Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
19 crawler(s) on-line.
 127 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  46 mins ago
 Bruce72:  48 mins ago
 Rob:  1 hr 19 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  1 hr 35 mins ago
 t0lkien:  1 hr 40 mins ago
 amigakit:  2 hrs 1 min ago
 OneTimer1:  2 hrs 14 mins ago
 Troels:  3 hrs 15 mins ago
 Gunnar:  3 hrs 30 mins ago
 zipper:  3 hrs 59 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 31-May-2011 2:15:05
#321 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Let me spell it out for you - you are not using the formula correctly even though I spelled it out a few pages ago.


Lou, you're missing the point. When we leave out 'Astrophysicist's undetectable 99.999% plasma inter-stellar medium, your formula gives answers that are out by a factor of 1000 or greater. If you think I'm using your formula wrong, it falls to you to demonstrate how this is.

You can do this by plugging values from observations and experiment into your formula and working it out.

You will achieve nothing by accusing me of stupidity.

And you just just proved my point that you like to ignore what you don't like.

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, you were the one who characterized them as cavemen in the original thread. I only use the term to remind you of your error.


What?

When I use the term 'caveman', I use it to highlight how even the most 'primitive' of humans is still endowed with an intelligence and a cunning that will allow remarkable things to be achieved with very little.

When you use the term 'caveman', you seem to be using it to indicate the insulting stereotype of the idiot savage. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that you'd have that view of 'cavemen'. You do after all believe that all the civilisations prior to modern Western civilisation were too stupid to have achieved what they did independently, and were therefore established by space aliens.

Quote:
Well you are making progress. I see you now accept civilization prior to judeo-christian beliefs...


Lou, I have never denied civilisation prior to Judeo-Christian beliefs. My whole point has been that human civilisation has developed on its own prior to them. And that it didn't need space aliens to achieve.

You're asking us to believe that that prior to Judeo-Christian civilisation, what could possibly be broadly termed 'Western Civilisation', everything that ever happened was due to aliens providing the 'primitives' with the answers. This is frankly the worst kind of European (or 'Western', if you prefer) Exceptionalism, and simply isn't borne out by the archaeology or the observations we can make.

Actually, your assuptions of what I think is incorrect, as usual.
Based on population estimate, I simply don't believe that the actual man-power existed to build the things presented to the degree they were designed.

You think 120 ton stones can be perfectly cut with string and placed in perfect alignment ontop of other similarly cut stones...yet no tools used to lift these stones have been found. There's a reason why the Romans used concrete... You simply reject any notion that involves an advance alien race helping seed this planet. You have no actual proof that it didn't happen. Your only real answer is that you really wouldn't like to believe that it didn't happen.

Quote:
Quote:
Here is a fallacy. You think that is something is found in an area determined to be of age X that it continues to exist in complete isolation. Therefore when you find object of age Y in the same area that it disproves the possibility of the first object to be of age X where X>>Y.


It is possibly to apply a number of geochronological methods to determining an object's age. The most effective and expensive are radiometric, you simply measure the decay of isotopes found within the item you are dating, or preserved in context with it. If you're directly dating an object, its easy. You just run the test and determine how much decay has occurred. If not, you need to rely on the principle of stratigraphy. If you want to deny stratigraphy, fine, but you'll need to provide an alternative.

We aren't finding objects of age Y near objects of age X. We're finding objects you claim with no evidence to be of age X, preserved in sediments we can demonstrate to be age Y, with radiometric dating of the object showing it to also be of age Y. But you're still claiming it to be age Y. Why is this?

Half-life is defined in terms of probability not actuallity. Like gravity you are using estimates and averages as constants. So your actual proof amounts to a guess.

Quote:
Quote:
You continue to ignore my views on Sitchin and make these ignorant and abrasive assertions. I could just as easily say that you worship the ground that Newton trodded on. After all, you continue to recite his passages.


You couldn't very easily say that, because I don't actually worship Newton. I don't hold his work up as incontrovertible fact. If I did, I would consider Einstein and Hawking to be heretics and apostates of the worst order.

I'd probably have much the same attitude towards them that you show towards mainstream, credible linguists, archaeologists and scientists.

Actually you do indeed act like you worship Physis 101, Geology 101, etc...

Quote:
Quote:
Amazingly the romans had to use concrete because they weren't strong enough or had enough string to cut the hundreds of ton stones that the earlier civilizations did.


No, Lou. The ancient civilisations used the sisal string and the simple mechanical methods to move the massive stones because they didn't have enough technology to use concrete.

Once concrete was available, it was the preferred material because it is so much easier to use. Yes, its higher maintenance, yes it falls apart much more easily. But its so much easier to build in the first place. Much like we now use steel frames with plate glass to build structures with planned end-of-life phases only a century away, if that. Requires much more maintenance than earlier structures, and we now even plan controlled disassembly at end-of-life, so they're hardly long-lived.

But its a lot cheaper and easier to build with. We don't use it because we've lost the knowledge of concrete any more than we've lost the ability to move huge rocks around. Its just easier not to, once you've developed the technology.

Oh I see, it's economics. The Romans wanted to keep construction workers employed so they chose to make structures that required maintenance. It all make sense now, it was those darn UNIONS!!!!

Quote:
Quote:
So you say I have a faith in Sitchin...would you like me to accuse you of having faith in the bible or koran?


You can accuse me of anything you like. But I've never read the Quran and I gave up on the Bible halfway through the Old Testament when things got a bit bloodthirsty for my taste.

Whereas you have read Sitchin, and seem to treat his words as incontrovertible fact, simply because your opinion is that he tells a good story. Is this any different from a Muslim or a Christian sticking to their holy books because they help them make sense of their lives?

No.

Physics 101, Geology 101, etc.. seems to help you make sense of your life.

Quote:
Quote:
LOL! Your tone towards me is very insulting and degrading. Luckily I'm not the type to file AR's like some people. I feel your tone just amplifies your weak character.


Pot? Kettle? Furthermore, I dispute your assertion. I will repeat my request regardless - what is the holy book of science?

All of them. Even the bible is a collection of smaller books. Combine them and you have the holy book of science that you worship.

Quote:
Quote:
fyi: geological science is not an exact science


In post 172 you will find evidence disproving Nibiru that does not need to be exact. The facts are that there are millions of years in between magnetic reversals, with no pattern linking them to anything operating on a 3600 year timescale. And there are millions of years worth of ice on top of Antarctica, so no crustal shifts happening either. And there are millions of years of sedimentation deposited in rifts both modern and ancient, disproving the notion that the continents are rearranged by a Nibiruian catastrophe. These are all lines of evidence that are accurate, and that can disprove Nibiru without needing to be precise.

But for your information, certain aspects of geological science are very exact. Precise as well as accurate. They include such areas as radiometric dating, the premier method with which we've disproved all those ooparts you like to talk about.

As I stated before, those dating methods involve probability not actuality. You are treating it as exact like some people believe the bible word for word.

Quote:
We don't buy our school textbooks on this side of the pond, old boy.

Lucky you. I'll be the first to admit 'the American way' is full of flaws, me lad.

