It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ubeenhad
Factorials are important to math. lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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?
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
Originally posted by RussianScientists
That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.
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.
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?
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