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

Using radioactive decay for dating is certainly not 100% accurate. It is a powerful tool however even if it is just accurate 60% of the time. All sorts of artifacts can be relationally classified as contemporaneous to each other across wide expanses geographically. Thus if you have examples of type A pottery from 25 sites and 20 of those sites radiocarbon date to 1,200BC +/-, while 5 date to very incompatible dates then you can make a reasonable conclusion as to why.

Couple with this the use of stratification in the soil layers. Diets of inhabitants can be of great value because new foods were introduced to certain geographic locales (remember that plant remains can sometimes be genetically tested and much can be gleaned from this based on rate of mutation once separated from original gene pool).

Then there is the culture of the people being studied. Were they traders or agriculturalists? What of their form of government? What type of weapons and warfare did they employ? What kind of religion did they practice and what of their gods?

All of these things are woven together so that anomylous data stands out like a sore thumb. For example a radiocarbon date of 300AD in Greece is going to be obviously wrong if it is taken from a piece of pottery decorated in an artistic style known to be linked to circa 700BC.....found in the same layer of soil as a bronze weapon........ found next to a variety of wheat not genetically seen after 200BC. Actually, in this example chemical dating likely would never be used at all. It is not needed to date the items, but I was just trying to make a point.

Chemical dating builds up a data base of classifiable artifacts dated to such and such times so that the false dates reveal themselves eventually. That uses much simpler math than found elsewhere in this thread.

As far as mythos is concerned there is truth in it. There are many nice lessons and cultural norms expressed. IT also existed before writing so it was passed on by word of mouth for a very long time. All the while it was being adapted to teach lessons and provide examples for whoever was hearing it at the time. It was being added to by new cultures, new ideas, and some was forgotten between tellings. Once put to writing these tales became subject to the rising governments of the time which were theocracies. A theocracy has a vested interest in the past and will manipulate it to fit the current needs. The only literate people at such time was the priestly class. They could write anything they wanted.

Mythos is not ignored. It is studied in great detail and the information gleened from it serves as one more tool to discover humanity's past. To anyone that is deeply interested in learning about early historic and prehistoric times I suggest finding scientific papers on your particular subject of interest. Read about a hundred of those on Machu Picchu and you'll be well versed on where cutting edge research is.

Archaeologists freely admit that there are likely some older civilizations than what are known, especially around now flooded shores. The likelyhood of high civilization is remote however. Civlizations such as Egypt or the Sumerians leave their mark a thousand miles away and it is a rather clear mark. Scientists cannot make claims based on information they do not have in sufficient quantity and reliability to pass muster with the scientific community.

Originally posted by RussianScientists

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.

Care to provide evidence of that claim? Peer reviewed publications? Data?

There is nothing hard to learn about piezoseismology. Its a simple science, just as seismology itself is a simpletons science.

You must be bang into it then.

You don't need seismologists for seismology any more, the computers do all the work.

lol - so there is absolutely nothing else to learn about seismology then? It's all finished? By the way, who would you think writes the software used in seismology?

Originally posted by ubeenhad
And the corona problem honestly isn't saying anything about thermodynamics. Its saying we don't understand magnetic fields in this context well enough.

I 100% agree with that statement . and the FTL neutrinos were a great example. The whole "Nothing can and ever will travel faster than the speed of light because of the mass equation" is commonly mentioned by scientists. That infuriates me. The mass drag effect shouldn't be viewed as unbreakable. Merely our current goal to break.

Some form of mass nullification would avoid the drag issue.

reply to post by Byrd


Dude, your beef distills down to how many scientists one knows on personal level. What on Earth are you talking about? I apologize if insulted you or someone you know. It was a simple question. No need for strawman or deflection like that.

Sorry, I work for living, and do not have too much time for long discussions over latte's or beer with every scientist on the planet on a regular basis. I am talking about scientists on Discovery or read about them on different websites. All that I have available.

Is it totally impossible for anyone not a scientist to comprehend a possible gap a theory presented? I guess I must just be dumb as a rock to question then. Do I need to be joined at the hip to recognize when someone is entrenched on an idea because they have a personal stake in the outcome? I know I am out of line to believe scientists are human before their art. It is totally obvious they must be above emotional responses to the most rudimentary of questions regarding what they do (scientists after all) and can with clear head answer the positive and negative.

Channeled inspiration? Again, what are you talking about? Don't drink and type.

reply to post by Harte


You are correct that I am not a good liar because I do not lie. However I see things have not changed much from why I quit responding before. You ask a question and I answer and you respond with I am a liar. lol. Only a person with little knowledge would accept a belief that it does not take energy to maintain a magnetic field. The question for you is where that energy is coming from. I have that answer. My question is how to use it.