Quote:
And its simpler than that - until you demonstrate how your mathematics proves your opinion, it'll remain just an opinion, and nothing to do with science.

And you fail to understand your geological evidence is subjective because geology is probably the least exact science.

Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps it didn't. However, it's the story I prefer to read.


Why not read something with a bit more substance to it? Tolkien's prehistory of the world was much better-written than Sitchin's, with fewer plot-holes. And if it is just a 'story', and by that I mean a work of fiction, why does it have any relevance to the fields of Earth Science or Astronomy?

Quite simple. I choose to read what I want and not you for me. Also: I told you, I agree with the concepts of what Sitchin says as it relates to human history. The details may be off, but the concept is what I fully agree with.

Quote:
Quote:
That's your opinion.


No, its not my opinion. Its a fact that your 17,000 year figure is unsubstantiated. Its also a fact that anyone believing in that claim would have to be ignorant of geochronology. Or to have denied it, whichever.

The evidence shows the city to be first settled in 1500BC, developing into an urban centre between 300BC and 300AD, and fading out until collapsing by 1000AD. Do you want to stick to the 17,000 years old claim?

'The evidence'? The evidence is that in the 1500's when the Spaniards came, no one had a clue about anything and they simply conquered and built churches over the native population's temples and such. Any evidence is subjective.

Quote:
Quote:
The people living there said some other people built it.


The archaeology tells us that the people living there were conquered by the Inca. Interestingly enough, it was this Inca conquest, and the Inca policy of enforcing Quechua language and their own religion worshiping the sun in the form of their god Inti that destroyed the Tiahuanaco culture, not the later Spanish conquest. But regardless, of course the Inca told the Spanish that someone else built it. The Tiahuanaco people built it! And they did so between 1500BC and 1000AD.

Ah yes, archaelogy, yet another of the 'exact sciences' you believe in...

Quote:
Quote:
As for the weather changes, perhaps that happened as of 500BC which would have been Niburu's last estimated visit.


You can't just handwave the whole thing with a half-baked 'perhaps' statement. We know how the weather changes operate. We've got 25,000 years of palaeoecological proxy data demonstrating how that climatic cycle works. It isn't on a 3600 year timescale, so it isn't to do with 'Nibiru'.

And, no, the weather changes didn't happen in 500BC. They happened over the late 900s AD. You can trace the changes in climate by studying the Andean glaciers or the sediments of the bed of Lake Titicaca. The ice preserves air bubbles with the then-atmospheric composition. The sediments preserve all manner of palaeoecological data we can use to tightly constrain climate conditions, and since lakes deposit annual layers of sediment thanks to annual variations in river inputs and such, we can do this with a resolution of +/- a year or two.

Actually, I can. You told me so yourself. I do it every thursday and sometimes more often.

Quote:
I will concede that since this aspect of geology is indeed not an exactly precise science, we can't tell you whether the rains first failed in 962 or 963. But the data remains accurate, it can and will tell you the rains became progressively less and less reliable over the latter half of that century, and that they didn't fail around 500BC. Indeed, in 500BC, the Tiahuanaco people were still an agricultural village with 200 years to go before their settlement would become a major trade centre and from there regional hegemon.

You concede something? Color me shocked!

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not going to do your excersizes like a pet. The formulas are there for you to see that the math behind it does indeed exist.


Well, that's very mean spirited of you. BrianK in particular has given you walkthroughs of the accepted Gravitational and Electromagnetic mathematics. Surely the least you could do is give us a walkthrough of your alternatives?

Unless, of course, you can't.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, nor have the ability to run the 'experiments' I have been asked, not that anyone else has either. BrianK did some simple math that could have been done with the average calculator. As I pointed out for Einstein's musings on Special Relativity, the calculations are not simple, this is why for local (this solar system) calculations, general relativity is good enough. Good enough is something I never denied. It's just not universal, which is what some people can't seem to accept.

Quote:
Quote:
This knowledge has lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing By the way, I've yet to see any results manipulating gravity directly... from the anti-gravity wiki: Quote:space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force.


Why then has this knowledge not led to satellites put into orbit using magnetic induction?

Quite simple actually: we don't have the means to contuniously generate the amount of electricity required. It doesn't mean that it can't be done or won't be done eventually...that has been made public. I do believe the military has replicated ufo technology and has reproduced this capability, however.

Quote:
And as for your quote from 'the anti-gravity wiki', that surely is a matter of semantics. Einstein's whole point was that massive objects deform space-time, with gravity being the name given to the response of other massive bodies to that distortion.

If you want to declare gravity 'merely a property of deformed space', fine. I fail to see the revelation there, or the implication that therefore EM does everything.

That distortion in space-time still accounts for the vast majority of the forces acting on bodies in space, whether or not you choose to call it a 'real force'.

But that's exactly what it is as declared my many scientists, it's just not 'the accepted school book fact'. I pointed you towards "termination shock". At 75-90AU EM was there causing it. Gravity was not. EM can exist in empty space...gravity can't exist without 'large mass'. Which is really the greater and more prevalent force here? It is common sense observations such as this that led me down the path of believing that it's merely a percieved effect of something not fully understood.
We understand many things about EM but not everything. More work needs to be done for sure, but blind faith in gravity becomes problematic when we look to the stars, apparently.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 31-May-2011 2:38:13
#322 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
LOL! Your tone towards me is very insulting and degrading. Luckily I'm not the type to file AR's like some people. I feel your tone just amplifies your weak character.
Still resorting to personal insults then. I could make some sort of matching response to that, but I have been asked not to.
Quote:
Quote: Your inability to read has reached new heights
Quote: Coincidently if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle.
Quote: probably the fact that it's different enough to contain advanced life forms...although after reading your last couple of posts I'm beginning to question that...
It was as a result of these comments by you that I entered an AR that was accepted. Not all of these comments were directed at me but I felt that your attitude was abusive. Please feel free to compare my response to your posts with my response to both posts made by Astrophysic.

Perhaps you'll have better luck with future AR's next time...

Quote:
I will freely admit that my comments about Sitchin and VonDaniken have been robust, but every one of them has been backed up by referenced sources. Sitchin had no recognised relevant linguistic qualifications, nor did he refer to accepted dictionaries.

'Accepted' is a keyword. MikeB has attempted to point you in a direction regarding what is considered 'accepted' practice with regards to recounting human history.
Just because a set of beliefs are the 'accept facts' of an event doesn't mean it's the actual facts of an event. I chose to accept what I want to accept. You will not change that.

Quote:
Von Daniken was caught falsifying evidence, and was thoroughly debunked in 1976 by Ronald Story
...
That's your opinion.
Having read T-J's posts, I suspect that he has the backing of scientific research, possibly something to do with Geology. But of course, you think that I am T-J

Yes, in 1976. The history channel did not exist in 1976. The youtube video from the history channel has nothing to do with 1976. But let's just pont the finger at EVD to suit your/his counter-argument...

Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation I'm not going to do your excersizes like a pet. The formulas are there for you to see that the math behind it does indeed exist. This knowledge has lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing By the way, I've yet to see any results manipulating gravity directly...
Until such time as you see fit to prove your assertions, they have no relevance. It is not my place to do your job for you.
I have attended lectures given by Eric Laithwaite, the somewhat eccentric inventor of MagLev and developer of the linear induction motor. I do actually know what Magnetic levitation is, and more to the point, what it isn't. Magnetic levitation is not the force responsible for maintaining the orbits of celestial bodies. This is not a statement of opinion. It is not a statement of scientific theory. This is a statement of electrical engineering practicality.

Is that so? Then perhaps you are familiar with this:http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/classes/NE-24%20Olander/antigravity.htm

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 31-May-2011 8:19:15
#323 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you'll have better luck with future AR's next time...

Actually, I was hoping that you would amend your attitude and I would not need to enter any more AR's. I suppose that it is entirely up to you.

Quote:
Yes, in 1976. The history channel did not exist in 1976. The youtube video from the history channel has nothing to do with 1976. But let's just pont the finger at EVD to suit your/his counter-argument...
The claims made by Eric von Daniken in this video were made prior to 1976, they were made in 1976, and they continue to be made since 1976.
In 1967 Eric von Daniken was arrested and charged by Interpol with fraud and tax evasion. He was found guilty of embezzlement, and served more than three years in Swiss prisons.
Eric von Daniken claimed that a non-rusting iron pillar in India was evidence of extraterrestrial influence.He later admitted that the pillar was rusty and man-made, and that as far as supporting his hypotheses goes "we can forget about this iron thing."
Eric von Daniken has also knowingly put forward fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses, such as photographs of pottery "depicting UFOs", supposedly from an archaeological dig dating back to the biblical era. Journalists discovered that this was a fraud, and even located the potter who made them. He then argued that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his ideas if they saw actual proof.(Item #10 on my little list?).
In his book "The Gold of the Gods" he claimed to have been guided through artificial tunnels in a cave under Ecuador, Cueva de los Tayos, containing gold, statues, and a library with metal tablets. (Plagiarising from Joseph Smith?)He claimed that this was evidence of ancient space visitors. The man who he claimed showed him these tunnels, Juan Moricz, told Der Spiegel that all of von Daniken's descriptions came from a long conversation and that the photos in the book had been "fiddled"
Eric von Daniken has a long and well documented history of dishonesty. This man knows how to look you in the eyes, smile convincingly, and glibly lie.

Since you continue to accept this mans word, let me ask you a slightly off topic question.
Would you still be willing to invest your life savings in an investment scheme run by Bernie Madoff?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Antigravity article
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 8:05:09
#324 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Is that so? Then perhaps you are familiar with this: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/classes/NE-24 Olander/antigravity.htm
Actually no, I wasn't. I did however follow your link and read the article.
You have previously referred to the levitron, and that particular toy is discussed in the article.Quote:
A spinning top-like toy called the Levitron floats on air over a stationary base. The base is permanently magnetized and the top has a similar magnetic pole on its bottom. The top must spin in order to keep the top from flipping over, and gravity produces a torque that makes the top precess rather than fall initially.
You will note that the levitron relies on the presence of a strong dipole, and also the supported item must spin. Compare this with with the Earths tidally locked non magnetic moon, or non magnetic Mars with two tidally locked, non magnetic moons.

You also keep referring to diamagnetic properties. That is also referred to in the article. Quote:
Diamagnets create an induced magnetic field that opposes the field it has been exposed to, allowing for levitation in some situations.
If you read the quote you will note that it specifies that in a strong magnetic field it allows for levitation in some situations.

The big problem that keeps on raising its head is the journalistic (mis)understanding of the scientific process. A scientist sees a disparity somewhere, and says "That's odd" and the gutter press screams "SCIENTISTS BAFFLED!!!!!" Later, when the scientist finds the answer to the disparity, journalists ignore the solution because it is not glamourous, while conspiracy theorists scream "cover up". Examples of this attitude are quoted in the articleQuote:
Laithwaite finally found an explanation to the phenomena he observed. He found that a precessing gyroscope produces mass transfer, and therefore actually doesn’t contradict Newton’s Third Law or defy gravity. He finally proved for himself what he had believed for decades.
and reference the superconductor experiments. Quote:
The story reached the popular press, and the story came out on the first of September. In the days that followed, confusion clouded everything around the story.
Science is about working out what you do not know, and then finding out the answer, not dreaming up an idea and ignoring everything that disagrees with preconceptions.

Last edited by Nimrod on 01-Jun-2011 at 08:08 AM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 01-Jun-2011 at 08:07 AM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 01-Jun-2011 at 08:06 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 11:31:31
#325 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
You simply reject any notion that involves an advance alien race helping seed this planet. You have no actual proof that it didn't happen
Again these sorts of statements are arguments from ignorance. One can't say 'we don't know' therefore it is aliens. You can't claim to hold the answer because no one knows the answer. Sadly this logical falsehood is often seen around alien claims. The lights in the sky, I just don't know, must be aliens. The pattern in in the field, I just don't know, must be aliens. If you don't know then you don't know. You can't conjecture and conflate it to a truth w/o evidence.

AFAIK just as there is no string there is no physical evidence of aliens either. We've found no metal spaceships or claws. We have found tools from various civilizations and we have been able to duplicate the building styles with those tools. I'd agree not proof positive but at least a hint that aliens aren't the only answer.

As you and MikeB have said some ancient knowledge has been lost. Perhaps and check this out a guy moves a barn by only himself. link Previously I linked You Tube videos demonstrating this in action. You Tube Again we don't 'know' this is how the ancients did it. But, what we do know is one can do it w/o the need of alien assistance. The tools were weights (as in other heavy rocks), rollers (in the form of small rocks) and levers (in the form of wood). All natural materials which could be put away after the event.

Invoking Ockham's Razor says the simplest solution is more often the true one. This can be done simply through the ingenuity of humans. It's much more highly complex and complicated to have another society be advanced enough to fly a spaceship thousands of lightyears to just lend a hand to these struggling apes. It could happen.

Which is the wiser bet? Betting on the stock market? (Man is amazing) Or taking the same investment and buying tickets for the next lottery? (Little Man needs aliens)

Quote:
EM can exist in empty space...gravity can't exist without 'large mass'. Which is really the greater and more prevalent force here?
Gravity happens with mass even small mass. Gravity itself, as I see it, is curvature of empty space itself. Thus with infinite distance it does exist within empty space. Which force is greater? Well you can measure both compare the newtons and there is your answer.

Quote:
It is common sense observations such as this that led me down the path of believing that it's merely a percieved effect of something not fully understood.
It was common sense that puss was a good thing and should be encouraged. It was common sense that blood letting removed the fire in the blood. It was common sense that washing hands was unimportant between patients when doing surgery. It was common sense that flies spontaneously generated from rotting material. It was common sense that Ether was part of the 5 elements making up the universe. It was.. You get the picture.

Invoking 'common sense' is not a proof of validity. Often two people's common sense come in conflict with each other. One must demonstrate which common sense is accurate. So at most common sense is a starting hypothesis.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 13:06:00
#326 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you'll have better luck with future AR's next time...

Actually, I was hoping that you would amend your attitude and I would not need to enter any more AR's. I suppose that it is entirely up to you.

