Originally posted by OhZone
Scientists do ignore artifacts and events that they cannot explain, because explaining is what they do. If they can't explain it why talk about it at all?

Is that why scientist don't talk about how 'implosive devices' and hadron colliders seem actually mutually exclusive on how they work in regards to nuclear detonation (and chain reaction)?

I'll just kind-a sort-of watch the bubbles in the tar pits with glee until they explain that one.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by OhZone
Scientists do ignore artifacts and events that they cannot explain, because explaining is what they do. If they can't explain it why talk about it at all?

Is that why scientist don't talk about how 'implosive devices' and hadron colliders seem actually mutually exclusive on how they work in regards to nuclear detonation (and chain reaction)?

IMO, they "seem" that way to you, but not to anyone that knows that these things don't perform even slightly similar functions.

For example, where is the "chain reaction" in a hadron collider?

Regarding the energies released through fission (when that occurs in a collider and when it occurs in an implosion such as a fission bomb,) it is the same.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
IMO, they "seem" that way to you, but not to anyone that knows that these things don't perform even slightly similar functions.

Ok. You say they don't even perform the same function?

For example, where is the "chain reaction" in a hadron collider?

Does this mean you further agree that they don't even perform the same function?

Of course, I put that phrase in brackets for a reason. Hmmm.

Regarding the energies released through fission (when that occurs in a collider and when it occurs in an implosion such as a fission bomb,) it is the same.

But then you say it is the same. Hmmm.

If it is the same, what would the LHC need in order to cause a chain reaction? No... nevermind there, don't want anybody to make up a stupid answer from my stupid question. I got a better question: if it is the same then why isn't it considered the world largest implosive device?


The advancement of the hadron colliders creates some serious reflection on traditional nuclear bombs. Why lie about it?

Originally posted by OhZone
look at the saga of the Wright brothers trying to convince people that their heavier than air flying machines were real.

"Their first thought was to invite some people along to see and say: "Look, we've done it, we can fly. It's a heavier than air machine."

They tried and tried but people would come and sneer and say they didn't believe it. There must be some trick, - and go away again.

So, they went from Dayton, OH to New Jersey and in fields which may well have been near where New Jersey turnpike now runs, they kept on taking off, landing and flying around. There was substantial traffic on the roadways, some cars, some horses and buggies, and they must have been seen by very many people. The general reaction was, "We know that is not possible to have heavier than air machines, and therefore, these people are not flying. Perhaps they are pretending to, making hops, maybe they have a balloon inside there, holding it up but they cannot be flying because we know heavier than air machines cannot fly."

There were people going up in balloons, using kites, flying through the air with gliders long before the Wright Brothers came on the scene.

After a brief period of scepticism on their controlled flying machine they were able to demonstrate it and were recognized immediately as innovative discoverers.

For every revelatory breakthrough example there are a thousand cases, undocumented and unremembered, of crackpot theories, non-functioning inventions, medical miracles that did nothing, discoveries of anicent lands that turned out to be bogus, and on and on.

There are thousands of serious investigators worldwide in academia and working as amateurs, who would love to see something new on the horizon.

So far the claims of the breakthroughs are limited to a handful of paperback writers and self-styled archeologists who have found there is a steady market for fantasy undiscovered ancient civilization books, videos, websites.


M

Originally posted by dzonatas
Ok. You say they don't even perform the same function?
Does this mean you further agree that they don't even perform the same function?

If they did, you could use a particle accelerator only once, and then it would be vaporized like the casing on a nuclear warhead.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Regarding the energies released through fission (when that occurs in a collider and when it occurs in an implosion such as a fission bomb,) it is the same.

But then you say it is the same. Hmmm.

Some of the resultant products are the same.

Is a lit match the equivalent of a forest fire?

Originally posted by dzonatas
If it is the same, what would the LHC need in order to cause a chain reaction?

Critical mass.

A bomb uitilizes a certain, required amount of radioactive material to initiate a chain recation. A certain density of material is required for such a thing.

Colliders, on the other hand, do not use radioactive material per se, but subatomic particles of matter. And in extremely tiny amounts.

Upon collision, these are broken into constituent pieces - even smaller particles - some of which are the same products that are being given off by radioactive materials (the "radiation" that, for example, Uranium emits) and by a nuclear explosion itself.
Harte

Originally posted by fynshine
I think we have been lied to because of a few complex reasons:

There's no reason to lie about facts.

1. Religion. If they let everyone believe that there were civilizations before us --- would Christianity and many other religions exist with such a massive following? I don't think so.

I knew this would be the #1 reason in this thread. As a Christian, and a armchair scholar of said bible, the answer of an Ancient advanced civilization would answer a few questions about the Bible. Namely why the anger of God towards the Tower of Babel (attempting to usurp into heaven or just a skyscraper?), and additional reasons to the flood (not counting genetic manipulation by the fallen angels).

