How this pseudo-scientist can so manage to remain the focus of attention is a marvel to behold. Is it the "groan" factor or is he the human equivalent of the proverbial train wreck in which our basic instinct demands that we stop and watch? I my self am not immune. The discovery of planetoid Sedna, the urgent preservation of the Hubble; yes there must be a dozen initial reasons this amateur visits the BA website yet I keep posting on the Hoagland threads. #-o

What I hope is my last message on the subject might I suggest that for Richard C. Hoagland, any publicity is good publicity even if it means subsisting as a human punching bag. Let us all take our collective deep breaths and move on.

Hey, why are there still multiple Planet X threads talking about Nancy's latest silliness?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

You can count me in to the 'bearded' group.

No, no. You merely need something to stroke absentmindedly while you contemplate the cure for the common cold or world conquest. If beards aren't your thing, you can substitue something else - a cat perhaps:

http://www.hypocrites.com/pictures/a...ts/gillete.jpg

Works for Doctor Evil.

You might be moderately reassured to know that two members of Congress are physicists, Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Rush Holt (D-NJ). You even have one from each party. Even though they're on opposite sides of the aisle, they do work together on science issues.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Greetings to all,

Without knowing it, this chat is confirming what I wrote in "Ignoring Fossils..."

This entire chat ignores the science and attacks the writer personally. No wonder, we don't take such criticism seriously. We just shake our heads and wonder whatever happened to informed inquiry.

It is noteworthy that not one of you are even curious about the fossil candidate especially considering NASA's announcement yesterday that Opportunity is on the shoreline of an ancient salty Martian sea. Refer to the short article pasted at the end of this message.

I, not Hoagland, am the author of the piece, "Ignoring Fossils." Neither am I a team member of Enterprise. My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Enterprise who graciously agreed to publish my piece.

I will quickly address some of the comments made in this chat.

HOADLAND'S SCIENCE:

For a debate to take place, even a scientific or political debate, at least two opposing sides need to be present. One side is obviously missing from Space.com's "Fossil Hunting On Mars."

Space.com's other article, "War of the Words," is an obvious attack piece designed to diminish Hoagland's scientific credibility.

No mention was made in the article of the 19.5 geometry discovered at Cydonia by Hoagland and his Enterprise team. This constant was then applied to other bodies in the solar system. By observation of energy upwellings on the surface of planets corresponding to 19.5 +/- north and south latitude, a prediction was made by the Enterprise team.

Using this discovery, Hoagland predicted that when voyager flew by Neptune that it would detect an upwelling of energy similar to Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and this upwelling would occur in the region of 19.5 north or south latitude. Voyager confirmed the prediction, and this confirmed the working hypothesis that 19.5, or tetrahedral geometry, was in someway associated with the production or expression of energy. Thus was born, by direct scientific observation, prediction and confirmation, the idea of HDP, Hyper Dimensional Physics. This understanding of this discovery is still under investigation at Enterprise.

Space.com did not mention that. That is bad science. Neither is it journalism. As a degreed communications major, I call that 'gate keeping.'

So from my perspective as a person interested in the social affairs of self-government, I ask myself, what's the agenda of space.com.

I'll not spend much time on this, but the first place one starts in answering that question is, who profits? Follow the money...

Be sure to read the little article below, because NASA's salty ocean 'discovery' of yesterday is confirmation of the major point in Hoagland's Mars Tidal Model. I would encourage those interested in science and Mars in particular to read the paper published in 2001 ---- again, in advance of NASA's confirmation.

When you're right, you're right. ) Hoagland's HDP hypothesis is batting a thousand.


THE GALILEO ANALOGY

This is perfectly appropriate. To change contexts but remain with the same theme, read the following:

Seeing Red: Red Shifts, Cosmology & Academic Science / Halton Arp, observable evidence for near quasars
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ce&s=books

The McDaniel Report / Stanley V. McDaniel, NASA failure to engage in science
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ce&s=books


POLITICS

I would like to agree with with Spacewriter when he or she said, "Nobody ever said having brains and common sense was a prerequisite to running for public office."

The current state of the world and our nation is proof of the accuracy of that statement.

I ran for office because I'm fed up with America being run by special interests, corporations and social engineers. I'm tired of government, including its agencies such as NASA, being totally unaccountable to the taxpayers of this nation. I'm tired of justice being destroyed and the constitution being set aside. Hopefully, the members of this BB are familiar with some of these issues, because they are coming' at you like a run-away train... and we are all tied to the tracks.