I suspect you have not bothered to check on the FCC tests to see if what I said was true. It was the luck of the draw as to which theory, negative to positive or positive to negative, the test you received had to be answered to. I took those tests shorty after they went back to negative to positive and they had not updated all the tests yet.

As to giving you examples I did in my first post. Your answer was that was long ago and obviously it is different now. It isn't. As you have shown in your posts. lol. If you want to know about the scientists who believed in the eleventh dimension and what happened to them there was a program on about it on the Discovery channel a couple of days ago. About how they were excluded from their field. How many of them were forced out of physics. Look it up yourself.

Your inability to look beyond authority, to remove your blinders and actually consider things, to deny ignorance as this site says, is not my problem. You asked, I answered, you could have just disregarded me but instead you choose to say I lie without any proof of your own. You are a perfect example of what I was trying to show you and what the problem is with how the scientific field is run. Do not have a open mind and instead of a open debate on the subject just attack the person. Or are you just trolling? It does not matter. You have my answer. Do with it what you will Sir.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
Is it totally impossible for anyone not a scientist to comprehend a possible gap a theory presented? I guess I must just be dumb as a rock to question then. Do I need to be joined at the hip to recognize when someone is entrenched on an idea because they have a personal stake in the outcome? I know I am out of line to believe scientists are human before their art. It is totally obvious they must be above emotional responses to the most rudimentary of questions regarding what they do (scientists after all) and can with clear head answer the positive and negative.

You guys are missing the point. Fundemental science cannot yet be compartmentalized by any one country like a secret project involving the physics could be.

I know its more exciting to assume tesla had secrets he didnt bother to tell people about and that the government seized them. That the LHC at CERN was just the biggest dupe ever.

I have no idea what this thread is supposed to be about.

And the LHC is a dupe..

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Byrd

 

Dude, your beef distills down to how many scientists one knows on personal level.

Actually, no. I was reacting to your comments about scientists. I was wondering if you got this information that you dispute FROM scientists or from websites that are ranting about scientists.

I am talking about scientists on Discovery or read about them on different websites.

Any particular shows that set you off? Or website?

Is it totally impossible for anyone not a scientist to comprehend a possible gap a theory presented?

Actually, there's a lot of stuff that I couldn't figure out if the information had gaps or not. Take economics, for instance. Someone introduced me to the Chinese Restaurant Model (a real thing) and I still haven't been able to wrap my head around it. So I couldn't tell if it had gaps or not. Likewise, I couldn't tell if there was an agenda -- because I haven't figured out exactly what was going on.

I know I am out of line to believe scientists are human before their art. It is totally obvious they must be above emotional responses to the most rudimentary of questions regarding what they do (scientists after all) and can with clear head answer the positive and negative.

I am not sure what you mean here -- could you explain a bit more? Are you saying you do think scientists are like everyone in that they have emotions and feeling (which seems to be the idea in the first sentence) or are you saying that they are emotionless and hyper-rational (which I think is what you're saying in the last sentence.)

reply to post by Byrd


I asked some pretty basic questions on the limitations of science and scientists. I made very mundane observations on the human element involved. All in response to and in discussion with the thread. While I believe some things can be safely understood to be pretty much fact as we understand the word, there is no way to know all we do not know. To admit and embrace this does not automatically put one into the tin foil hat brigade.

Look, it's a free country and a more-or-less free website. If you want to answer a question or not, it is your business. Believe what you want.

Your response to me was to list every scientists I know, all the shows I watch, and what do I mean with sarcasm

And I'm the one who is 'set off'?

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Byrd

 

I would say your overall argument is flawed. Not the premise, the whole view. I think byrds valiant but pointless effort at debating your posts line by line because you seem intelligent and any semi intelligent person can have a nitpick war, is a waste of time. Even if your full of it.(not necessarily saying you are)

There have been many instances were radical theories took some time to gain the overall approval. This was due in part to our being spoiled. Spoiled by the internet and email. Now something goes on arvix and if its even slightly feasable tons of qualified people from undergrads to professors will tear it apart from every angle.

This is not so much the case anymore. If its a sound theory, and its science. As in its provable and testable, even if its not capable with todays technology. Some would argue M-theory is not science, but most would say it is. This is because it has enough mathematical curiosity to warrant effort and tests would be possible, just not currently. If something is just conjecture or ideology its not science, not even theoretical science.

