Incredible Ancient Indian Knowledge of the Solar System 10,000 years ago!

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer

That assumes its the truth. What happens to falsehoods? First its ridiculed, Second it's accepted, third it is shown to be wrong, 4th while wrong it is held to be right by a minority while the rest move on.

Reciprocal argument does not solve the problem it is merely a debating tool to stall a subject and prevent advancement, used to stall a subject by those more interested in the debate and winning an argument than unearthing the actual truth.

The truth is WE and that mean's YOU as well do NOT know.

We have conjecture, jigsaw piece history that is full of more gap's than an old man's sock's has holes and BELIEF.

When someone goes AGAINST that belief in a specific subject it riles some of you up.

Others are here just for the argument and never really care so long as they win that argument, it is there kick, there martini, there fun moment for the day and gives them a buzz were they can then tell themselves they have proven there own superiority and can go to bed knowing the world is how they want it to remain, all rather Asperger's (OCD Obsessive Compulsive, not all Asperger's or Autistic cases have that but most do, it is also not only people with those condition as any form of neurosis can also generate such behaviour and we all have it to some degree, tick's, repetitive habit's etc 0 mine is nose picking haha - when no one is watching that itch just wont go away, for other's it's scratching there arse, pulling there kecks up etc, fixing there sleeves that just feel wrong or whatever) like but we know REALITY seldom fit's into a neat box full of neat categories.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Or we could all accept YOUR belief and walk of a cliff together and into the abatoir van because you know those little green alien guy's are really our friends and they work for the government eh!.

Don't be so bloody ridiculous man.

Why would we do that? My acceptance of evidence is not a belief and none of them involved going to an abattoir, there are no green aliens based on the evidence we currently have. Rather a weird statement by you. I guess you are really upset by the truth huh? You shouldn't be you've been following that pattern above for decades.

Don't be bloody ridiculous man.

That assumes its the truth. What happens to falsehoods? First its ridiculed, Second it's accepted, third it is shown to be wrong, 4th while wrong it is held to be right by a minority while the rest move on.

Look at many of the famous fringe claims - they follow that pattern. Many on ATS still follow that pathway including yourself.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
For example, I find it highly unlikely that any purposeful alignment exists there.

Yeah, I don't see any particular indication of obvious significant alignment there. And if there were, you'd likely see it repeated in the various levels of the site. They're not going to build a temple and align it to the sun on the solstice one time, and then when they rebuild it just line it up somewhere different. There would probably be some consistency. If anything, the site seems to be lined up on the Southeast side of a hill to possibly get some protection against the weather, which blows in predominantly from the West and North.

Maybe there was a spring there at one time. A meeting place for various wandering tribes to trade or tell stories. Probably some animal spirit and fertility worship (pretty common for Neolithic people), but nothing astronomical.

Unless the circles were being built by clan, family or tribal groups that all had their own 'star, planet, constellation' that was important to them or perhaps a specific rising or setting of the sun or moon. We don't known or its even possible they don't point at anything at all.

a reply to: Hanslune

haha I changed it, lost my rag, oh not at you just having one of those day's back here.

What I was saying is your point is only as valid as other's point, even if you have consensus on your side that does not make your point more valid without concrete unarguable evidence to back it up it just makes it more accepted and more popular, science should NEVER be based on popularism but sadly we both know that it is.
How many great theory's, how many great papers submitted for peer review have ended up in the trash bin only for someone else with more credentials and respect to repeat an earlier persons ideas and for it to then be accepted at a later date while the original theorists has ended up in obscurity there brilliance veiled by the idiocy of there earlier peer's.


***** And you most certainly do have a point in your counter argument, many fringe theory's do fail, some of them are however bloody stupid let's be fair, others like this are rather more intriguing.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

haha I changed it, lost my rag, oh not at you just having one of those day's back here.

What I was saying is your point is only as valid as other's point, even if you have consensus on your side that does not make your point more valid without concrete unarguable evidence to back it up it just makes it more accepted and more popular, science should NEVER be based on popularise but sadly we both know that it is.
How many great theory's, how many great papers submitted for peer review have ended up in the trash bin only for someone else with more credentials and respect to repeat an earlier persons ideas and for it to then be accepted at a later date while the original theorists has ended up in obscurity there brilliance veiled by the idiocy of there earlier peer's.

Most of 'my' points are based on evidence not on what I want to be true but what is the most possible based on said evidence.

Many fringe ideas are more popular than mainstream science but that doesn't change the evidence. How many times has the opposite occurred? Many more times by a very large volume. We cannot removed the human ego from science but the system self corrects.

You know what I and friends have done if there paper is rejected? They go to a newspaper reporter and get the information out, or publish a book on the subject or now days start a blog, website or put the information out in forums.

Take a look at the state of science or consensus in 1820 - now look at 2020 virtually every consensus from 1820 has been drastically changed, that would also apply to 1920. The problem comes that certain subjects or ideas don't get accepted and that makes you want to disparage the entire scientific community and scientific methodology.

Some things just aren't supported by the evidence.

a reply to: Hanslune

Well one of the tenets (Dened from the old Latin for HELD not law as some would claim, the templars used it in there saT(d)or, Arepo, T(d)eneT(d), Opera, RoT(d)as letter puzzle as the central cross) of Science is that any theory can be Supported but NEVER proven, any evidence to the contrary even rogue results therefore cause even a cherished theory to be Disproven.
Though in reality most theory's would be out of the window as a result of this so in comes the goblin universe like Chaos theory to save the day and smudge away rogue results letting scientist get on with using flawed model's at least until they get something better.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Well one of the tenets (Dened from the old Latin for HELD not law as some would claim, the templars used it in there saT(d)or, Arepo, T(d)eneT(d), Opera, RoT(d)as letter puzzle as the central cross) of Science is that any theory can be Supported but NEVER proven, any evidence to the contrary even rogue results therefore cause even a cherished theory to be Disproven.
Though in reality most theory's would be out of the window as a result of this so in comes the goblin universe like Chaos theory to save the day and smudge away rogue results letting scientist get on with using flawed model's at least until they get something better.

What?

a reply to: Hanslune

Eh!.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Eh!.

Yep

a reply to: Hanslune

Hmm, have to think on that one a bit haha.