I won my Republican primary race 67% to 33%. Since both parties are merely different teams playing the same game on the same field, once my positions and independence were known, the Republican party refused to offer any help. And since it is the parties and special interests and those on the payroll who donate to political campaigns, I saw very early that my campaign would not receive enough funds to be competitive. So, being a real conservative and being sensitive to how hard people have to work for their money, I refunded my contributor's donations and stopped accepting donations a full 7 months before the general election.

Bean Counter evidently chose to vote for the 14-year, career politician and unindicted co-conspirator, Jerry Costello, rather than making an effort to find out more before the election about my principles and issues. Counter chose to vote for a politician who voted for the USA Patriot Act without even reading it.

I would encourage you all to examine more closely the science that appears to be absurd from the point of view of the current paradigm. Paradigm shifts are radical changes in perspective and understanding.

I'll remind you that before you can recognize and embrace a paradigm shift event or truth, one must be willing to CONSIDER it.

My paradigm shift event occurred when I was about to enter the 8th grade. Read about it here.
If the Disc Is Ours
http://www.david-sadler.org/pages/bio/discIsOurs.htm

Please read the short piece below and read the link to Hoagland's Mars Tidal Model that is embedded in the piece. Also, I highly recommend Tom Van Flandern's EPH as it explains much of what is observed in our solar system with regards to planet/moon surface features, rotations, axis orientations and more. By reading both Van Flandern's EPH and Hoagland's Mars Tidal Model (with heavy use of MGS and THEMIS images), you'll gain another perspective on both the planet Mars and our solar system in general.

Following are a few materials I cannot recommend highly enough on these matters.

Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets / Tom Van Flandern
http://www.metaresearch.org/publicat...ooks/books.asp

Quasars: Near vs. Far / Tom Van Flandern
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...rVersusFar.asp

Seeing Red: Red Shifts, Cosmology & Academic Science / Halton Arp, observable evidence for near quasars
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ce&s=books

Hoagland's Mars, Vol. 3: The Moon-Mars Connection (video)
http://www.enterprisemission.com/stores.html

America and the rest of the world are facing an impending energy crisis. It will be a race between geological and economic realities of 'scarce resources' on one hand, and the intention destruction or interruption of energy supplies on the other hand. Either way, energy supplies are precarious.

The world is burning 1 billion barrels of oil each 11.5 days at current demand with demand on the rise every day. Add to this the US/UK and Israel are engaged in wars globally to control the world's oil fields, and you can see the race is on to hedge against peak oil. Shell has announced a 4.1 billion barrel reduction in its proven reserves since January 1, 2004. Whether this reduction is REAL or CONTRIVED doesn't matter where prices and economic impact in the short term are concerned.

It behooves us to break our dependence upon fossil fuels ASAP. Fission is not a viable alternative due to the danger posed during operation and disposal of the radioactive materials. Nuke plants also present a great target for acts of terrorism.

We need to bring the exotic technologies out of their black programs and into the public arena. This is a national security issue and an issue that will directly affect the quality of life and standard of living of all citizens in all the industrialized nations of the world. Time is running out.

-- Matthew Simmons, CFR member and G.W. Bush energy advisor to the Energy Task Force headed by Dick Cheney before 9/11, speaking about Peak Oil at the May 27th, 2003 second international conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) which was meeting at the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) in Paris --

MS: " The ... peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand; not years away. If it turns out I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating...But unfortunately the world has no Plan B if I'm right. The facts are too serious to ignore. Sadly the pessimist-optimist debate started too late. "

Q. Last year, you defended the administration's concept of depletion ... and the hydrogen proposal is really a fantasy. Don't you think it is time for a more enlightened energy policy [from the G.W. Bush Administration].

MS: " That would be wonderful but I think that it is going to take a while. There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies. This is a tough question and I have no answers. "

Perhaps HDP will help us understand how to build that bridge. Hoagland and Enterprise used it to predict a confirmed upwelling of energy on Neptune and its correct location. I would think that those interested in both politics and science would be interested in knowing more about that.

