Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Someone try to convince me that 'mainstream' aercheologists and other scientists are BS

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by ubeenhad
 

More recently string theory. There are only TEN dimensions. Anyone who believes in a eleventh dimension was a quack and was effectively banned. There was no such thing as super gravity.
Funny thing though is that they found string theory would not work and ended up with five theory's ALL correct! But if you added in the eleventh dimension and super gravity string theory now worked again and ended up with one theory again!


It's like you get the impression that 11 was their favorite number. So they wen't with it.

This is theoretical work. All un-testable with our current experimental capabilities.

Check out the Arxiv.org pre-print server. There is abstract, non-mainstream papers submitted every day. If the logic is supported properly and their hypothesis is supported by sound mathematics or observations, then trust me. People will be ALL over it.




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings


Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

Then why is there constant discovery.....and rewards for those who make them?


Because there is obviously still alot to be discovered in science. And these people DO deserve to be rewarded. Sometimes they even step out of that "box". I don't question everything about mainstream science, in fact without it we would know nothing. What I do question is allowing "Scientific data" (ei: dating) to dictate to us the age of monuments when it is obvious that other factors (Such as the use of sidereel mechanics and local "mythos") hold just as much probability, if not more, as our scientific methods.


Ya, why would we give any merit to something as useless as scientific data when we can just watch ancient aliens.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by Harte
 


Were have you been my whole life!?


LOL

I've been right here (and on other forums) since 2005.

You are merely late to the party!

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Geology has been full of BS. Main stream geology was all about man evolving from ape. Man evolving from ape was just proved wrong because DNA doesn't change.

Geology has stated that earthquakes can't be predicted, let alone detect any signal prior to their taking place. Piezoseismology proves that completely incorrect.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Geology has been full of BS. Main stream geology was all about man evolving from ape. Man evolving from ape was just proved wrong because DNA doesn't change.

Geology makes no comment whatsoever concerning the evolution of any living thing.


Originally posted by RussianScientistsGeology has stated that earthquakes can't be predicted, let alone detect any signal prior to their taking place. Piezoseismology proves that completely incorrect.

Piezosiesmology is a subset of which science again?

Lastly, other than a crackpot youtube vid, there's no evidence that piezoseismology can predict earthquakes. What it does is locate previously unknown faults through analysis of stress in the crust (piezo means pressure.)

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Geology has been full of BS. Main stream geology was all about man evolving from ape. Man evolving from ape was just proved wrong because DNA doesn't change.

Geology has stated that earthquakes can't be predicted, let alone detect any signal prior to their taking place. Piezoseismology proves that completely incorrect.

Ill add,
DNA does change, just not in the intuitive sense.
We loose info, and that changes the code. Its like computer science. We just cant add to it.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Okay, I enjoyed your well written response but I don't believe I ever really talked about "fringe" ideas. I don't think there is enough evidence in the ancient alien theory that cannot be identified in logical claims. The crystal skulls, while an interesting concept, have been shown to be nothing when gathered or not the "real" ones (and I loose that term loosely because there likely is no real 13 skulls)

Although I think that ChaoticOrder is allowed their own opinion but not once did I say I agreed with them.


If you read my original response on the first page I was talking about a natural event that could have caused a flood that brought a certain someone (with more advanced technology [I never said ET]) and helped build the cities that are in the highest elevations in South America. Like Tihuanaco or Macchu Pichu.(Nazca as well) I backed up my thoughts with mythos from local tribes in the Andes from what I have researched and read. Nothing really fringe about it. My point was to say that some ancient sites are most likely older than current mainstream ideology negates. Because our form of "dating" is flawed.

Shouldn't science be allowed to think outside of the box and maybe pay a little attention to what doesn't fit their evolutionary mold and suggest that mankind may have been advanced but then have fallen in some form of cataclysm in our past. Using word or mouth and local "mythos" as well as techniques like sidereel mechanics for possible dating of ancient structures.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Ya, why would we give any merit to something as useless as scientific data when we can just watch ancient aliens.


Why the heck does everyone seem to think I watch ancient aliens. In fact, after the first season of having to hear "according to ancient astronaut theorists" every three seconds I felt like bashing my head into a wall. Also the whole series started to grasp at straws after that point. Not everything has to be ET. *lol*

Do I think that there is intelligent life beyond Earth. Of course. Doesn't mean they I think they have been here before, or now, they might be. Nothing has convinced me 100% that they are or are not, either way.

So now, answer my question. Do you FULLY believe that our flawed system of dating structures is always accurate because that is what mainstream science says or is it probable that accurate interpretations of dates could be presented through local stories/connecting the dots or sidereel mechanics??

Why 100% dismiss the theory stated in my first response to you??

edit on 12/10/2012 by TheSparrowSings because: you still haven't answered



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad


Ya, why would we give any merit to something as useless as scientific data when we can just watch ancient aliens.


Since you said it..

I've posted these images fairly frequently now, and I don't think anyone cares or gets what I'm saying. But I think I can show some data which at least looks weird, and could sort of relate to ancient intelligences, depending on how you look at it, and what you choose to see. It's not data you will have seen elsewhere, anyway.

I think the fact these images are completely unknown (as far as I can tell) and the fact they arise as data from the natural structure of numbers makes them worth staring at for a while:

These are binary sequence pictures taken from the rows of Euler's number triangle:
mathworld.wolfram.com...





This is a diagram showing how to construct the 13 row of this number triangle:



Large:img97.imageshack.us...

Row 12 and 13 plotted using plastic unit cubes:



This is what I choose to see in this data, pointed out explicitly:



Row 28 - my avatar is an edited version of this. Can you see the part I got my avatar from?:




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

So now, answer my question. Do you FULLY believe that our flawed system of dating structures is always accurate because that is what mainstream science says or is it probable that accurate interpretations of dates could be presented through local stories/connecting the dots or sidereel mechanics??

