, and go on to describe life on surrounding planets down to the type of species and their characteristics- aka science fiction. This is what you said of several stars you listed for the Hill map:


Zeta (1 & 2) Reticuli: A formerly Cetacean species that has evolved the humanoid form. Their domain is relatively small, in that they are the only dominant species, and most of their domain consists of colonies on other worlds. Their technology is some 200 – 500 years more advanced than Earth.

These are the “Greys” of lore, their technology is on par with that of the “Orion Group”, and 250 – 500 years more advanced than Earth.

Alpha Mensae- Primitive Humanoid life.

82 Eridani- No apparent advanced life

Tau Ceti- This 5.8 billion year old star reportedly has a Human like apex species that is space faring. They tend to keep to themselves, and are friendly, helpful, peaceful.

Cetians are rather intelligent, innovative, and while smaller of stature, they are very capable physically. Their technology is a few hundred years more advanced than Earth.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

I had a chance to look over your website and I don't understand. Is it written as a fantasy piece or what you believe to be fact? In reference to the Hill case and your map, it looks like you take astronomical data (science) and spin in belief (science fiction) and call it science by association.


Glad yo see that you understand that so well...

Although, I never called it science now did I?

Reality...some old notes that need to be revised...that's the nature of science ya know, new information revises what is formerly thought...

Stop searching for fault, and search for truth...works better.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

And this is where everything goes down in flames. Thank you for playing,



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
This thread is now closed.

We've asked for civilty and decorum to be observed by the participates of this thread, and that is being IGNORED.

There for, the discussion here is over.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join