Each of the worlds religions still exist, even though they are indirect contrast to each other in their histories and ideologies. Acknowledgment of said ancient society would not change that fact. It would just be another world view today.

Christianity can be blamed for a lot of things, some real, some not. An ancient civilization would be a non issue for those that believe in Christ.

2. People don't want to face reality that they are a phase in Earth's history. They like to think we are the most complex beings in the entire universe and "True children of God".

Except this statement flies in the face of what the Christianity teaches. Humans are not the most complex beings, nor are they the children of God. In fact, we are low on the hierarchy, below the Angels which have their own hierarchy, with God being the most complex being. Only through the blood of Christ can we become adopted Children of God.

As for Phases, even creation yearns for it's redemption. We're in the Phase of Satan's rule, waiting for Christ's return.

3. So far, not a whole lot of so-called scientific proof is present for these civilizations.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. We agree on this one. Channeling, or worse, Remote Imagination as I tend to call it, does not prove or disprove anything.

The point is that there's simply no large amount of evidence of a society that has been advanced as ours on the Earth before. There's no ruins of giant skyscrapers. There is no non biodegradable items, no polyurethane foam, or plastics. No CD's, DVD's, etc. There's no technology found that's remotely like what we have today. Why the abundance of oil, did they just skip an industrial revolution completely? etc.

The clincher for me is where is space debris? Surely there should be some ancient missile stages or satellites in orbiting the Earth? Even with micrometeorites, it would decay much more slowly than it would on the Earth. Space junk can be viewed by backyard telescopes, why not ancient ones?

None of these items exist, nor can they be easily hidden and ignored. Basically, where is the human footprint of this society? We can find small 8,000 year old cemeteries with brain tissue perfectly preserved under a peat bog, but not an industrial society that should span entire continents only a few thousand years earlier according to myths?

4. Change. For many time, people have know Atlantis to be a myth. If they make the knowledge of these civilizations known, they won't be myths anymore. They'd be reality. Are we ready to accept reality as a society?

The Atlantis today being super advanced was the myth created by Cayce's imagination. A civilization that powerful would not be defeated by a bronze age civilizations (Greeks and Egyptians). It would be difficult for one of our nuclear nation today to defeat said mythical Atlantis's death ray created in Cayce's imagination.

An Atlantis, on the Azores or Thera, is commonly accepted as real. None of that acceptance is particularly Earth shattering.

Change is accepted, albeit slow. There's just no qualifying evidence in abundance to prove that a change is needed.

Sirnex,
As to evidence provided by those selling books etc. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How do you think researchers should get their into out there?
Are books not a good way to do it?
Do you disbelieve all books?

Since you believe that ancient man was as smart as we are, then you believe that he created a high civilization with lots of high tech. That is what we have been saying. And that somehow it was lost and we had to start over again.

As to Atlantis you say: :I disagree as I've seen much research regarding Atlantis as well as a more realistic description of it. When we see thing's like 'channeling' as a source of 'reputable' evidence for Atlantis, then it should be no surprise that some may not take it seriously.”

**I don’t put any stock in “Channeling” either. I do pay attention to those much repeated old folk tales tho. Especially since the story is common to folks around the world. I think the Mahabharata is an exquisite description of a high tech war.
Why couldn’t some of those lost civilizations be on the ocean bottom? They would not all have necessarily be covered over.

Maybe you have observed “evolution”, but I have not.
Do you know for sure that there are no other humans in the Universe?
Do you think that there is a possibility that we and they might also share the same genetic code?

Can we agree that since none of us know everything, that maybe we should leave the door open just a crack for incase some new info comes along that we don’t miss it?
If you visited the site that I linked to you would find a lot of ideas that were considered absurd which have since been vindicated.

Not Authorized, why do you think that plastic had to be something that a previous civilization had to make? And if they did, do you think it would still exist to day afer many thousands of years? If you toss your CD’s out in your back yard, how long do you think they would remain? How much of your household items would remain after 10,000 years, if the land your house sits on was to fall into a giant sink hole and get covered with mud and water? Why would you assume that there must be ruins of buildings? Even mountains crumble with time.
Actually there are quite a few ruins world wide. Look for them.
Have you seen the info on Baalbeck? The blocks used in construction of this are even bigger than those used in the Pyramids.

Why would there have to be space debris?
There is that item called the Black Knight.. A creepy Black colored satellite that orbit’s the Earth every 31 days. No one seems to know just what it is. It was first discovered around 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik.

Originally posted by OhZone
Not Authorized, why do you think that plastic had to be something that a previous civilization had to make?