There are very few constants in life. I may perhaps be one of them.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, in 1976. The history channel did not exist in 1976. The youtube video from the history channel has nothing to do with 1976. But let's just pont the finger at EVD to suit your/his counter-argument...
The claims made by Eric von Daniken in this video were made prior to 1976, they were made in 1976, and they continue to be made since 1976.
In 1967 Eric von Daniken was arrested and charged by Interpol with fraud and tax evasion. He was found guilty of embezzlement, and served more than three years in Swiss prisons.
Eric von Daniken claimed that a non-rusting iron pillar in India was evidence of extraterrestrial influence.He later admitted that the pillar was rusty and man-made, and that as far as supporting his hypotheses goes "we can forget about this iron thing."
Eric von Daniken has also knowingly put forward fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses, such as photographs of pottery "depicting UFOs", supposedly from an archaeological dig dating back to the biblical era. Journalists discovered that this was a fraud, and even located the potter who made them. He then argued that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his ideas if they saw actual proof.(Item #10 on my little list?).
In his book "The Gold of the Gods" he claimed to have been guided through artificial tunnels in a cave under Ecuador, Cueva de los Tayos, containing gold, statues, and a library with metal tablets. (Plagiarising from Joseph Smith?)He claimed that this was evidence of ancient space visitors. The man who he claimed showed him these tunnels, Juan Moricz, told Der Spiegel that all of von Daniken's descriptions came from a long conversation and that the photos in the book had been "fiddled"
Eric von Daniken has a long and well documented history of dishonesty. This man knows how to look you in the eyes, smile convincingly, and glibly lie.

Since you continue to accept this mans word, let me ask you a slightly off topic question.
Would you still be willing to invest your life savings in an investment scheme run by Bernie Madoff?

If he "fiddled" 90% of what he wrote about, it doesn't give the remaining 10% any less weight. To discreditors/skeptics it does, however.
Apparently, the History Channel feels pretty good about Tiawanacho as do alot of other geologists and archaelogists.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Antigravity article
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 13:13:12
#327 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Is that so? Then perhaps you are familiar with this: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/classes/NE-24 Olander/antigravity.htm
Actually no, I wasn't. I did however follow your link and read the article.
You have previously referred to the levitron, and that particular toy is discussed in the article.Quote:
A spinning top-like toy called the Levitron floats on air over a stationary base. The base is permanently magnetized and the top has a similar magnetic pole on its bottom. The top must spin in order to keep the top from flipping over, and gravity produces a torque that makes the top precess rather than fall initially.
You will note that the levitron relies on the presence of a strong dipole, and also the supported item must spin. Compare this with with the Earths tidally locked non magnetic moon, or non magnetic Mars with two tidally locked, non magnetic moons.

As an engineer you are reading the facts of the article. I read the article and think "what else is there to be discovered?" It's too bad Gravity Probe B didn't place a magnet some distance from the orbs to study how a super-conducting sphere can influence a magnet in free space...

Quote:
You also keep referring to diamagnetic properties. That is also referred to in the article. Quote:
Diamagnets create an induced magnetic field that opposes the field it has been exposed to, allowing for levitation in some situations.
If you read the quote you will note that it specifies that in a strong magnetic field it allows for levitation in some situations.

The big problem that keeps on raising its head is the journalistic (mis)understanding of the scientific process. A scientist sees a disparity somewhere, and says "That's odd" and the gutter press screams "SCIENTISTS BAFFLED!!!!!" Later, when the scientist finds the answer to the disparity, journalists ignore the solution because it is not glamourous, while conspiracy theorists scream "cover up". Examples of this attitude are quoted in the articleQuote:
Laithwaite finally found an explanation to the phenomena he observed. He found that a precessing gyroscope produces mass transfer, and therefore actually doesn’t contradict Newton’s Third Law or defy gravity. He finally proved for himself what he had believed for decades.
and reference the superconductor experiments. Quote:
The story reached the popular press, and the story came out on the first of September. In the days that followed, confusion clouded everything around the story.
Science is about working out what you do not know, and then finding out the answer, not dreaming up an idea and ignoring everything that disagrees with preconceptions.

But here you are pretending to know my thoughts...
As I alluded to above in this post...more "experiments are needed". Wouldn't it be interesting if we could simulate or induce two objects orbitting each other in space, one being a spinning superconductor and the other being a magnet...?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 13:38:42
#328 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
You simply reject any notion that involves an advance alien race helping seed this planet. You have no actual proof that it didn't happen
Again these sorts of statements are arguments from ignorance. One can't say 'we don't know' therefore it is aliens. You can't claim to hold the answer because no one knows the answer. Sadly this logical falsehood is often seen around alien claims. The lights in the sky, I just don't know, must be aliens. The pattern in in the field, I just don't know, must be aliens. If you don't know then you don't know. You can't conjecture and conflate it to a truth w/o evidence.

I don't "claim to know", I said it's what I accept as more plausible. Having seens ufos myself, the weight towards alien seeding goes up by a large margin over someone who has never witnessed such things.

Quote:
AFAIK just as there is no string there is no physical evidence of aliens either. We've found no metal spaceships or claws. We have found tools from various civilizations and we have been able to duplicate the building styles with those tools. I'd agree not proof positive but at least a hint that aliens aren't the only answer.

Where are the tools that built Tiawanacho? How were those stones cut and placed?
The difference between me and you is I can accept other-worldly possibilities where as other people claim ignorance blindly and accept ignorance as the status-quo until some mystery magically solves itself.

Quote:
As you and MikeB have said some ancient knowledge has been lost. Perhaps and check this out a guy moves a barn by only himself. link Previously I linked You Tube videos demonstrating this in action. You Tube Again we don't 'know' this is how the ancients did it. But, what we do know is one can do it w/o the need of alien assistance. The tools were weights (as in other heavy rocks), rollers (in the form of small rocks) and levers (in the form of wood). All natural materials which could be put away after the event.

As Nimrod likes to say "orders of magnitude"...and (me) "precision". Go look at the Tiawanacho video I linked with regards to the crumbled wall using interlocking cuts. I can push a 2-ton car on wheels. Lifting a 120 ton stone is a skooch different. Don't you think?

Quote:
Invoking Ockham's Razor says the simplest solution is more often the true one. This can be done simply through the ingenuity of humans. It's much more highly complex and complicated to have another society be advanced enough to fly a spaceship thousands of lightyears to just lend a hand to these struggling apes. It could happen.

Which is the wiser bet? Betting on the stock market? (Man is amazing) Or taking the same investment and buying tickets for the next lottery? (Little Man needs aliens)

It's not a question of which is more likely. Perhaps if you seen the place for yourself you'd then question how it was done given the local population sizes and the technology of the time. The Romans didn't catch up until 4000 years later. By then, there were alot more people on the planet to justify wasting the manpower.

Quote:
Quote:
EM can exist in empty space...gravity can't exist without 'large mass'. Which is really the greater and more prevalent force here?
Gravity happens with mass even small mass. Gravity itself, as I see it, is curvature of empty space itself. Thus with infinite distance it does exist within empty space. Which force is greater? Well you can measure both compare the newtons and there is your answer.

