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

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Are mythos more dependable. No. I wouldn't say with 100% certainty they are. Nor can I say with 100% certainty that Sidereel Mechanics is. For me to make such a statement, as someone only self-educated in the field or geology or ancient history, and at 27 years old would be preposterous. Anyone who claims they are sure with 100% certainty is a fool.


But I am getting sidetracked. When myths (or even theology) worldwide can agree that there seems to have been a point in history where "something" happened that was a form of deluge. And local myths to the region I have been specifically talking about speak of similar stories to what happened after that time. Structural location and architectural differences makes sense in regards to what is described in the mythos.

Tihuanaco is the most interesting, for me, in relation to these stories. If you want me to go into my thoughts on that further I will. Also the ancient maps depicting Antarctica when it had yet to be discovered... Sorry, I just feel there is more evidence to back up my story than the results of radioactive datings.

Yikes... by questioning radiometric dating I hope I don't come across as a pro-creation religious fool. *lol* Because I am far from it. *lol*
edit on 12/10/2012 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Ah you believe human nature has changed! How progressive of you! As to the negative to positive, positive to negative, and then back again.
Check with the FCC. I had to take the tests. You are correct about my lack of knowledge of electronics. Merely 40 years working for the top electronics companys in the country, being a consultant for them, and with the last 18 years working for NASA. About string theory. Those that believed in the eleventh dimension and super gravity were banished from the field for their beliefs. That is not debating theory's. That is destroying careers. That is also not science. Again, it is part of human nature. Through out history, and even today, science has been about money and powerful reputations, not about who is right or wrong or what is true. Oh and about those magnets. lol. Thanks for proving my point. Care to tell us about the domains of the earth? How about the domains of a electric field? After all they both create magnetic lines of force so it must be done with domains right? Just because you read something does not make it true no matter who wrote it. Even if I wrote it does not make it true, something I have to keep teaching my fellow NASA employee's. Even I can be wrong sometimes though it is my job not to be. Unfortunately when dealing with so called scientists you will find they are caught up in the white coat syndrome and do not know how to think for themselves. They must always quote a "authority" rather then using their brains. I have seen the same thing happen to many engineers. Be it as you may. Have a good day.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Factorials are important to math. lol


Yes. You can't escape them. They are always there whenever you do many types of calculation. If you don't use them the calculation makes no sense. You have to use the natural structure of the numbers for it to work.

For instance:



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
reply to post by Harte
 


Okay, I enjoyed your well written response but I don't believe I ever really talked about "fringe" ideas.

Which is why my response was directed to, and quoted from, TheIrishJihad's post, and not yours.

A simple mistake I surmise, and no harm done.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:54 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.

Such dates always come with a rather large margin of error, so I'm not sure what your point is here.


Originally posted by TheSparrowSingsWhen 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.


Do you then believe that we should go by what you think a site "looks like," rather than to date the site based on solid theories from the field of Physics?

As long as we're on beliefs, let me state mine.

I believe that, were you to take the time (and it takes some time, I know,) to look into what's actually known about sites such as Macchu Picchu and others that exhibit the sort of differences in construction styles you note, you'll find that, in most cases, it's already been established which portions were original and which were add-ons, and who did the adding-on and when.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by Harte
 


Ah you believe human nature has changed! How progressive of you! As to the negative to positive, positive to negative, and then back again.
Check with the FCC. I had to take the tests. You are correct about my lack of knowledge of electronics. Merely 40 years working for the top electronics companys in the country, being a consultant for them, and with the last 18 years working for NASA.

You are not a very good liar.

Only a person completely innocent of any knowledge whatsoever of electromagnetism would claim that it takes energy for a magnet to maintain its field, for example.


Originally posted by Jerk_IdiotAbout string theory. Those that believed in the eleventh dimension and super gravity were banished from the field for their beliefs. That is not debating theory's. That is destroying careers.

Second time you've made this claim.

The fact that you have decided not to cite specific instances - as I requested - indicates, again, that you don't know what you're talking about.
Hence, I won't ask you to cite examples of this again. Delving into your personal fantasies is not what I'm here for.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 




I believe that, were you to take the time (and it takes some time, I know,) to look into what's actually known about sites such as Macchu Picchu and others that exhibit the sort of differences in construction styles you note, you'll find that, in most cases, it's already been established which portions were original and which were add-ons, and who did the adding-on and when.


Noted. I do plan to do more research because I fully believe in denying ignorance (not to sound cliche) even if the ignorance turns out to be my own. Its the only way to grow.