Why 100% dismiss the theory stated in my first response to you??

edit on 12/10/2012 by TheSparrowSings because: you still haven't answered


Im sorry, I did enjoy your first post. Without re-reading it I can tell you that tho I didn't comment on it I did note some things and did some further searches. Alot of it is speculation, but interesting none the less.

And your gunna have to be more specific. What system of dating are you refering to? Im assuming your talking about radiocarbon dating?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa



I knew exactly what they were. I had some fun with those back in my early student years.

Their symetrical. Most life forms on earth are, including us. This is why its easy to see facial features.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa



I knew exactly what they were. I had some fun with those back in my early student years.

Their symetrical. Most life forms on earth are, including us. This is why its easy to see facial features.

en.wikipedia.org...


You studied this particular set of numbers? What did you think about the factorial relationship found here?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Ancient Intelligence. That is a great way to refer to it. Because nobody has enough proof to say that it is Extraterrestrial when it could just as easily be attributed to mankind but an earlier civilization.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa



I knew exactly what they were. I had some fun with those back in my early student years.

Their symetrical. Most life forms on earth are, including us. This is why its easy to see facial features.

en.wikipedia.org...


You studied this particular set of numbers? What did you think about the factorial relationship found here?


No dude. Obviously not.
Lots of number triangles do.
And any set of numbers can be represented in a binary numerical system.
edit on 12-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

And your gunna have to be more specific. What system of dating are you refering to? Im assuming your talking about radiocarbon dating?


All forms of radioactive dating. Whether it be Uranium-lead or Chlorine or Carbon Dating. None of these (although we will get closer someday) can be said to 100% accurate, 100% of the time.

When I look at sites like Macchu Picchu, again I have to say that it looks like an amalgamation of an ancient structure and rebuilding. Many of these sites do. But the older portions are more precise... or difficult to replicate even with our current technology. Like humanity was at a high point then lost alot/most of their progress somehow. It seems humanity could be alot older and wiser than the standard evolutionary models allow.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa



I knew exactly what they were. I had some fun with those back in my early student years.

Their symetrical. Most life forms on earth are, including us. This is why its easy to see facial features.

en.wikipedia.org...


You studied this particular set of numbers? What did you think about the factorial relationship found here?


No dude. Obviously not.
Lots of number triangles do


Ok, I've looked at other number triangles too (Pascal's triangle has a cute couple low down) but these are the most novel I've seen at low levels of the triangle. Did you keep any images from your other explorations? What did you use to render them?

I find it interesting that these things existed latently in the universe long before the existence of earth's biology.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa



I knew exactly what they were. I had some fun with those back in my early student years.

Their symetrical. Most life forms on earth are, including us. This is why its easy to see facial features.

en.wikipedia.org...


You studied this particular set of numbers? What did you think about the factorial relationship found here?


No dude. Obviously not.
Lots of number triangles do


Ok, I've looked at other number triangles too (Pascal's triangle has a cute couple low down) but these are the most novel I've seen at low levels of the triangle. Did you keep any images from your other explorations? What did you use to render them?

I find it interesting that these things existed latently in the universe long before the existence of earth's biology.


As hard as it is to accept, math is a human thing. Dont read too much into fractals and curious number sequences. There are symmetries in nature that arise from their geometric shapes. A circle is a circle and its 360degrees angle that forms it. This basic fact influences anything with circular shapes.

And no man. I was a terrible not taker. Still am.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

Originally posted by ubeenhad

And your gunna have to be more specific. What system of dating are you refering to? Im assuming your talking about radiocarbon dating?


All forms of radioactive dating. Whether it be Uranium-lead or Chlorine or Carbon Dating. None of these (although we will get closer someday) can be said to 100% accurate, 100% of the time.

When I look at sites like Macchu Picchu, again I have to say that it looks like an amalgamation of an ancient structure and rebuilding. Many of these sites do. But the older portions are more precise... or difficult to replicate even with our current technology. Like humanity was at a high point then lost alot/most of their progress somehow. It seems humanity could be alot older and wiser than the standard evolutionary models allow.


But mythos are more dependable?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
As hard as it is to accept, math is a human thing. Dont read too much into fractals and curious number sequences. There are symmetries in nature that arise from their geometric shapes. A circle is a circle and its 360degrees angle that forms it. This basic fact influences anything with circular shapes.


The operation we perform at this moment in time might be a human thing, but these number sequences are not created by humans. These number sequences existed before there were humans. When we map and plot the structure of numbers, we are collecting data. We do not create this data, nor the underlying structures found in numbers. Biology must be built from these patterns. What else would biology use to build a biological computer (nervous system etc) other than the natural structure of numbers?



Pretty neat that the binary from each of these figures adds up to the factorial for that row.

So row 13, the last figure on the right, if added up = 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 13! = 6227020800

Factorials are very important to number theory.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad
As hard as it is to accept, math is a human thing. Dont read too much into fractals and curious number sequences. There are symmetries in nature that arise from their geometric shapes. A circle is a circle and its 360degrees angle that forms it. This basic fact influences anything with circular shapes.


The operation we perform at this moment in time might be a human thing, but these number sequences are not created by humans. These number sequences existed before there were humans. When we map and plot the structure of numbers, we are collecting data. We do not create this data, nor the underlying structures found in numbers. Biology must be built from these patterns. What else would biology use to build a biological computer (nervous system etc) other than the natural structure of numbers?



Pretty neat that the binary from each of these figures adds up to the factorial for that row.

So row 13, the last figure on the right, if added up = 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 13! = 6227020800

Factorials are very important to number theory.





Factorials are important to math. lol





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join