Here is your fallacy. You are measuring a resultant effect and claiming it's gravity. Atleast with EM we can measure it's value almost directly and still observe it's effect.
Why is EM responsible for termination shock at 75AU and not gravity?

Quote:
Quote:
It is common sense observations such as this that led me down the path of believing that it's merely a percieved effect of something not fully understood.
It was common sense that puss was a good thing and should be encouraged. It was common sense that blood letting removed the fire in the blood. It was common sense that washing hands was unimportant between patients when doing surgery. It was common sense that flies spontaneously generated from rotting material. It was common sense that Ether was part of the 5 elements making up the universe. It was.. You get the picture.

Yes, I do get the picture. For instance, it was common sense that gravity would always pull things together until we looked outside our solar system and found a continuously expanding universe...

Quote:
Invoking 'common sense' is not a proof of validity. Often two people's common sense come in conflict with each other. One must demonstrate which common sense is accurate. So at most common sense is a starting hypothesis.

The hypothesis that gravity isn't a real and individual force has been proposed long before me by better heads then both of us. Perhaps you should take that into account in your adamant defense of it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 13:45:15
#329 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
If he "fiddled" 90% of what he wrote about, it doesn't give the remaining 10% any less weight.
The answer is - it depends. Nimrod has presented that Daniken's fiction was based on fact. There's a fact there is an iron pillar in India. There's a fact that there is/was a person named Juan Moricz. So the '10%' if fulfilled. But, clearly anything Daniken said beyond that is bunk. You need to wade through the morass to demonstrate the percentages are anywhere close to your example. You need to wade through the morass to demonstrate that is actually true.

Look there's a type of literature entitled historical fiction. Laura Ingalls Wilder is a fairly well known example of this in the US. They take 10% of actual events and weave a 90% fictional tale. But, we don't run round claiming her writing of the pioneer days to be the true history of the United States.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Kronos 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 13:59:13
#330 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 2553
From: Unknown

@Lou

Quote:


You think 120 ton stones can be perfectly cut with string and placed in perfect alignment ontop of other similarly cut stones...yet no tools used to lift these stones have been found.


Cutting a stone (wether with a string or otherwise) no magic not even if you want to to it "perfectly".

Moving that stone with primitive tools (and lots of man-power) is also possible and alignment just needs a very basic understanding of geometry. No problem for most ancient cultures.

"Tools" of that time would have been made of wood&ropes not very durable materials and once one building was finished they were most likely remodeled to be used elsewhere.

You should never forget that our knowledge of these cultures is incomplete as we can only see what was made out of metal or stone.

Take for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disk

Prior to this it was common believe that central-europe of that time was just isolated villages and savages living in long-houses but this prooves that there was more (and only that there was more, not what in specific). Similar is probraly true for summerian egyptians and various extinct american cultures.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Kronos 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 14:06:01
#331 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 2553
From: Unknown

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote:

If he "fiddled" 90% of what he wrote about, it doesn't give the remaining 10% any less weight. To discreditors/skeptics it does, however.
Apparently, the History Channel feels pretty good about Tiawanacho as do alot of other geologists and archaelogists.


If he fiddled 90% (or even just 10%) he has prooven himslef a liar&fraud and he can therefore not be used as source to form any valid statement.

The history channel obviosly also felt good enough to broadcast something like "The 3rd Reich and Aliens" .... I'd say their standard are lacking (midly put).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 16:15:53
#332 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Having seens ufos myself, the weight towards alien seeding goes up by a large margin over someone who has never witnessed such things.
Assuming your observation is correct you've yet to demonstrate these aliens existed thousands of year ago. The aliens appeared to not have enjoyed your company enough to build you a brick wall so it's an assumption that they cared enough 1000s of years ago. And just is likely is an assumption that they have some technology which could accomplish it. -- You have a big pile of unproven hypotheses.

What has been demonstrated is that aliens are not a necessary condition to build such a wall. People using technology of that era could have done it by themselves. Could aliens with adequate technology have done it? Sure. Statistically it's a worse bet than the creativity and ingenuity of man.

Quote:
Lifting a 120 ton stone is a skooch different. Don't you think?
Not really view the You Tube video. A single man was able to move a 7 ton stone. Could not the similar if not the same methods and more men not move a large stone? Now the big difference here is this is a supposition we could test and prove, or disprove. Aliens -- well it's simply untestable.

Quote:
It's not a question of which is more likely.
Unless we build a time machine and travel back there we'll never 'know'. What we need to use is indirect evidence. What we'll be able to show is this is most likely how it could have been done. And clearly it can be done w/o the need of an extra-earthly force.

Quote:
The hypothesis that gravity isn't a real and individual force has been proposed long before me by better heads then both of us. Perhaps you should take that into account in your adamant defense of it.
And what we have to go on at this point is there are 4 forces in our universe. Certainly unified theories have been purposed and what we know is this is still ongoing.

Again don't conflate conjecture to conclusion. Thinking of a fanciful idea is great. If it's true, well that comes from evidence and usable theories. At present EM fails to give us predictability in our solar system. The forces are too small. So you need better data and or a better mathematics on how this works.

EDIT: Quote:
By then, there were alot more people on the planet to justify wasting the manpower.
So now you somehow know that the people thought building a wall would be a waste of manpower? Do you really know the importance the buildings held in their society? I think you're over assuming and thinking you guessed the true answer, again. :End EDIT

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Jun-2011 at 05:27 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 17:06:55
#333 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou


Quote:
Quote:
Since you continue to accept this mans word, let me ask you a slightly off topic question. Would you still be willing to invest your life savings in an investment scheme run by Bernie Madoff?
If he "fiddled" 90% of what he wrote about, it doesn't give the remaining 10% any less weight. To discreditors/skeptics it does, however. Apparently, the History Channel feels pretty good about Tiawanacho as do alot of other geologists and archaelogists.
So that's a resounding Yes please! then?

Quote:
As an engineer you are reading the facts of the article.
Thank you Lou. That is the nicest thing that you could possibly have said about me.

From your response to BrianK
Quote:
Where are the tools that built Tiawanacho?
I could just as easily ask "Where are the tools that built Beaumaris? Building was started in 1295, but by 1298 funding ceased, and work was abandoned. The castle was never finished.
Your only "evidence" for extraterrestrial interference is the lack of evidence against it.

Quote:
The Romans didn't catch up until 4000 years later
The Roman Empire has two founding myths, both of which place the founding of Rome at about 750BC. This ties in with archaological evidence of settlements on the Palatine hill from around this period. Compare this with the timeline T-J posted for the occupation of Tiahuanaco.
Quote:
The evidence shows the city to be first settled in 1500BC, developing into an urban centre between 300BC and 300AD, and fading out until collapsing by 1000AD.
As you can see the two cultures were contemporaneous, with the Romans the more technologically advanced, having both iron saws capable of cutting stone, and concrete, making it quicker and easier to build large structures. The Romans, as you have acknowledged, neither needed nor accepted extraterrestrial interference.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 17:32:12
#334 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Having seens ufos myself, the weight towards alien seeding goes up by a large margin over someone who has never witnessed such things.
Assuming your observation is correct you've yet to demonstrate these aliens existed thousands of year ago. The aliens appeared to not have enjoyed your company enough to build you a brick wall so it's an assumption that they cared enough 1000s of years ago. And just is likely is an assumption that they have some technology which could accomplish it. -- You have a big pile of unproven hypotheses.