Edit: I have used the Manhattan project as an example in other threads. The fundemental physics behind the bomb were public. For awhile. The project was top secret, and the designs for the weapon are very classified. Not the fundamental science.

Most "Scientists" unfortunately assume that those who choose not to believe what mainstream science promotes is due to not having studied the subject. They then proceed to teach what mainstream science has to say on the given subject like we already don't know that.

Fact is Engineers do not agree with archeologists in regard to the time needed to build the great pyramid, now you tell me who is more qualified to talk on the subject of construction, an Engineer who deals with this everyday or an archeologist who has never built anything?

I have never been happy with what the egyptologists teach about the construction of the pyramids. I am also not happy about how they totally disregard all the ancient accounts in various cultures of a cataclysm and the loss of an advanced civilization. They label it all as "mythology", it would seem that these people have a total disregard to the teachings of their own ancestors.

reply to post by ubeenhad


I know that a lot of people like to trash on Lloyd Pye, but I really like what he says in his video, Everything You Know is Wrong. He states (and I can't find any reputable site that disputes this) that the bone mass of the Homo Erectus femur is twice as thick as the Homo Sapiens'.

I take this to mean that, overnight, thick-boned Homo Erectus disappeared and Homo Sapiens appeared. Lloyd suggests that there needs to be at least 20 different species between H.E and H.S. in order to account for a gradual decrease in bone mass. Doesn't this make more sense to any you?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

I take this to mean that, overnight, thick-boned Homo Erectus disappeared and Homo Sapiens appeared. Lloyd suggests that there needs to be at least 20 different species between H.E and H.S. in order to account for a gradual decrease in bone mass. Doesn't this make more sense to any you?

There was quite a gap between Erectus and Sapiens, and yes there's at least a good dozen species in between (many with overlapping date ranges. They'd have been as different as mule deer, black tailed deer, white tailed deer, and coastal black tailed deer (meaning they look similar and could interbreed but there were differences.)
Here's a bunch of them in one convenient place.

(not sure which is more current. Oldest forms of h. sapiens are apparently 500,000 years old)

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Byrd

 

I asked some pretty basic questions on the limitations of science and scientists. I made very mundane observations on the human element involved. All in response to and in discussion with the thread. While I believe some things can be safely understood to be pretty much fact as we understand the word, there is no way to know all we do not know. To admit and embrace this does not automatically put one into the tin foil hat brigade.

I guess what I'm wondering about is "what set you off on the whole topic?" You marched in with some pretty strong accusations, as though you saw a video that was really compelling.

Your response to me was to list every scientists I know, all the shows I watch, and what do I mean with sarcasm

Well, I wondered if your opening theme was set off by some scientist you knew personally or how it came to be.

...err... and I didn't read your statement as sarcastic (and actually didn't think that any of your posts were sarcastic -- but I'm poor at recognizing some forms of sarcasm.)

Just basic curiosity on my part about what got you off on this whole topic and what you would accept as evidence. You seem to have made up your mind about things and I'm not sure that anyone could give any arguments that would actually satisfy you.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

I take this to mean that, overnight, thick-boned Homo Erectus disappeared and Homo Sapiens appeared. Lloyd suggests that there needs to be at least 20 different species between H.E and H.S. in order to account for a gradual decrease in bone mass. Doesn't this make more sense to any you?

There was quite a gap between Erectus and Sapiens, and yes there's at least a good dozen species in between (many with overlapping date ranges. They'd have been as different as mule deer, black tailed deer, white tailed deer, and coastal black tailed deer (meaning they look similar and could interbreed but there were differences.)
Here's a bunch of them in one convenient place.

(not sure which is more current. Oldest forms of h. sapiens are apparently 500,000 years old)

SCIENCE!

This is always anti-evolutionists main point right? The gaps in the fossil record? I seem to remember hearing from several main stream sources that this is expected, and we are lucky to have any fossils at all.

This makes sense, but what about all those 7 foot people they found. How are the chances we find people who would have been in the tallest 1% of the population? Seems like giants could be real, alot of ancient cultures, myths, and religions mentions a race of giants right?

reply to post by Byrd


Look partner, if you want to paint my words and reaction as something it is not, it's your prerogative. I can't stop you.

This is simple:

The non-scientific public gets bombarded on cable shows and the internet with claims from those in the know. Most of the time the claims are reasonable. (www.npr.org...) No problem.