Edit: Also, your beliefs are just as valid as mine. Because we are all entitled to atleast that much, the ability to base our opinions on conclusions we have made regarding different evidence presented, whether scientifically proven or not. Thanks for your reply.
edit on 12/10/2012 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


If you would like proof about the truth of archeology, read it's past theories and failures. Since the first Egyptologist put forth the first theory with very little basis in truth, it has been slowly torn down by real evidence and real observation.

If that little journey is not enough, learn to read some of these ancient writings. What they say, and what they tell you they say are two very different things.

I don't feel the need to source all of the information for you. Find it and read it for yourself. Any ancient civilization will do.

proof
edit on 12-10-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

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


Obviously you haven't taken any geology courses or you would have heard about evolution many times during the lectures. Then you state that piezoseismology can't predict earthquakes, let alone detect any signal prior to their taking place. You only make these statements because you are ignorant about piezoseismology, you couldn't even describe what a piezoseismic unit looks like, since you have never seen one. So.. yes you are the crackpot Harte since you state that it can locate previously unknown faults through analysis of stress in the crust, but that it can't be used to predict earthquakes. That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

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.


Show me where or how our DNA looses info. Furthermore, what great scientist says we can't add to it?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Factorials are important to math. lol


Yes. You can't escape them. They are always there whenever you do many types of calculation. If you don't use them the calculation makes no sense. You have to use the natural structure of the numbers for it to work.

For instance:




Your overthinking it lol. They are pretty simple



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists

Originally posted by ubeenhad

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.


Show me where or how our DNA looses info. Furthermore, what great scientist says we can't add to it?


I was thinking more of genomes. mispoke.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The scientific method, This:


Originally posted by ubeenhad


The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses


Is only One way to approach science. The scientific method first and foremost is Philosophy. It's only one way of looking at the situation. This means it gets locked into rigidity with over use and taught as the main problem solving solution that always must be used. Btw I find your definition of the Scientific Method very basic and may be a bit misleading.

The problem with this as you've stated " we don't understand magnetic fields in this context well enough" is that you expect all of your findings to adhere to this model of philosophy and when your data doesn't add up most often you claim the theory is flawed or wrong - but how can this be true when there are unknowns? Long held core beliefs that span centuries are Never seriously questioned - rather it's always something else must be wrong, the theory, the observations, the facts, the experiments were flawed etc.

How do you fix this? You change your philosophy of science. The scientific method is many times the very cause of important data being lost for good because it is impossible to apply it correctly when you have unknows that you don't realize you have. You need a new method a new philosophy. It could very well be that some thing in the fringe was right, it was correct it could save the human race but you'll never allow yourself to see it. Some people like Tesla understood this.
edit on 12-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Just a few questions/comments but already on page 4 so I do not expect a response:

1. People do not have a problem with the scientific method. However, what happens when that becomes impossible or at least highly problematic? Example: Replicate the Big Bang.

2, Myself, when I see interpolation/extrapolation in the cases of #1 above, I also see lots of scientists defend that extension as it if were as golden as proven fact? The only 'fact' there may be is no fact exists, just conjecture or best guesses. I guess if careers are built on that conjecture, it is very human to paint it as fact?

3. A tendency for some of the more narrow minded scientific types to create a reality of only that which they can grasp. Everything else is ignored or denied. Sort of a safety blanket thing, close my eyes so the world can't see me. Long on math, short on emotional maturity and intellectual honesty. These types make a bad name for pursuit of understanding in the public eye.

4. My final rantish point is on those mainstream archaeologists, whomever they are. I would have a hard time being convinced, archaeology will ever 'solve' all the questions we have about ancient cultures. As a tool, the method can only take us so far. Until someone invents a time machine, we can look at isotope ratios and pottery shards until we grow old and die before we have 'all the facts'. Are all scientists willing to accept that limitation? Are they ready to admit that limitation outside of academia?




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.

Perhaps ypou should read your own posts aloud, then.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
Just a few questions/comments but already on page 4 so I do not expect a response:

1. People do not have a problem with the scientific method. However, what happens when that becomes impossible or at least highly problematic? Example: Replicate the Big Bang.

The scientific method is not the ONLY way of doing science. But it's the only one you encounter unless you become a professional scientist (for example, field surveys of animals are surveys and data compilations and that's science. Case studies involve data collection and interpolation. Theoretical physics involves math on branes and other things that we can't see or access.)


2, Myself, when I see interpolation/extrapolation in the cases of #1 above, I also see lots of scientists defend that extension as it if were as golden as proven fact? The only 'fact' there may be is no fact exists, just conjecture or best guesses. I guess if careers are built on that conjecture, it is very human to paint it as fact?

Honest question time: How many scientists have you actually talked with (had coffee with, chatted with, spent time with?) The reason I ask this is that I see a lot of statements beginning with "I see lots of scientists" -- when, in fact the person making the case hasn't actually talked with any scientists and if you pinned them down with "okay, give me a list of these scientists" they'd point to a website... not by scientists.