One sinkhole will not destroy a city the size of Las Vegas, or New York, or any other modern day city. There's no footprint to speak of for any cities that large and that advanced.

If we all left Earth today, there would be countless amounts of evidence we existed. Basic urban planning would be abundant, even after thousands of years. Water Resivours, trash heaps, large scale development, etc, would all remain in a somewhat recognizable form long after we're gone. So would the trash we leave behind.

Would items in my home degrade? Sure. But some would remain, namely plastics, aluminum, glass, etc.

So where is all the trash? Or should we believe they wiped themselves out, but had the wherewithal to clean up the entire planet after themselves? That reasoning flies in the very face of objective thinking.

Have you seen the info on Baalbeck?

Yes, I have seen it. I see no mystery of the Triathlon, nor the 1000 ton hewn rock LEFT where it was quarried because they couldn't figure out how to move it. We've been using leverage since we were able to make tools. So no, there's nothing mysterious about Baalbek to me.

Humans are ambitious creatures OhZone, and we push the limits even on modern day architecture. I feel that our stone cutting brothers were just as ambitious. Just as we feel bigger, is better, they probably did too. They had the same thought process and reasoning as us. Hence the hewn stone still sitting there is proof they bit off more than they could chew.

To sum it up, here's a quote: "Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world" Archimedes, 220BC.

Why would there have to be space debris?

Communication sats, gps sats, spy sats, etc. Already there's enough junk up there from the space race, in which scientists say will eventually form a ring around earth. If a society in the past was as advanced as us, or more, where's the space debris?

There is that item called the Black Knight...

When was it discovered again? 1927, 1928 with LDE's, or 1957 or 1960? Contact made by Philip K. Dick? US Intel? Or during sputniks launch but at the same time it shadowed sput it was in a polar orbit. (Uh, how? 2 places at once?)

Others say it was an object for 31 days only in the sky in the 60s, and tracked, and then left. In those reports, it's not even black -- but red. Or the East to West naked eye stories later (Green this time), which makes absolutely no sense to those who understand orbital mechanics.

For a more reasonable approach, polar orbits were NOT impossible in 1960. In fact, the US launched TIROS-1 April 1, 1960 in which it was the first polar-orbiting weather satellite -- note: not military. It's very reasonable to assume Top Secret polar orbits were attempted prior to that by the US, USSR, China, France, or Brittan.

What most those who talk about the BK will not tell you is that Britain's program was also named Black Knight during this time frame. Britain's program was very successful, a fact overshadowed by the US military dominance during the Cold War. If Britain had a sat or ICBM up there secretly, the most appropriate term by the US WOULD have been "Black Knight".

Even the tech/weight story fails. Less than 1 month later, Sputnik 2 launched at ~1100lbs. 10 times the original weight of Sputnik, and thus greater mass than "BK" which was several times above Sputnik. The USSR did have the tech to launch heavy sats, and they used it 29 days later.

That is why this story gains no credence with me. Add the hodgepodge of stories mixed together from 1927 to the 1960's with Keel's book showing poorly time referenced research in order to further his agenda. Sprinkle some Cold War intrigue (Sputnik) and you got yourself a seller -- not an ancient satellite.

Originally posted by xelamental

If I couldfind evidence of atlantis, aliens or contrails I would be the first to jump at it and publish my conclusive findings in nature. I would be world renowned, going down in history as the "one" who made the discovery... but yeah, I'd rather put my head in the sand and spend the rest of my life studying things I know are false. Seriously? Have you people ever thought this through?

With that statement you just nullified your claim to be a "scientist". If you have EVER taken a serious look at the subject of Alien visitation to our planet you would be totally convinced of its truth. People have been sentenced to a lifetime in prison on a tiny percentage of the amount of evidence that exists in favor of Alien visitation. Your scientific mind has been taken in by those who laugh at the subject in order to bury it.

Originally posted by sirnex What serious evidence exists that *is not pure speculation*?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scientist are biased when they don't keep this wisdom as theirs.

We can deny the battle exists.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by sirnex What serious evidence exists that *is not pure speculation*?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes it is.

In fact, it is the only possible evidence of absence.

That is, does "evidence of absence" exist?

If it does, what would that evidence consist of?

Harte

They're probably not lying, they're probably trying to show that most of the info isn't true and is fabricated by regular people.

What you should as yourself is "Why would regular people lie and/or make conspiracies with false information?"

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
They're probably not lying, they're probably trying to show that most of the info isn't true and is fabricated by regular people.

What you should as yourself is "Why would regular people lie and/or make conspiracies with false information?"

I agree that it's regular people lying as they possess a motive in which to lie. I'm wondering though, what motive would exist for governments and scientists to lie as this is what the paperback sellers are claiming is going on as well as those who believe the paperback sellers.