Sometimes claims are seemingly unproveable (www.ugcs.caltech.edu...), contradictory (www.davidpbillington.net...), seem to be hiding behind mumbo-jumbo (en.wikipedia.org...), or appear very self aggrandizing (www.drhawass.com...).

Science is good and I believe most scientists want to do good things. However, can the scientific method always be applied and if not what then? The problem still exists even if the tool cannot fix it.

reply to post by Erectus


Erectus, I can agree with most of your observations about archaeological research. Especially pertaining to Biblical archaeology. I excavated at Qumran, the caves near the settlement since 1992. As a friend of mine said "Archaeology is a very jealous profession. If an archaeologist makes a significant discovery. Someone higher up in the archaeological field wants to come along and take over the excavation, and and discoveries for themselves to get the recognition for the find.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
This is always anti-evolutionists main point right? The gaps in the fossil record? I seem to remember hearing from several main stream sources that this is expected, and we are lucky to have any fossils at all.

Having actually worked on fossils (for a museum, in the dinosaur prep lab) I can say it's downright amazing when we find something that's 80% fossilized and not broken to bits. Our current prep work is on a large group of animals from around 90 million years ago that died (over a long period of time) at what may have been a river ford. The fossilized bones are stomped on, fragmented, and scattered.

We are seeing some new animals in these rocks (we're working on what we think is the skull of something...but there's not enough of it cleared from the rock to figure out what it is yet. We can see nasal bone area, and what appears to be part of a neck frill bone (like Triceratops) -- but it's not Triceratops. It'll take another 4 months of work to actually get all the pieces out.

If it's something new, then they'll have to figure out its lineage.

This makes sense, but what about all those 7 foot people they found. How are the chances we find people who would have been in the tallest 1% of the population? Seems like giants could be real, alot of ancient cultures, myths, and religions mentions a race of giants right?

Forgive me being somewhat dense, but could you link to the 7 foot people? My tired mind can't think of any at the moment. Many cultures have myths of races of giants, but they're generally on the order of "the size of a mountain" (the Northwest Native Americans have several of these, where there are entire countries inside the body of the giant.)

Originally posted by Byrd
Forgive me being somewhat dense, but could you link to the 7 foot people? My tired mind can't think of any at the moment. Many cultures have myths of races of giants, but they're generally on the order of "the size of a mountain" (the Northwest Native Americans have several of these, where there are entire countries inside the body of the giant.)

Idk. All I can find on the moment on google is crap. I have read somewere that a bunch of red haired people who were 7 feet tall. I cannot find a reliable source so its probably nonsense now that I think about it.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Idk. All I can find on the moment on google is crap. I have read somewere that a bunch of red haired people who were 7 feet tall. I cannot find a reliable source so its probably nonsense now that I think about it.

I'd tend to agree. I don't know of any reliable reports.

You did (I think it was you) ask an excellent question about the scientific method and the answer is "no, scientists don't use the scientific method for everything." There's a lot that it doesn't work for -- the dinosaurs I prep, for instance. They have to be understood by basically putting them together. Almost no skeletons are intact -- usually you find a tooth or a few bones that look like another species, and categories and concepts change when you find more complete skeletons. It took finding a lot of things to figure out that Dracorex and Stygimoloch are juvenile and adult forms of the same dinosaurs, for instance.

Sometimes graphing and surveys are more accurate ways of getting information (a survey will give you some idea where to dig at an archaeological site, for instance. Graphing the layout of your finds in 3-D shows how cultures change and how towns are built and expand (and when certain sections turn to "slums" and die.)

Linguistic analysis (as they do with tombs in Egypt) reveals both political policy and social changes as well as gives you the status and relationships of people buried there (a "son of the king" could actually just be an "adopted" official or prince, but "son of the king's body" is actually the child of one of the queens or a concubine.)

Because language and meaning changes so much, one of the interesting research areas is taking old texts and analyzing them with modern software. A funny (but fascinating) one I saw ran a "social structure model" on the heroes and main characters of the Trojan War... they compared it to Facebook "frenemies (friends and enemies)"-- which made the Trojan War a lot more understandable to today's kids.

Other linguistic analysis (via computer) shows the difference in Greek plays when a character is speaking to the chorus and when they talk to a main character. This means that in many fragmentary texts and plays they can now figure out who or what that character represented -- whether this was the hero of a lost play or whether this was a story that the unimportant characters are telling about the important one.

In medicine, the "case study" is the preferred research method -- and collecting enough cases to identify a disease (like fibromyalgia, for instance) is a real labor.

...a bit long-winded, but hope this answers your question.