Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's mostly about alien stone working technology, or something like that...
Its an article with several authors with different views on how the Inca softened with plants. One of the claims that a plant could make stone like clay was disputed. But the stone softening is not disputed.
We can still use science to study their claims if they leave any impression on the world.
Self-published on a blog, by someone that makes money on sensationalizing ancient Egypt. Why should I trust the arguments.
If they happen to be able to give evidence for their hypothesis, why do you feel like that would be problematic.
They didn't find any stone-dissolving plants did they?
Self-published, not peer-reviewed not in a journal. The abstract doesn't even contain any findings. You'll have to point out what you feel is relevant in the article.
Unsurprisingly, they don't actually show that gravity was abolished.
Already discussed.
How can you reject an unprovable knowledge lol. If the methodology cannot measure this in the first place then what right have you got to be in a position to reject it.
Its an assumption its minor.
Its not concocted. Your making this stuff up.
More logical fallacies. Ad hominems that these people are ill informed. What give you the authority to claim they are ill-informed. They are more qualified than you on this.
The fact you use the idea of 'blame' shows your moralising this.You are the one making it not about the facts and more about belief.
This is a fact inherent in methodlogical naturalism. You literally just did it in your first point lol. Material science cannot account for spirituality. To then enforce onto spirituality material science in saying its all rejected as nothing is ignoring spirituality as something real.
I think its the other way around. Why are you here on this site lol.
Your only proving my point. Your whole MO as you call it is now all ad hominems. Nothing on content. I literally linked scientific evidence and all you can do is complain about the integrity of the sources because you don't like them.
Its quite hypocritical that on the one hand you reject indigenous knowledge because it has no evidence. But then make unsupported claims witout one bit of evidence. It seems a double standard and only proves this is about your belief and not science.
Do Indigenous people have their own knowledge or not.
Another fallacy. I never said it was magical. I literally said I am trying to ground it in nature. That this knowledge is just deeper knowledge of nature through experiencing it.
Yes, to talk about "the watt" when what they mean is power or perhaps some measure of surface intensity if they wanted to use W/cm^2 really highlights the need for peer-review. @stevevw please at least read your own references with a critical eye.
Of course. Gods supernatural acts left physical effects. You could probably measure a mircle as it occurs on the body. Cells changing and reacting, regenerating ect.
Lol is not your replies in refuting this itself a self published blog on social media. Using your criteria everything you have said is just self published personal opinion.
They already have. Its been verified. The stones were cast and not cut or chiseled.
www.nsf.gov
I think the plant was part of the ingredient which was like some acid substance that softened the surfaces. Or was put on the surface like a render perhaps. I am not sure. But the stones are definitely softened somehow. Some sort of natural chemistry. I think it mostly softens the silicon elements. I don't know I am not a Chemist.
Hum, have you made claims without peer review. You seem to want to make claims about this and that not being the case but never adhere to the same standard of evidence. How about you deal with the content.
I think they are referring to the volumn or area of the cavities and the energy produced person chamber area. Or the area of the block itself and the sound energy that can be produced.
As far as I understand they have.
Listen to all these experts who themselves provide no peer review. Talk about Woo. Double standards and bias proving my point that this was a lynch job from the start.
The authors not being able to differentiate between a physical quantity (power) and its unit (W) is clear from their own text.
But you have not offered anything to show that this was the case. Its something you believe based on an out of context word or phrase.
Where is this quote. I cannot find it.
Of course. This was a scientific project. They have used the calculations and explained the analysis. I would think they know such a simple and basic measure.
No I want you to show how they have misunderstood the measures and that it means what you claim and is not referring to something else.
How can I reject "unprovable knowledge"? The real question is how can I not reject it. (I recall a definition of "knowledge" as "justified true belief". If you can't prove it, then you aren't justified in holding it, therefore it isn't even "knowledge". Even setting that aside...) This is the science section, Steve. In science we base our knowledge on evidential demonstration. Something that is "unprovable" (using a lay, colloquial definition, rather than getting) isn't even appropriate for scientific inquiry. We're trying to do science here, Steve.
This isn't the feelings and preceptions subforum, Steve. We're here to talk about science. (And there is a science for studying feeings and perceptions [and other stuff] -- psychology. The topic of the thread has never been psychology.
Steve, the list is a heuristic, a plan, an algorithm. It is not a comprehensive description of psuedoscience or the specific topic here. And the anomaly being chased by the vase-gropers is an incredibly minor anomaly: what is the nature of the technology used to make these round, beautiful, and smooth stone objects. It's hard to find a more minor anomaly -- the perfect material for a grift.
Steve, I'm describing the nature of the suckers in a grift as ill informed. Some of the grifters are as well, but that is not the point of this "step". If your intended victims actually know the relevant science they are hard to con.
In away you apparently can't perceive, the "complain about science not being non-scientific" is a method you have copied from those who are grifting you. It is sad Steve. We try everyday to pull you out of their grasp, but you keep lighting the rope on fire and throwing back at us from you pseudoscience pit.
That *I* (or the others arguing with you are grifters)? LOL. Or do you think Dunn et al are the suckers and you are the grifter? I'm not sure how well you understand what is written.
Literally to fight pseudoscience argue with the victims of the pseudoscience grifters. Yep, if you've read and parsed that correctly you are now realizing I am here to argue with *YOU* (and others like you) about ancient technology (electric stars, creationism, flerf, etc.). It was how I even found this site and why I chose to stay. Does that make you feel special or targeted?
We (you, I, the other posters) have been over the evidence over and over Steve. I am not critiquing the evidence in this response. I am discussing the grifters right now. (We'll get to evidence a little later in this posts because all of your posts eventually become omnibus posts.) You see ad hom, but I am sick of dancing around the fact that your sources (Dunn, UnchartedX, Karoly, Dr. Max, etc.) all are promoting "ancient tech/ancient aliens/lost civ/Atlantis" garbage. That's why they care about "precise vases" and it is also why the wave their hands so hard to not specify what that mystery tech is. I'm sick of dancing around their grift to not be "offensive" and so I have decided not to hold back on your grifter sources. The final straws are given in posts #1004/1001 and when I finally tried watching some of Karoly's content and realized he is one of them too. Since you didn't want to engage with my #1004 post and respond directly, I'm going to refer to that crowd of grifters in the way they deserve. I'm not talking about you, but I am done treading lightly around your sources.
I don't reject "indigenous knowledge", I reject your notion that the Egyptians (the world's most sophisticated civilization at the time) was based on "indigenous knowledge". It was literally the peak of technology at the time.
These are werid things to say. You are the one invoking the current Aboriginal cultures of your island, not I. I tried to show you that their non-agricultural, small polity culture was not a relevant to a massive organized agricultural state like Egypt.
Of course they do, but the subject of this Egypt talk is not about indigenous peoples.
What ever fantasy tech you are being presented for ancient vases and stone cutting is "magic".
Which is not relevant to understanding the technology of an advanced civilization and material culture. It is the same reason that in the future, the understanding of 20th century microprocessors will not hinge on the spiritual beliefs of the ancient [20th century] Californians.
I degrade you grifter sources because they are frauds and fools.
I'm still going to label posts from Chris Dunn as "LOL. Grifter-fraud." though...