What has been demonstrated is that aliens are not a necessary condition to build such a wall. People using technology of that era could have done it by themselves. Could aliens with adequate technology have done it? Sure. Statistically it's a worse bet than the creativity and ingenuity of man.

Quote:
Lifting a 120 ton stone is a skooch different. Don't you think?
Not really view the You Tube video. A single man was able to move a 7 ton stone. Could not the similar if not the same methods and more men not move a large stone? Now the big difference here is this is a supposition we could test and prove, or disprove. Aliens -- well it's simply untestable.

I have viewed the video. He used alot of specifically cut wood, which required saws and also pulleys and in some cases he needed fulcrums. Tell me what fulcrum can hold 120 tons? So now they had saws in 4000BC and strong nice and round wheels in 4000BC is what your saying. It's still ridiculous. You are clearly ignoring the actual video I linked and merely submitting the same one T-J did in the previous thread as ignorant disproof.

Quote:
Quote:
It's not a question of which is more likely.
Unless we build a time machine and travel back there we'll never 'know'. What we need to use is indirect evidence. What we'll be able to show is this is most likely how it could have been done. And clearly it can be done w/o the need of an extra-earthly force.

Yes, just not back then.

Quote:
Quote:
The hypothesis that gravity isn't a real and individual force has been proposed long before me by better heads then both of us. Perhaps you should take that into account in your adamant defense of it.
And what we have to go on at this point is there are 4 forces in our universe. Certainly unified theories have been purposed and what we know is this is still ongoing.

The unified field theory leaves out gravity as an ugly duckling...

Quote:
Again don't conflate conjecture to conclusion. Thinking of a fanciful idea is great. If it's true, well that comes from evidence and usable theories. At present EM fails to give us predictability in our solar system. The forces are too small. So you need better data and or a better mathematics on how this works.

Perhaps now that they've gotten past Gravity Probe B, they can invest future money (better spent) on EM...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 17:52:31
#335 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
As an engineer you are reading the facts of the article.
Thank you Lou. That is the nicest thing that you could possibly have said about me.

I use your approach when I take down application development requirements but in development, I get creative. I think many engineers in other fields have a harder time thinking outside of the box...so take your compliment with a grain of salt.

Quote:
From your response to BrianK
Quote:
Where are the tools that built Tiawanacho?
I could just as easily ask "Where are the tools that built Beaumaris? Building was started in 1295, but by 1298 funding ceased, and work was abandoned. The castle was never finished.
Your only "evidence" for extraterrestrial interference is the lack of evidence against it.

Yep, it was unions that forced the Romans to use concrete and budget cuts in the UK on the castles... Doesn't politics suck?

Quote:
Quote:
The Romans didn't catch up until 4000 years later
The Roman Empire has two founding myths, both of which place the founding of Rome at about 750BC. This ties in with archaological evidence of settlements on the Palatine hill from around this period. Compare this with the timeline T-J posted for the occupation of Tiahuanaco.
Quote:
The evidence shows the city to be first settled in 1500BC, developing into an urban centre between 300BC and 300AD, and fading out until collapsing by 1000AD.
As you can see the two cultures were contemporaneous, with the Romans the more technologically advanced, having both iron saws capable of cutting stone, and concrete, making it quicker and easier to build large structures. The Romans, as you have acknowledged, neither needed nor accepted extraterrestrial interference.

As I pointed out to T-J, the evidence is subjective as geology and archaelogy are not exact sciences. The story goes that the natives said 'white brothers' built the city. This implies long before the Incans conquered it. Let me put it another way...if a people could and did build such a city, they would not be conquered by the Incans...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 19:00:28
#336 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
The unified field theory leaves out gravity as an ugly duckling...

And again you make a bland unsupported statement as though it were an incontrovertible fact. Thinking that there may have been some sudden miraculous breakthrough that I had not heard of I did a little research. This quote from an article last updated 19/05/2011
Quote:
Specifically the four interactions to be unified are:
Strong interaction: the interaction responsible for holding quarks together to form neutrons and protons, and holding neutrons and protons together to form nuclei. The exchange particle that mediates this force is the gluon.
Electromagnetic interaction: the familiar interaction that acts on electrically charged particles. The photon is the exchange particle for this force.
Weak interaction: a repulsive short-range interaction responsible for some forms of radioactivity, that acts on electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. It is governed by the W and Z bosons
Gravitational interaction: a long-range attractive interaction that acts on all particles. The postulated exchange particle has been named the graviton. Modern unified field theory attempts to bring these four interactions together into a single framework.

No. Gravity has not disappeared from here. So I check a slightly more technical article.
Quote:
The current problem with a fully unified field theory is in finding a way to incorporate gravity (which is explained under Einstein's theory of general relativity) with the Standard Model that describes the quantum mechanical nature of the other three fundamental interactions. The curvature of spacetime that is fundamental to general relativity leads to difficulties in the quantum physics representations of the Standard Model.

Still a square peg, but still not left out. I suppose that could be why the unified field theory remains a goal to be achieved, and not a working theory.

Quote:
As I pointed out to T-J, the evidence is subjective as geology and archaelogy are not exact sciences. The story goes that the natives said 'white brothers' built the city. This implies long before the Incans conquered it. Let me put it another way...if a people could and did build such a city, they would not be conquered by the Incans...
I will admit that Geology and Archaeology cannot tell that a stone was laid at ten minutes before three in the afternoon on the first Thursday in May, 756BC. Nor can it give the name of the stonemason. It is however not so imprecise as to be off by several thousand years from a date so close. The margin of error is not, as you claim, greater than 50%. Your view of the evidence is like a detective at a crime scene ignoring forensic evidence because a known criminal claims to be an eyewitness. The only reason that dates of "4,000 years before the Romans" or "17,000BC" are bandied about, is that a convicted fraudster wants to move the details away from a point at which they can be clearly disproven. As I have already said
Quote:
If Roman history were not so well documented Sitchin and Von Daniken would by now have claimed this aqueduct (Pont du Gard) in the south of France to be 10,000 years older than it is, and of alien origin.

As to your claim that the "technologically inferior" Inca could not supersede the Teohuanaca builders, the reasons for the collapse of their civilisation are clearly recorded in geology, just as the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire were written down. The various tribes that occupied northern Europe as Rome declined were less advanced and lived in small settlements, that left no obvious evidence of their existence. Our main knowledge of the Vikings in Britain comes from inspecting their middens, not magnificent stone structures.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 20:24:28
#337 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

[quote]As I pointed out to T-J, the evidence is subjective as geology and archaelogy are not exact sciences. The story goes that the natives said 'white brothers' built the city. This implies long before the Incans conquered it. Let me put it another way...if a people could and did build such a city, they would not be conquered by the Incans...
I will admit that Geology and Archaeology cannot tell that a stone was laid at ten minutes before three in the afternoon on the first Thursday in May, 756BC. Nor can it give the name of the stonemason. It is however not so imprecise as to be off by several thousand years from a date so close. The margin of error is not, as you claim, greater than 50%. Your view of the evidence is like a detective at a crime scene ignoring forensic evidence because a known criminal claims to be an eyewitness. The only reason that dates of "4,000 years before the Romans" or "17,000BC" are bandied about, is that a convicted fraudster wants to move the details away from a point at which they can be clearly disproven. As I have already said
Quote:
If Roman history were not so well documented Sitchin and Von Daniken would by now have claimed this aqueduct (Pont du Gard) in the south of France to be 10,000 years older than it is, and of alien origin.

