|
Post by altair4 on Mar 3, 2008 18:16:54 GMT -4
a friend of mine said "Paul,see if you can find a connection Easter Island and The Bermuda Triangle..."
Hmmm...what did he mean??
and then a week later someone said to me have a look at this map...
I was interested how things "Connect".. pyramids,Mayan Temples, Bermuda Triangle,Dragons Triangle(off Japan)Ufo Phenomena,Earthquakes,atomic bomb testing,even the Echelon (spy) Network relates to this grid!! also Tunguska Incident(100 Anniv this year,June),... I wouldn't want to be living in California(earthquake risk)
also:there are only 2 places on Earth where a compass magnetic compass points True North,the are,The Bermuda Triangle and Dragons Triangle(off Japan,that has had a number of disappearences......
I have been reading the book called Harmonic 33 written by Capt Bruce Cathie (New Zealand guy) and I think he is on to it!!its an old book and I am fascinated!!It relates to this grid
anyway,here is the info
goto Google,type in:World Grid
click that on should come up with:www.deepinfo.com/WorldGrid.htm
go down to Figure 3: Flat World Grid Map-Numbered
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 3, 2008 19:59:01 GMT -4
Bermuda Triangle: Hmm...take one of the busiest traffic corridors in the world, and see if any planes or ships ever went missing.
I bet if you took the number of missing planes and ships, and compared them to the total number of planes and ships that have travelled over the area you would find that it is just like any other part of the globe.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2008 20:55:29 GMT -4
I think it's worse, but it is also prone to some pretty snarly weather, a lot of which springs up out of nowhere.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Mar 4, 2008 8:49:02 GMT -4
"also:there are only 2 places on Earth where a compass magnetic compass points True North,the are,The Bermuda Triangle and Dragons Triangle(off Japan,that has had a number of disappearences......"
That's not strictly correct. There is a line (the Agonic Line) along which a compass pointing Magnetic North will alos point True North, as along that line the two poles are lined up. The magnetic North Pole moves around the Northern Canada area. That means the Agonic Line will also drift. Depending on where Magnetic North is, the Agonic Line may or may not intersect the area called the Bermuda triangle. That's as I understand Magnetic North and it's variation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 4, 2008 10:42:16 GMT -4
also:there are only 2 places on Earth where a compass magnetic compass points True North,the are,The Bermuda Triangle and Dragons Triangle(off Japan,that has had a number of disappearences......
That is incorrect. Currently, the Agonic Line goes through the Gulf of Mexico and does not enter the the Bermuda Triangle. Even in the time it did, a compass would only point to true north along the Agonic Line. In all other parts of the BT, a compass would point somewhat away.
The Agonic Line is not a regular line but winds around quite a bit. While the magnetic pole is west of Houston, a compass in Houston will point to the east of true north. The compass is affected by asymmetry of the magnetic field as both the north and south magnetic poles move. Also, the Agonic Line some times splits to form a line and separate loop.
Before you go sailing, it is best to get the latest information on magnetic variations, lest you head into a hazard area.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 4, 2008 11:15:24 GMT -4
...there are only 2 places on Earth where a compass magnetic compass points True North...
Not even remotely correct. There are literally thousands of significant places on Earth where the magnetic declination is zero: the American Midwest, France, Norway, large sections of northern Africa, and a good portion of Russia and southeast Asia. The U.S. Geological Survey releases geomagnetic isoplots yearly.
And if your source can't get correct one of the most basic facts about the Earth's magnetic field, then I'm not very confident in his ability to correlate it correctly to anything else.
|
|
|
Post by altair4 on Mar 4, 2008 16:49:15 GMT -4
hmmm....I still think there is something to this World Grid!!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 4, 2008 19:19:17 GMT -4
hmmm....I still think there is something to this World Grid!!!
Because you want there to be, or because the data indicate it?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 5, 2008 10:12:33 GMT -4
When you find something real, kindly let us know.
|
|
|
Post by altair4 on Mar 5, 2008 18:02:26 GMT -4
I still think this grid means something...there is a lot conventional science doesn't know (or wants to know!)
I like science..but to me the scientific method is a joke!! what is logically impossible, happens for a fact TRUTH!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 5, 2008 20:26:41 GMT -4
Conventional science seems to know enough to poke very large holes in the theory by pointing out well-known facts that the theory proponents have ignored. Conventional science doesn't have to be complete or perfect in order to reject patently ill-founded ideas.
What bothers you about the scientific method? What do you consider logically impossible, yet demonstrably true?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 6, 2008 11:47:28 GMT -4
What is logically impossible cannot happen. What may seem logically impossible does have a logical explanation, even if we do not know enough to find it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 6, 2008 14:17:52 GMT -4
there is a lot conventional science doesn't know
Conventional science has explained many things with varying degrees of accuracy. Much of the knowledge is not broadly understood, because it is simply too esoteric for most of us and doesn't relate to our daily lives, at least in any way that we need to know that it does. After all, how much do you need to know about solid state physics to enjoy watching a flat panel TV.
(or wants to know!)
Scientist will be the first to tell you that they don't know much of what makes the universe work. Science is not a monolithic organization that can reject knowledge it finds distasteful. Scientific knowledge is the cumulative result of millions of people doing research and development, each with a different perspective and agenda. It is simply impossible to hide significant scientific knowledge for long. Someone else will just discover it independently.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2008 16:35:07 GMT -4
Absolute logical impossibility can be determined only through deductive reasoning. And if a deductive line of reasoning reaches a conclusion that is contradicted by observation, then the proof is necessary fallacious. Logicians have no problem navigating that. Direct refutation and reductio ad absurdum are well-known tools to test the rigor of reasoning and work by pitting what is deduced against what can be observed.
Scientific reasoning is more likely to be induction. As such, conclusions hold only under certain conditions. Science does not purport to understand all conditions, and wisely refrains from drawing conclusions where the conditions are uncertain. This is where science and pseudoscience depart company: pseudoscience lowers the bar to allow a conclusion where important factors remain unknown or indeterminate.
Because induction allows for the inductive leap, inductive reasoning cannot be as strong as deductive reasoning. This leads many to conclude wrongly that since inductive science cannot know everything under all circumstances, it cannot reject any idea. Stated another way, they impose the constraint that science must know everything in order to reject anything. However, such reasoning begs the question that the proposition in question falls into the inductive gap. Where the proposition discusses properties and circumstances that are well known, science can properly reject them if they do not fit the theory. In short, just because you can't see into the closet whose door is closed doesn't mean you can't see the burglar standing in the middle of the living room.
Science is not a once-forever proposition. Prevailing theories are shown to explain the nature of the universe so far as the universe can be observed. If one manages to come up with a new observation that the prevailing model doesn't describe, then naturally the model must be extended to account for it. That doesn't mean a wholesale rejection of the model in favor of a new one; most often it means a simple refinement or alteration of the existing model. But in most cases the "errant" observation results from improper observation. That's where the scientific method comes in: it makes sure that observations are being made in an honest and true fashion, in order to test whether the anomaly justifies a new model or is simply an error of observation.
And because science is not a once-forever proposition, much of the work of science is in seeking out and testing new observations and models. Scientists are often wrongly portrayed as staying pat on prevailing models simply because they can't abide change. In fact all scientists do every day is look for where models need refinement, to make them overall more predictive and useful. Science is all about change. But science is about justified change. Scientists appear to stand pat mostly in the face of pseudoscience that wants to move more quickly than the data allow. Scientists move only when the scientific method is properly employed and thus gives adequate assurance that all observations new and old can fit into the resulting model.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Mar 6, 2008 17:36:05 GMT -4
Thank you Jay for explaining that so well, It's the hardest element of science to explain but the simplest concept.
Science is the search for truth and with that truth comes understanding, yes you do get some ego's within the science community, where don't you, but on the whole, the challenge to increase ones knowledge keeps them working on a solution for years on end. This must be acknowledged and admired.
I remember my university physics days when our lab lecturer loved it when an experiment went wrong or our results did not match what was expected.
"Now go find out what went wrong and why."
Then, it would drive me bonkers because obviously it meant more work for me, but now I understand the importance of knowing why things went wrong.
"You might make a new discovery"
Never did, but he he would mark us very high if we managed to explain a failed experiment. ;D
This was basic physics but even then the search for the truth lead to real knowledge. It's hard work with no short cuts.
|
|