3. A tendency for some of the more narrow minded scientific types to create a reality of only that which they can grasp. Everything else is ignored or denied. Sort of a safety blanket thing, close my eyes so the world can't see me. Long on math, short on emotional maturity and intellectual honesty. These types make a bad name for pursuit of understanding in the public eye.

If you can't do calculus and set theory algebras, I can't possibly explain my dissertation thesis on Bayesian networks to you. Uhmmm... so... what are you suggesting I do, then?

Only work on science that the average person can understand?


4. My final rantish point is on those mainstream archaeologists, whomever they are.

If you don't know who they are, how can you rant about their beliefs. You have to know who they are to know what beliefs they are espousing.


I would have a hard time being convinced, archaeology will ever 'solve' all the questions we have about ancient cultures.

But you would find psychic regression more believable? Channeled information more believable? (I don't know what you'd find more believable, so I'm asking what information you'd find satisfying.)


As a tool, the method can only take us so far. Until someone invents a time machine, we can look at isotope ratios and pottery shards until we grow old and die before we have 'all the facts'. Are all scientists willing to accept that limitation? Are they ready to admit that limitation outside of academia?


Have you asked any scientists?

Most folks, I'm afraid just repeat what they're told on some guy's site -- some guy who's upset that scientists didn't find any worth in his channeled inspirational ideas.

Where do you look when you're looking for information on what scientists think?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by RussianScientists
That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.

Perhaps ypou should read your own posts aloud, then.

Harte


I don't need to. Maybe you should tell the world in your own words why you know that piezoseismology detects previously unknown faults in the earths crust through analysis of stress, but can't be used to predict earthquakes.

If stress can be detected in the crust with piezoseismology, then earthquakes can be predicted by the analysis of that stress over the area that the stress is detected.

There is nothing hard to learn about piezoseismology. Its a simple science, just as seismology itself is a simpletons science. You don't need seismologists for seismology any more, the computers do all the work. In piezoseismology, there is time to move the equipment from place to place in order to find out which direction the signal is coming from.

The size of the area that the signal is detected within gives a basic understanding of what the magnitude will be. The stress movement within the crust is in fact known as a silent earthquake, and/or a slow earthquake. The stretching causes the stress within the crust, and there can't be an earthquake if there is no detectable stress.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I agree with most of what you say. Except I think its fair to say data sets and theoretical physics tho a more abstract definition still follow the scientific method tho indirectly contributing to each established step.

edit on 12-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Good response Byrd I would add that you'll never get 100% info on the past.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I'm working toward a Ph.D in archaeology and knowing at least something of the science I'd like to defend it. I haven't read the entire thread so I may be rehashing some things already said.

I am aware of some group think going on (mostly in the cultural anthropology field, not archaeology) but I can't believe that any significant lies are being fed to the public. There is so much fact checking that starts every time a claim is made. There are entire legions of scientists who make it their primary goal in life to discredit every claim made.

Most researchers are eager to disprove a standing theory. It is a huge accomplishment and ensures a nice career.

Science goes where the available data takes it. Sometimes it takes some short dead end paths but soon figures it out. TOO MANY TIMES people with agendas will cherry pick a single research paper and use it to make false claims. A research paper is worth nothing! It details a single instance of research conducted on a limited number of subject material in a particular environment under a single set of conditions/controls and all of it is conducted under a singularly devised methodology by a single or small group of researchers. Anomylous data appears often and must be hashed out over years of follow on research and rationale constructs between wholly seperate disciplines of science (certainly in archaeology this is true because tools from every branch of physical science are used including absolute cutting edge chemistry, mass spectron accelerators, etc. Also theories of social and behavioral science span across all of the social science disciplines and are well used in archaeology to validate observations). After all this some research that cannot be invalidated is seen to be contrary to prevailing opinion. A single instance of research that contradicts prevailing theory is simply not enough to over turn well established and long accepted research. Unknown factors may be responsible for such an unusual outcome. Such research is not ignored however. It is just stored away and some day other research may hint toward it's validity. Then it will raise eyebrows and get attention. In short the old adage applies, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I have fun looking into wild claims. I enjoy watching ancient aliens (80% bogus and easily disproved.....but as for the other 20%????) and I like to keep my mind open. I've fact checked a few outlandish claims using simple easy to get maps, journals, and physical data, and in pretty much every case I found that such claims couldn't even stand up to cursory scrutiny. Most of the wild claims related to archaeology are made up by laymen who really don't understand or else profiteers wanting to sell books.

I'm not even going to touch creation theory.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join