Decay is based on a probability and there are different forms of decay and no guarrantee that something will decay uniformly. With regards to dating old rocks, "your guess is as good as mine" is the actual result.

Quote:
As to your claim that the "technologically inferior" Inca could not supersede the Teohuanaca builders, the reasons for the collapse of their civilisation are clearly recorded in geology, just as the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire were written down. The various tribes that occupied northern Europe as Rome declined were less advanced and lived in small settlements, that left no obvious evidence of their existence. Our main knowledge of the Vikings in Britain comes from inspecting their middens, not magnificent stone structures.

There is a difference between the occupiers of a property and the builders. Just because the Incas conquered the 'then occupiers' does not mean that they were the builders. You'd think the Incans would have asked them the same questions, no? Hence the term 'white brothers' was used. Your assuption that people that had no written language could somehow design and build a city is amazing to say the least...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
T-J 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 21:33:29
#338 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Aug-2010
Posts: 596
From: Unknown

@Lou

Quote:
And you just just proved my point that you like to ignore what you don't like.


No, Lou. I was applying the same demands you make of gravity to your hypothesis. You demand that I leave out any and all unproven hypotheses to make calculations, limiting myself to Einstein without more recent hypotheses involving such things as dark matter.

Of course, my answers aren't precise to the million-plus decimal places you demand of gravity, so you claim I'm wrong.

But then, I apply that demand to EM. I remove the 99.999% plasma field for which we have no evidence whatsoever, and suddenly, I'm the denier, I'm the bad guy!

Well, this is certainly a pointless exercise, if you're going to exempt your theories from the demands you make of the current physics.

Quote:
You simply reject any notion that involves an advance alien race helping seed this planet. You have no actual proof that it didn't happen. Your only real answer is that you really wouldn't like to believe that it didn't happen.


You simply reject any notion that involves pre-Judeo-Christian humanity having any intelligence or abilities whatsoever. You have no actual proof that the ancients didn't have the simple technology to achieve what I've said. Your only real answer is that you really wouldn't like to believe that it happened.

Now, regarding your aliens. You claim to have seen them, but for all I know, they were just an aeroplane or a blimp that you saw whilst high on whatever it was your generation smoked. We'll need something a bit more concrete than just your assertion that you've seen it.

As an aside, you mentioned a while back that the British government had recently declassified its UFO files. You of course handwaved about how they were preparing to 'go public' with 'first contact', but I checked up on that. You know why they released those files? Because there's not a damn thing there worth tuppence, that's why. Nothing but drunks meandering home near airports seeing lights in the sky, or drivers mistaking Venus for the Enterprise, or jokers reporting police boxes as TARDIS sightings. In short, the department was a joke, and was closed down and declassified to save funds.

I've got experimental archaeology showing that blocks weighing tens of tons can be lifted with nothing more than wood and rope, things we know the ancient civilisations had in abundance. Deny it all you like, but your idea is no better than mine, and yours is the one making extraordinary claims that have yet to have even the slightest evidence presented in their favour.

Quote:
Half-life is defined in terms of probability not actuallity. Like gravity you are using estimates and averages as constants. So your actual proof amounts to a guess.


Yep, I knew you'd deny radiometric dating. It can prove you wrong, after all. Got an answer for stratigraphy, or can we now have undeformed older strata deposited over younger ones in Lou's Magical Fantasy World?

Quote:
Actually you do indeed act like you worship Physis 101, Geology 101, etc...


Present me with some evidence and I'll change my views. If I worshipped Physics 101, I'd be awaiting the second coming of Newton and condemning the heretics Einstein and Hawking.

If I worshipped Geology 101, the true god would be Hutton and Lyell would be his prophet. I would regard Agassiz or Wegener as apostates of the worst order.

But because I do not worship, I have accepted the evidence for Einstein's relativity or Hawking's quantum. I have accepted Agassiz' glacial cycle and Wegener's plate tectonics, also based on the overwhelming evidence for them.

Finished with the accusations of worship yet?

Quote:
Oh I see, it's economics. The Romans wanted to keep construction workers employed so they chose to make structures that required maintenance. It all make sense now, it was those darn UNIONS!!!!


Stop shouting. You won't persuade me by ranting and raving.

And yes, its economics. The Romans wanted to build things cheaply. Unfortunately, that means having to budget in maintenance costs, but it was more than offset by the massive savings they could make by not employing the larger labour force and not incurring the high transport costs inherent in the older methods of stone block construction.

Got a better explanation? Right, right, space aliens.

Quote:
Physics 101, Geology 101, etc.. seems to help you make sense of your life.


And we're back to this. Physics and Geology offer no solutions to moral dilemmas. Except possibly the geological point of view that in the long run, we're all dead. But apart from that, no, geology doesn't help me make sense of my life. It makes sense of the world. There's a subtle difference.

The application of the scientific method is the only way we have of doing that, anything else simply leads to the entrenchment of fantasies as dogma. Your favourite story becomes the official interpretation, and before you know it, bang! Church Militant enforcing its holy words as the one truth.

Quote:
All of them. Even the bible is a collection of smaller books. Combine them and you have the holy book of science that you worship.


What kind of holy book is constantly added to with new research, with old books regularly discredited and removed from canon according to the evidence?

No, science has no holy book. It has many books, and theoretically you could combine all the current books into one big one entitled 'Science! Jun 2011', but by June 2012 it'd be out of date and would need reissuing with the new stuff added and the old stuff discarded.

Because science isn't a religion. You've had this explained to you several times now.

Quote:
As I stated before, those dating methods involve probability not actuality. You are treating it as exact like some people believe the bible word for word.


Lou, radiometric dates come with a plus or minus figure indicating the degree of uncertainty inherent in the method. Believe it or not, we've actually considered the stochastic nature of radioactive decay in our methodology.

Please understand that by denying the applicability of radiometric dating, you are basically proposing the notion that every single Carbon isotope in every single biological sample simply decided to decay just recently, purely to confuse scientists.

That is the behaviour comparable to those who believe in the bible word for word. And there are some, who believe like you do that God (or in your case, chance) conspired to load the radiometric record to fool us all.

Quote:
And you fail to understand your geological evidence is subjective because geology is probably the least exact science.


See above - all geochronology comes with a plus or minus figure. We've accounted for all the uncertainties inherent in the methods. Now, you need to come back with a reason why annual ice layers, tree rings and pollen physiognomy with inaccuracy of less than one year is going to be ten thousand years out, in the case of Tiwanaku.