Best regards,
David Sadler
www.david-sadler.org

Hoagland Vindicated
NASA Announcement of Mars Ocean and Seashore Location Confirms Major Aspects of Hoagland Mars Tidal Model
Possibility of Complex Fossils on Mars No Longer a Space Conspiracy
By David Sadler
2004.03.24

“Today is very gratifying to those of us at Enterprise. Three years ago, we published a detailed, predictive "tidal Mars model" ... anticipating exactly what NASA announced at Headquarters this afternoon. The landing site of Opportunity is precisely at the "shoreline" of one of the two "ancient tidal oceans" we proposed .... See http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm
“Leonard David [Space.com] read a copy of this paper about two years ago, after sitting through another set of papers relating to this model (delivered by Plaermo and England) at the Mars Society annual meeting in San Francisco, for 2002.
“Our model was also an invited paper at the Astronomical League's annual 2002 convention.”
-- Richard C. Hoagland, commenting on the NASA announcement that the rover Opportunity was finding rock and mineral deposit evidence that it had landed on the shores of a former salty ocean on Mars. See Space.com article, "Salty Sea Covered Part of Mars: 'Excellent' Site to Search for Past Life," 2004.03.23, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ea_040323.html

In that same article, "Salty Sea Covered Part of Mars,” Deputy NASA Administrator for Space Science, Dr. Ed Weiler, confirmed that conditions were right for both the formation and preservation of fossils if life once existed on Mars. “... the results are 'beyond our wildest expectations' for the rover mission. If you have an interest in searching for fossils on Mars, this is the first place you'd want to go.'"

Dr. Weiler, we couldn’t agree more. Let’s all calm down and reevaluate the possibility that an actual fossil in Eagle crater has already been imaged by the Opportunity rover’s microscopic imager. (Opportunity rover image 034/1M131201538EFF0500P2933M2M1) The reason we need to do this is because there may be more, and if NASA is really serious about finding signs of past life on Mars, the current missions might be able to determine this in ways the entire world will understand --- visually.

The cracks in the dam, holding back the real Mars from public view, are growing. More and more scientists are having their eyes opened by these latest returns from Mars. Spacecraft sent by both NASA and the European Space Agency are revealing ancient ocean beds, shorelines with exposed rocky layers, huge stores of existing water and even moisture in the atmosphere.

Bob Craddock, science advisor to the under secretary for science at the Smithsonian Institution, cuts through the fog to make it perfectly clear. In the Space.com article mentioned, Craddock said, "These deposits and their mineralogy clearly indicate that the climate of Mars was different in the past. For the first time we're looking evidence that an alien planet was earthlike at one point in its history."

Michael McKay, Flight Operations Director for the European Space Agency in Darmstadt, Germany, took it a step further in a interview with Linda Moulton Howe titled, “Is There Living Green Algae in the Gusev Crater on Mars?” Mr. McKay said, "Certainly like the green in the Gusev crater picture or by looking at the development of darker spots toward the South Pole which are tied to seasonal variations, it certainly gives rise to the speculation that there could be algae."

For those who need emphasis, that translates into this. The European Space Agency believes it’s current mission in Mars orbit, the Mars Express, is detecting possible CURRENT life on Mars.

Those reluctant to open their objective mind to the possibilities being presented with each passing day with regards to life (past and present) on Mars, must reevaluate the source of their hesitancy. Science will reveal the observable and testable nature of reality. Those who wish to deny the new findings and refuse to actively consider a more aggressive search for life signs during these current missions to Mars, regardless of their credentials, are the ones living in the fantasy world.

David Sadler
Www.david-sadler.org

Ignoring Fossils On Mars
http://www.enterprisemission.com/_ar...silsOnMars.htm

Welcome to the Board, sadlerds.

Since I had posted on the "laughed at Galileo" issue, I'll try to address that.
Firstly, my arguement was as follows:
Firstly, I still don't see how Hoagland meets item #1, regardless of others criticisms of NASA or of the alternate theories by Arp.

Secondly, we do have a few Arp supporters here at the Board, those debates can get lively but for the most part posters do feel that Arp does meet item#1 so his ideas are debated. The detail those debates get into usually goes over my head, such was Arp's knowledge of astronomy and physics that I feel only people with a good grounding in those subjects can debate Arp's hypotheses.

Thirdly, I went to http://www.stanmcdaniel.com/mars/brfpref.htm, the website of the author of the McDaniel report. I found this quote which I believe refers to Hoagland's book Monuments of Mars:
(side note: I ask everyone reading this to go to the website to be sure they read the context of the quote - it's against Board rules to cut and paste large amounts of text but I also don't want people taking the quote out of context!)

Now, per his website Prof McDaniel has a Ph.d. in Philosophy and may still be teaching at Sonoma State University! (That's where Phil teaches! )
Is that enough to meet criteria #1? Maybe, I don't know the man. It's not a degree in astrophysics but it's definately a good start. Still has nothing to do with Hoagland though.

Phil, is Prof. McDaniel still at the university? Maybe you could get his opinion on the information from the latest Mars probes! 8)

Without knowing it, this chat is confirming what I wrote in "Ignoring Fossils..."

This entire chat ignores the science and attacks the writer personally.

And therefore bears a close resemblance to the article we're discussing. There are other threads here on which we are discussing the science. Perhaps you should read those before making accusations.

No mention was made in the article of the 19.5 geometry discovered at Cydonia by Hoagland and his Enterprise team. This constant was then applied to other bodies in the solar system. By observation of energy upwellings on the surface of planets corresponding to 19.5 +/- north and south latitude, a prediction was made by the Enterprise team.

Using this discovery, Hoagland predicted that when voyager flew by Neptune that it would detect an upwelling of energy similar to Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and this upwelling would occur in the region of 19.5 north or south latitude. Voyager confirmed the prediction, and this confirmed the working hypothesis that 19.5, or tetrahedral geometry, was in someway associated with the production or expression of energy. Thus was born, by direct scientific observation, prediction and confirmation, the idea of HDP, Hyper Dimensional Physics. This understanding of this discovery is still under investigation at Enterprise.

Space.com did not mention that. That is bad science. Neither is it journalism.

Bad science is considering a single prediction a "confirmation" of your theory.



Be sure to read the little article below, because NASA's salty ocean 'discovery' of yesterday is confirmation of the major point in Hoagland's Mars Tidal Model. I would encourage those interested in science and Mars in particular to read the paper published in 2001 ---- again, in advance of NASA's confirmation.

When you're right, you're right. ) Hoagland's HDP hypothesis is batting a thousand.

Elsewhere on this board I foresaw that Hoagland and his cronies would take credit for predicting the existence of past water at Meridiani Planum (which is perfectly in accord with mainstream science) and then claim that this confirms the rest of his hypotheses. I guess I'm batting a thousand as well.


[b]Seeing Red: Red Shifts, Cosmology & Academic Science / Halton Arp, observable evidence for near quasars

My impression is that Arp's theories have not been borne out by recent deep-sky surveys. For example, his belief that quasars have discrete redshifts is demonstrably false.


My paradigm shift event occurred when I was about to enter the 8th grade. Read about it here.
If the Disc Is Ours
http://www.david-sadler.org/pages/bio/discIsOurs.htm

I am currently unable to access your website. I will keep trying.

Michael McKay, Flight Operations Director for the European Space Agency in Darmstadt, Germany, took it a step further in a interview with Linda Moulton Howe titled, “Is There Living Green Algae in the Gusev Crater on Mars?” Mr. McKay said, "Certainly like the green in the Gusev crater picture or by looking at the development of darker spots toward the South Pole which are tied to seasonal variations, it certainly gives rise to the speculation that there could be algae."

For those who need emphasis, that translates into this. The European Space Agency believes it’s current mission in Mars orbit, the Mars Express, is detecting possible CURRENT life on Mars.

The green in the Gusev crater image is not green. And the Enterprise Mission dishonestly and in violation of copyright attributes the correctly non-green image to NASA when it was actually created by Don Davis and used without either his permission or credit.

Additionally, I looked up Michael McKay's background. He is an engineer and operations manager for the Mars Express spacecraft and did not work on the instruments as either a scientist or an engineer. He is not in a position to speak reliably on the science results from Mars Express nor is he a spokesperson for the European Space Agency, and it is misleading for you to credit him with expressing the views of that organization.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hey, David Duke ran for Congress. No one's asking him about life on Mars. Hmmm - let's use their logic... "the guy who ran for Congress" believes Hoagland - David Duke Ran for Congress -- Richard Hoagland is a former Grand Wizard of the KKK!! Who knew?

Who invented the airplane and what were their credentials prior to the invention?

What degrees were held by Einstein prior to publishing his theories?

Who was the first scientist and what were his/her credentials prior to claiming to be one?

The board continues to concentrate on 'credentials' and 'personalities' rather than considering the science.

This is very telling, but not unexpected considering the content of the chat.

Has anyone read the Mars Tidal Model paper?

__________________
David Sadler
www.david-sadler.org

This thread is focusing on credentials. That might be fair, it might not. However, my extensive pages debunking Hoagland has one page on his self-proclaimed credentials, and the rest actually tear apart his scientific claims. For example, the page on the "city" show that the entire basis for his "hyperdimensional physics" is based on grossly incorrect assumptions. His math is garbage, useless.

All of his claims into which I have looked closely have fallen apart under scrutiny. All of them. I have not yet read the tidal page, but I intend to when I get a chance.

I'll be honest: I don't care about his schooling. His credentials are a distraction from the real issue, which is his faulty claims. I discuss arguments on their merit. I will admit to not going into the merits of your website claims in this thread, but that is because much of what you are concerned with has been thoroughly treated in the past. I don't feel the need to go over the UFO stuff, or any of Hoagland's claims (the glass worm, the green images of Mars) that have already been talked about and debunked ad naseum. If you want to talk creationism, feel free to first use the search feature of this board to find where I stand on that issue.

Credentials may open a door, but it's the merits of the argument that let you walk through it. Hoagland's credentials or lack thereof are inconsequential. It's his arguments that are wrong.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

If you think Hoagland's ideas have merit, convince us. Spare the empty catch-phrases. As far as "concentrating on 'credentials'" it seems Hoagland has no difficulty citing these "credentials" to give weight to his hokum. It's part of his disinformation and is fair game. Your inclusion of the word "personalities" is just an empty word said for effect without forethought or validity. Hoagland's personality isn't, nor ever was the issue .. just his bullcrap. As ToSeek pointed out, there are other threads that discuss the science involved. "Very telling"? More empty words that you think sound good .. what did you expect when you dropped in here? hmm? This isn't the enterprisemission. If you want to make a case for Hoagland's claims, be my guest. Better yet, tell him to come over here and make them.

Respect must be earned. Einstein earned it. Also, there were plenty of aircraft built that flew a short distance but we honor the Wright Bros. because their ideas earned eveyrone's respect.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Exactly...but beware...we will demand evidence.

On a side note, Sadlerds, what are your thoughts on the Martian Librarys mentioned by Hoagland last night?? HHMMMM??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I just want to reiterate Archer's word here:

This is precisely correct. I did not bring up Hoagland's credentials, Hoagland did. They are on his website, and in his intro to every talk radio show he does. I have been on many shows, and they get those intros from the guests themselves. Hoagland uses those credentials to lend himself credibility, and so it is fair game for me, or anyone, to show the flaws in those claims. So I did.

I'll note that in his diatribes against me, he only talks about that one page, and not the half-dozen others ripping his claims up. He also claims I attack him, which is not true. As I have stated before, I have only attacked his claims. He is the one who uses ad hominems, for example comparing Dr. Greeberg to Hitler, or claiming I am a puppet to NASA.

I'm surprised, Phil. I read Hoagland's paper years ago. It's worth a reading.

Welcome to the board, sadlerds.

By chance have you read the first results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory published in June 2001, my fellow Bad Newbie?

Hardly. The Exploded Planet Hypothesis was first proposed after the discovery of Ceres, Pallas and the other major asteroids back in the mid to late 1800s. It was proposed to explain why there was an asteroid belt, and not a planet between Mars and Jupiter. It was discarded when it was realized that all the asteroids put together would make a mass far too small to make a planet.

We already understand most of what is observed in the solar system with regards to surface features, rotations, and axis orientation. In fact, Van Flandern's EPH fails to take much into consideration. If Mars was a moon of some doomed planet thrown into it's current orbit, it would have much higher eccentricity and inclination then we see now. There is nothing that would give Mars such a stable orbit if it had been 'thrown' from an orbit from around a planet.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

This is one of the biggest flaws in all of the "violently migrating planets" theories: Velikovsky, Sitchin, McCanney, van Flandern. The planets' orbits are far too circular. Venus has the most circular orbit of all (tied with Neptune), yet Venus is usually the planet tossed around in the theories.

The only way to save these theories is to propose a new force which circularized the orbits of the ejected planets. This force apparently works on planets, but not moons, comets, asteroids, stars (as seen in elliptical binary orbits)... nor does it work perfectly, as Mars, for example, does have a slight eccentricity (0.09, more than other major planets, but far less than your typical comet). Oh, and it doesn't work on Pluto either, which has an eccentricity of 0.25.

Also, this force, which is picky at best, is strong enough to forceably circularize an orbit in a short period of time, yet somehow manages to not vaporize the planet, even though the forces involved over such a short time are vast.

To be considered, even in passing, a theory should really solve more major problems than it raises. The EPH raises way too many.

Hoagland's tidal theory requires Mars to be the ex-moon of some exploded planet.

Before we can even look at Hoagland's theory, we must prove the EPH is correct. There has to be evidence that there was a planet for Mars to have been the moon of. Mars cannot be the evidence. And finding past water on it certaintly can't be the evidence.

This is circular logic. Mars use to be a moon with tides of a now exploded planet. Water is found where we said it would be according to tidal models. Therefore Mars was a moon with tides of a now exploded planet.

NASA knew before launching either spirit or opportunity where were likely places to find water. It wasn't some kind of fluke they found signs of past water. NASA looked in the right places. NASA's models therefore have a lot more validity then Hoagland's.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Which can easily be explained by the nearness of Mars to Jupiter...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

I disagree that it is circular logic. If you start by assuming Mars was a nearby moon of a planet (in the rather shaky evidence that it has two bulges on opposite sides of the planet (an idea I have not yet checked, BTW)) then you can make predictions. One prediction might be the presence of water in some areas due to tidal forces. Then those predictions can be checked with observations.

Of course, I am not saying Hoagland is right. Given his track record, his ability to misuse evidence, his ability to make up evidence, his ability to exaggerate evidence, and his ability to ignore contrary evidence, I have little faith in his tidal model theory. But again, I have not yet read it carefully.

I was half listening to RCH on the radio as I laid in bed in a fever-fueled misery (d@mn3d cold...I sound like Michigan J Frog on the phone at the Help Desk), and I was just wondering how much of NASA's findings he'd be trumpeting that he predicted first.

The prediction he got right was thought through with information available to almost anyone who cared to do a little research, so it's not like he had a private channel on his crystal ball. In addition, overall, how many things has he gotten right so far? His consecutive hit streak is now at -- what -- one?

His grand theorems of faces in the desert and ancient civilizations' junkyards lying around and cities under the sand hold no water for me (pun intended). The stuff he uses to come up with these great pronunciamentos are sadly lacking in basic supporting research to uphold the conclusions.

TRANSLATION: If this dude can't get the small stuff right, I have no faith in his version of the big stuff.

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

He held a doctorate in physics from the Federal Polytechnic University of Zurich, Switzerland. Any other questions?

sadlerds, my post was discussing the specific issue of the "laughing at Galileo" defense. You specifically addressed it in your first post. I answered. Criteria #1 that I had listed specifically ties to credentials so I discussed it. You are now taking such criticism, which was on a specific issue, and whole-handedly applying it to the Board itself. That is an incorrect application of specific points. You also have failed to address them.

And for the record:

The Wright Brothers did some wonderful engineering but they were not the first to try, the basic principles of flight were forming and the Wright Brothers knew of them. There had been numerous attempts by others prior to the Wright Brothers, and a Brazilian developed an airplane at around the same time.

Einstein had a Ph.d in Physics and spent years intensively studying the latest discoveries in physics with his first wife, who was also an excellent physcist (but never completed her Ph.d.)

Who the very first scientists were is a matter of opinion but even if you go back to the ancient Greeks you find that the leading philosophers all had excellent educations, one had to if you were to be able to debate philosophy.

None of the above were 100% right in everything they did, and I don't think they ever presumed that because they got one (or a few) things correct that everything they propose must de facto be correct either.

This was my whole point though. That's a huge assumption, and Hoagland seems to be saying that since we've found signs of past water on Mars, it proves that Mars use to be a moon. I think that's a huge leap in logic.

Hoagland's entire tidal model requires the existance of an exploded planet. Since there is little evidence that one ever existed, I personally find that assuming that Mars was a moon of said planet is another huge leap in logic.

Mainstream science has suspected water on Mars ever since the Mariner probes in the 60s and late 70s showed what looked like water erosion. This predates, by a significant amount, any of Hoagland's woowoo theories.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

He received his degree in physics and mathematics teaching from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School of Zurich in 1901. He received his doctorate in 1905, the same year he published Special Relativity.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Greetings, All,

Thanks to those, including Bad Astronomer javascript:emoticon(''), for welcoming me to this discussion.

For now, let me just hit a couple of points raised since my initial two postings. Busy day...

Is Hoagland God?
No.

Does he sometimes make mistakes?
Yes. I pointed this out in my article "NASA Running Scared," and Hoagland did not ask me to remove it, but published it as I had written it. 1 point - Hoagland.

Does he sometimes get it right?
Yes. 2 points - Hoagland.

These last two acknowledgements should not surprise anyone since, as TriangleMan pointed out, no one is "100% right in everthing."

Being right on some points is not negated by being wrong on others.

Crendials

Wright Brothers... Their work validated their effort and their theories in spite of their lack of 'crenditials.' This is self evident. I'll not even engage in the distraction of who was first to invent the airplane. The point is, they did it. Anyone who has been to Kittyhawk and examined their hand-cranked wind tunnel and the huge variety of airfoils they manufactured and tested comes away impressed by the men, their methods and their success. I care not one bit about their lack of official credentials.

Einstein... As pointed out, had a physics degree. But these credentials did not sheild his theories from being tested. Parts of his theories are confirmed, but other parts are being falsified to the point that other theories are being preferred to describe observations. The point here is that, as stated above, no one is totally correct all the time --- even those with credentials.

So the point here is that credentials might get you a job or a club membership, but they are irrelevant when it comes to production.

The use of the appeal to credentials is often used to disqualify a person's ideas, for politial purposes, even when the ideas have merit. This is why the Space.com attack concentrated credentials. They wished to ignore the fossil candidate and discredit the person pointing it out.

I'll be back, in a few days, but I've have business to attend to.

Thank you again for your kind welcome.

Best regards,
David Sadler


Regarding Einstein...

From: Tom Van Flandern, MetaReserch
To: David Sadler
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: Speed of Gravity and the Galaxy Clock model

David,

In our latest publication about the 'speed of gravity' ['Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions', T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002)], we show that there is no need to 'get around' special relativity (SR) because that theory is now falsified in favor of Lorentzian relativity (LR). For your purposes, this means the universe has no speed limit.

The closest approximation online is the preprint 'The speed of gravity – Repeal of the speed limit' at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gr...peed_limit.asp.

Physics has recognized for the past two decades that rest masses of moving bodies do not change. The apparent increase in inertia can as easily be explained as the problem that forces propagating at a speed s in some rest frame cannot possibly propel any mass faster than s, the speed of the force. Because electromagnetic forces are, quite naturally, limited by the speed of light c, so is the resultant speed they can induce (s < c). However, gravitational force and also Coulomb force [ 1 - 2 ] propagate faster than light (s > c), and therefore would have no problem in principle propelling bodies faster than light in forward time. (Time reversal is a feature of SR, not LR, and therefore does not come into play.)

In short, the 'universal speed limit' has been repealed.

Best wishes,
-|Tom|-

__________________
David Sadler
www.david-sadler.org

"Is Hoagland God?" .. C'mon!! If you're going to post on the man's behalf let's get down to the key issue here. Tell us (in your own words if you can) where we are mistaken in our assessment of Hoagland's claims regarding Mars.We have explained why Hoagland's "credentials" are fair game and you continue to ignore the other side of the coin. Hoagland's "appeal" to his own dubious credentials is used by him to help promote ideas that have no merit. Politics is a Hoagland catch-phrase for anything that isn't sympathetic to what he shovels. He has more excuses (politics, conspiracies, cover-ups) than Bayer has aspirin.You've been smoozing with Hoagland too much. He likes to tell us what to see or not see in NASA images and you like to tell us what goes on in the minds of space.com writers.

Like I said earlier, maybe when you return you can start making a case for why we should change our minds regarding Hoagland's claims without talking about God, Einstein, the Wright Brothers, or politics -- Tell us about Hoagland's Mars and where we have it wrong.

This is absolutely wrong when referring to people who operate like Hoagland or Velokovsky.

Here is why: their mode of operation is to toss out hundreds of strange off the wall weird things, whatever they imagine or dream up. Eventually, one minor portion of one of their ideas turns out to be correct, or at least partly correct. Their followers can them make the claims you have made on Hoagland's behalf, ignoring all else.

An understanding of introductory statistics and probability will be all that is needed to understand that the mode of operation is useless or worse.