Quote:
'The evidence'? The evidence is that in the 1500's when the Spaniards came, no one had a clue about anything and they simply conquered and built churches over the native population's temples and such. Any evidence is subjective.


By 1500 (AD), Tiwanaku was in fact already mostly deserted. Their farming system had collapsed due to the climate oscillation operating in that region of South America, and their civilisation hadn't been able to adapt. The Inca moved in after they'd finished falling apart. The Spanish had little to do with it, apart from some vandalism of the uppermost layer of the abandoned site. They did destroy much of the Inca history, except in some sites where the archaeological record remains largely intact, but the Tiwanaku history is only disrupted by some late Inca additions. And regardless, even in sites with significant Spanish disruption, the further down you go, the less disrupted the record is.

Unless you'd have us believe that some malicious trickster has placed what we find there, again to fool us. But then you really do start to sound like a creationist.

Quote:
Ah yes, archaelogy, yet another of the 'exact sciences' you believe in...


That's right, Lou. Don't present any counter-evidence, just deny the field of archaeology. Tell me, does that also prove my point that you like to ignore what you don't like?

Quote:
Actually, I can. You told me so yourself. I do it every thursday and sometimes more often.


How clever. Re-check the Creed of Last Thursday, though, you're using it wrong. And again, I see you haven't bothered to address the evidence. Perhaps you can't? Perhaps you're wrong.

You can't just handwave the whole thing with a half-baked 'perhaps' statement. We know how the weather changes operate. We've got 25,000 years of palaeoecological proxy data demonstrating how that climatic cycle works. It isn't on a 3600 year timescale, so it isn't to do with 'Nibiru'.

And, no, the weather changes didn't happen in 500BC. They happened over the late 900s AD. You can trace the changes in climate by studying the Andean glaciers or the sediments of the bed of Lake Titicaca. The ice preserves air bubbles with the then-atmospheric composition. The sediments preserve all manner of palaeoecological data we can use to tightly constrain climate conditions, and since lakes deposit annual layers of sediment thanks to annual variations in river inputs and such, we can do this with a resolution of +/- a year or two.

Quote:
I have never claimed to be a scientist, nor have the ability to run the 'experiments' I have been asked, not that anyone else has either. BrianK did some simple math that could have been done with the average calculator. As I pointed out for Einstein's musings on Special Relativity, the calculations are not simple, this is why for local (this solar system) calculations, general relativity is good enough. Good enough is something I never denied. It's just not universal, which is what some people can't seem to accept.


Oh, so not only is your theory's answer currently 'unknown', it is also 'unknowable'. How convenient.

If you can't do the maths, it raises serious questions about whether or not you actually understand the idea you're preaching.

And when your theory is so off-the-wall, one begins to wonder if anyone can do its maths. Which in turn raises serious doubts about that theory. Perhaps its wrong?

Last edited by T-J on 01-Jun-2011 at 09:51 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
T-J 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 1-Jun-2011 22:00:11
#339 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Aug-2010
Posts: 596
From: Unknown

@Lou

Quote:
Decay is based on a probability and there are different forms of decay and no guarrantee that something will decay uniformly. With regards to dating old rocks, "your guess is as good as mine" is the actual result.




Wrong on every level. Come back with a mathematical proof of why the stochastic methods we use to describe radioactive decay over time are flawed, and I'll listen. Keep asserting that 'its based on probability', and is therefore somehow *wrong*, and you're still just preaching your religion.

Quote:
There is a difference between the occupiers of a property and the builders. Just because the Incas conquered the 'then occupiers' does not mean that they were the builders. You'd think the Incans would have asked them the same questions, no? Hence the term 'white brothers' was used. Your assuption that people that had no written language could somehow design and build a city is amazing to say the least...


Ah, and there we have it! 'White Brothers'. Says it all, really.

By the way, you haven't actually referenced that claim, either. So for all we know, you're making it up. Please provide a reference.

And now, to move away from radiometric dating, since like all good creationists you deny that, let's talk about that 25,000 year core of sediment from Lake Titicaca.

Are you aware of the ability of annual lake sediments to preserve human activities in their surrounding areas? Pollen from the surrounding area getting trapped in the sediment and recording which species were dominant where, and when. We can put our finger on the year in which the first domesticate strains of croppable plants appeared.

This is a fairly good indication of when permanent human settlement in an area begins, and at Tiwanaku, it begins at 1500BC. Your assumption that a society without agriculture could build and design a city is amazing, to say the least.


Perhaps you'd also like to discuss other means of dating things in the archaeological past. We can certainly do that. Thermoluminescence of fired pottery, perhaps? Or maybe even that is too scientific for you, no matter, we can get right back to absolute basics with a combined dendrochronology plus lichenometry study of anything and everything in the area.

And we'd still get 1500BC as the starting date for settlement at the Tiwanaku site. We'd still find that the buildings went up between 300BC and 300AD, and we'd still find that the civilisation there collapsed in around 1000AD due to failing to adapt to their changing climate. Its just that using methods like dendrochronology we'd be less precise.

Now, no doubt you'll just deny all this as 'subjective', but answer me this - is it not even more subjective to believe in Sitchin simply because you like his story?

Last edited by T-J on 01-Jun-2011 at 10:05 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 01-Jun-2011 at 10:01 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Video evidence presented in support of a fraudsters "theory"
Posted on 2-Jun-2011 0:03:32
#340 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
He used alot of specifically cut wood, which required saws
He did use cut wood. But that is a common way we come by wood these days. Cut wood does not require saws. Dug out canoes, for example, were accomplished by a combination of fire and stone. Thus, one can manipulate wood without using metal saws.

Quote:
Tell me what fulcrum can hold 120 tons?
What you're looking to know is what naturally occuring material has a compression strength big enough to hold 120 tons? Well Granite has a compression strength above 200Mpa (megapascals) or roughly 29,000 psi (pounds per square inch). Doing a quick back of the napkin we can see a 120 ton rock would be (using 2K pounds per ton) 240,000 pounds. So if the fulcrum was 1" wide x 9" long it would hold up 9*29K or 261K pounds. So a 1x9" granite would hold this up w/o any problem.

To sound like a broken record perhaps you want to -- Do the Math! Afterall math is a very useful science. It helps you understand things such as how much weight a particular material might be able to hold.

Quote:
So now they had saws in 4000BC and strong nice and round wheels in 4000BC is what your saying.
Again cutting materials can be made of stone and fire. Wheels need not be round. The guy moved 7 tons on a couple of roundish rocks. Which do occur in nature. I think Nimrod demonstrated the 4K BC assumption isn't quite likely either.

Yeah you hate the video. Probably because the video is a good indication that this wall could have very well been done by human ingenuity and aliens are not a necessary condition. Again we don't know for sure aliens, Bigfoot, and the Lockness Monster didn't form a trifeca building squad to create a wall for the people they worshipped. Could be.

Quote:
The unified field theory leaves out gravity as an ugly duckling.
The unified theories are still attempting to include gravity. Yours here is simply an erronous claim.

As for spending time on EM -- they should spend time on all forces and keep working to see if UFT is something we can work out.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Jun-2011 at 12:16 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle