There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

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.

This whole thread has been turned into one big logical fallacy of ad hominems one after the other lol.

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Where is this quote. I cannot find it.

It's in the paragraph before the Results section.

I especially like the sudden introduction of a specific frequency, at best there some are some serious language problems going on, at worst it is gobbledegook.

Note, the paper is not peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. What peer-reviewed articles deal with acoustic properties of Egyptian pyramids and free energy? You alluded that they exist.

I've only been invited to peer-review papers in predatory journals and I have better use for my time and my field is not archeology or physics.
So I can't show you any articles I am currently reviewing, and I wouldn't be allowed either.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This thread REALLY has gone down the pseudo-science rabbithole unrepentantly.

I'm bouncing. Good luck to all staying behind.

 

[BCP1928]

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

I'll bet they are interesting. Mine are not and very few and have to do with learning vocational skills--not a subject which Steve is interested in. Maybe he should read my MA thesis. That would put him in a very, very small but select group.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Here's a story for you:

Many years ago when acupuncture started to become trendy the American Medical Association sent a team of (methodological naturalist) doctors over to China to work with traditional Chinese healers to see if there was anything in it. When they returned they reported that

1. Acupuncture was actually effective in many (though not all) cases as claimed.
2. The traditional explanation for its effectiveness, Qi energy channels, yin & yang, etc. was all post hoc moonshine.
3. They had discovered two new useful acupuncture points previously unknown to traditional Chinese medicine.

What do you make of that?

Here's another:

I worked for a while in a small island nation .The natives cultivated a plant, unique to those islands, which had medicinal properties. Of course the existence and use of the plant was surrounded with a traditional spiritual framework, but the important thing was that it worked. While I was there the plant came to the attention of (methodolically naturalist) Western medicine. The main concern of the Islanders was not that their spiritual framework would be dismissed, but whether or not they would get royalties from pharma companies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many years ago when acupuncture started to become trendy the American Medical Association sent a team of (methodological naturalist) doctors over to China to work with traditional Chinese healers to see if there was anything in it. When they returned they reported that

1. Acupuncture was actually effective in many (though not all) cases as claimed.
2. The traditional explanation for its effectiveness, Qi energy channels, yin & yang, etc. was all post hoc moonshine.
3. They had discovered two new useful acupuncture points previously unknown to traditional Chinese medicine.

What do you make of that?

Many of these "new techniques" were pushed hard on us.

The New Age gurus wanted desperately to get scientific accreditation for their practices.

That way they could get government subsidization for their nonsense.

Here's one example from AI Overview:

The American Psychological Association (APA) was founded in 1892 with the explicit goal of "the advancement of psychology as a science," meaning it was established to formally recognize and promote psychology in a scientific manner from its inception. However, the official goal wasn't formally established until 1906, and a major reorganization in 1945 solidified the integration of applied and academic psychology, further demonstrating psychology's scientific standing.

 

[BCP1928]

Many of these "new techniques" were pushed hard on us.

The New Age gurus wanted desperately to get scientific accreditation for their practices.

That way they could get government subsidization for their nonsense.

Here's one example from AI Overview:

The American Psychological Association (APA) was founded in 1892 with the explicit goal of "the advancement of psychology as a science," meaning it was established to formally recognize and promote psychology in a scientific manner from its inception. However, the official goal wasn't formally established until 1906, and a major reorganization in 1945 solidified the integration of applied and academic psychology, further demonstrating psychology's scientific standing.

In this case it was very old techniques.

 

[sjastro]

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.

This whole thread has been turned into one big logical fallacy of ad hominems one after the other lol.

Don't let hypocrisy get in the way, referring to me as some random individual on a social media site not fit to challenge your so called experts is ad hominem attack.
The problem is your gross ignorance in failing to comprehend your so called experts are not experts at all if flaws can be found by random individuals as myself.
Your idiotic obsession with moulded limestone concrete casing stones was suggested by me being refuted with a simple high school chemistry HCl drop test described in post #1184. When taken further by the true experts in their fields of petrology, palaeontology and archaeology the use of moulded casing stones is beyond doubt complete utter nonsense.

On the subject of softening granite why did the builders of Menkaure's pyramid who was the fifth pharaoh of the 4th dynasty start off with the first 16 courses with granite casing stones but complete the remaining courses in Tura limestone resulting in 25% granite and 75% limestone casing stones?

​

The answer is ridiculously simple, there was no granite softening technology as using dressed granite casing stones was extremely time consuming to make using abrasion cutting, pounding and smoothing. The evidence suggests Menkaure died before his pyramid and mortuary temple were completed resulting in the builders finishing the pyramid with softer limestone.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The acoustic power paper is not what you think it is.

I'm reasonable certain that it is a student term paper, and not a scientific study.

It has a number of flaws that would not be found in a genuine scientific paper. You may find these irrelevant, but they are telling.

1. There are no section numbers. I've never seen a journal article without numbered sections. Numbering makes it easier to reference other parts of you paper. (Like "see definition in sec. 3.2" or "this will be further analyzed in sec. 5.3".)

2. The paper refers to "Professor Ibrahim El-Noshokaty," and later "the professor" several times. This is particularly odd since the lead author is an "I. Nashokaty" which I can only assume is this professor. This would be as odd as if I wrote "According to Dr. Hans Blaster,..." when the normal form would be "Blaster et al. (2021) showed..."

3. Later in a *4* author paper refers to "I" several times, such as "I have utilized the following equation to arrive at my conclusion."

(At this point the "term paper" alarm goes off...)

4. The reference list is the weirdest thing I have seen in "scientific publishing". There are only 6 (six, only?) references that inclue:

a. The "professors" book on acoustics cited only as " ( Basics Of Sound And Hearing (part 3) acoustic theory )." [Seriously, that is what is listed.
b. A dictionary link to the definition of "sound" (That's middle school paper stuff at best.)
c. A link to PACS which is a system of subject categories used in physics to sort articles. Journals that use them require authors to provide codes describing the content of their paper. Citing the list is exceedingly odd.
d. A link to a description of piezoelectric generally.

That's 4 of the 6 references. Worse than amateur hour.

5. Then there are sections like this:

It is important to note that sound waves​

cannot propagate in a vacuum. In order​

for sound waves to be transmitted, a​

medium must be present. Additionally,​

the speed at which sound waves travel​

depends on the properties of the medium​

through which they are propagating. For​

instance, the speed of sound in air at 20​

degrees Celsius is 343 meters per second,​

while in water at 0 degrees Celsius, it is​

1407 meters per second.​

​

The frequency of a sound wave, measured​

in hertz (Hz), is the number of oscillations​

that occur per second. The speed of​

sound, measured in meters per second, is​

a constant value that remains the same​

regardless of the medium through which​

it is traveling. By applying the equation ​

= c/f, where is the wavelength of the​

sound wave, c is the speed of sound, and f​

is the frequency of the wave, one can​

determine the wavelength of a sound​

This is intro text book stuff. It has no place in a serious paper. The *readers* of a scientific paper should be expected to know all of this without being told (and there is more of this where that came from.

6. A large section of the paper recaps "the professors" work in the pyramid.

7. Then there is this infamous paragraph:

To circumvent these issues, stakeholders​

in this matter decided to adopt a common​

standard, which is the microwatt. Given​

that the watt is a measure of energy flow​

per square centimeter, the microwatt is​

close to the minimum hearing threshold​

that enables the perception of a sound​

with a frequency of 1000 vibrations per​

second.​

Oh boy. The paper purports to piezoelectric generation from sound in the pyramid chambers. Human sound perception is irrelevant. Not to mention the whopper of an error in the bold.

I could go on, but what's the point. This paper is garbage. I give it a B-. That's a grade which is far higher than the student deserves, but then I don't have to read the whole things carefully and if a "regrading" is requested the question to be offered is "are you sure you want this reassesed?"


Now let's see a few of your comments and provide response...

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.

Let me ask. Do you think this so called mistake or lack of understanding is a very basic understanding that is 101 physics or electrical engineering.

It's a student paper and filled with limited understanding.

The equivelant would be claiming that the authors of a mathmatic based theory did not know their muliplication tables or alegbra. So therefore your claim is highly suspect and perhaps it is you who have the misunderstanding and not the authors.

No, it is the authors that are useless.

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.

There is much they don't understand.

Put it this way their findings are supported by other independent tests.

Once again we have someone social media, without any peer review or even laid out paper whether self published or peer reviewed. Nothing but personal opinions without any evidence behind it. Just objections that may be misguided themselves. But we don't know because you offer nothing to back it up. Just objections.

It doesn't need peer review. It needs a grade. It isn't really passing work for HS.

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.

I want you to respond to the peer review articles that say more or less the same thing. Thus supporting that article as being correct and not to make these fallacies attacking the authors. This whole thread has turned into one big ad hominem. .

We may as well not even discuss things as none of it is actually on the content anymore. No matter what I link including peer review its always attacked. The sources and authors are always attacked. This has become the default line of attack now.

 

[stevevw]

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".

Your missing the point and just doubling down on the very epistemics that dismisses "justified true belief" as npt true belief or knowledge.

The reason its "justified true belief" is because it persists depite the definitions and methodology you want to use to dismiss it. It is derived from other knowledge that is not based on materialism or naturalism. The premise your using already discounts "justified true belief" as nothing real.

Even setting that aside...) This is the science section, Steve.

No its not and thats another example of forcing an particular epistemics and ontology.

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.

No we are not. Thats the whole point. The thread itself is questioning the orthodox narrative which is based on the material sciences as to what counts as knowledge.

Your more or less doing exactly what my point is. Which is forcing one epistemics on all as to how we can understand knowledge.

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.

What you are not understanding is that if there are alternative ways of measuring reality. If as some theories posit that thiss Mind or psychological aspect actually creates the objective material world. Then your begging the question in assuming that we must use your material epistemics in the first place to measure it.

Next you respond to my algorithm for running a pseudoscience grift...

What is the algorithm based on. Is there any assumptions that exclude certain knowledge as being pseudoscience grift...Before its established that its pseudoscience grift. Or that we must use a particular algorithm that you decide is truth. That only tells us a certain kind of reality and not complete reality.

Steve, the list is a heuristic, a plan, an algorithm. It is not a comprehensive description of psuedoscience or the specific topic here.

Overall as far as the epistemics for knowledge itsefl as to what counts is a belief and not science. My point is alternative knowledge can be anything from the knowledge God gives throughout history, consciousness beyond brain, the many transcedent beliefs. All the way down the spectrum to whacko ideas.

So within that spectrum where say Christians testify to a knowledge beyond the material to whackery there is no way for science to tell.

Your forcing empiricle sciences as the epistemics due to an assumed ontoilogy of the material. But what if as many transcedent beliefs and now even some theories in science are saying. That the fundemental ontology is the alternative knowledge that is being expressed in many ways for millenai.

What then. You are almost forcing a material epistemics and ontology.

How do you know that along the way to producing the physical result there was no some knowledge beyond the material paradigm that was not included. I gave the example of the color red experience. This is an objective reality to humans. Yet it is derived from a transcedent experience. How do you know that other physical outcomes are not at least partly the result of that alternative knowledge.

To then force the material epistemics and ontology over all else because its methods of measuring only look at one aspect is a belief in itself and not science.

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.

Do you see what your doing. Your creating a strawman or at least a false representation. First you qualify the testers as grifters and gropers. So already you have a prior negative view that must influence how you see things. Then you qualify the example as a "minor anomaly". Surely this is a matter of subjective opinion.

Throughout history there has been a clear recognition that these vases stood out, were the peak of all Egyptian vase making including all dynasties that came after. Even some alluded to their high quality and precision that they required a different tech.

So already you have set the parameters that these out of place vases are minor anomalies when many people as a matter of course and not because of some whackery see they do stand out as being out of place for that time.

Of course their "alt manufacturing" method is concocted. It's so concocted they (generally) just invoke "like modern cnc" or wave their hands until stone softeners and laser beams appear from nowhere. (And yes, I created the test algorithm to match a recurring pattern among the pseudoscience grifters.)

Ok so lets see how the "like modern cnc" and "test algorithm" says about that 'stone softerning or weakening'. According to you thios is a completely concoted idea out of nowhere. Based on no science and just made up as part of the conspiriacy.

Lets see if this is the case. You now have to deal with the science and evidence. Just like the vases. Except this ones so out of the box you cannot quibble about microns of difference equating to precise or imprecise. This is obvious and clear.

We look at a vase and we can see the precision as compared to a different imprecise method. But yes there is a point where to the naked eye it is harder to tell precise lathed from handmade and micro measures are needed. But the stone softening and weakening is obvious. Now tests are backing up this.

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.

Some of the grifters are well know. Is that not an appeal to consensus or authority. This does not follow that everyone I link falls into that catergory. You have never actually provided any evidence and just stated this with your own mouth and the words that feel out on the page lol.

Am I suppose to just agree with that. I could myself be falling for a grift lol. Thats my point that most of this is assumption and heresay and personal opinions. Its not in the realm of scientific fact.

And explaining to you that the criteria for what you regard as crifters or whackos is itself a particular epistemics based on an ontological belief about what counts as evidence. I don't think there is any science or fact in what your claiming.

Thats not to say there we can tell through a detailed assessment and analysis of what is said. But you have not done this. Its become a stop gap objection and fallacy to call on whenever somethinmg does not fit your worldview.

I've read the grifters stuff.

I doubt that. You would not equate all these people as grifters and whackos if you did. I can tell. When someone from the first couple of pages of a book of threads thats trying to establish what is knowledge. Then from the strat makes tars all alternative knowledge as whacko then they are already showing their bias before we have actually gone into the content.

When I hear a lot of language along those lines and a lot of ad hominems and little engagment into the context. Then I know and its actually obvious independently that there is at least a degree of bias because the weight of fallacies is unjustified. So yes there are ways you can tell griters. Don't think that the skeptics cannot grift and push their own conspiracies lol.

Half of what they do is whinge about being ignored by "the mainstream" and being kept out of "the academy". They are trying to paint the experts as elitist that are keeping the suckers from engaging as an emotional manipulation method.

Yes that may be a small portion. But it actually is like that in reality. When a new or alternative idea that ends up being correct is first proposed its treated as conspiracy or pseudoscience at first. In some ways thats science. Look at the fights some have over the BB and other theories. Or consciousness. They even call each others scientific proposals as whackery when they actually use the same science.

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.

Actually what I am basing the whole skeptics verses conspiracy making and everything in betyweem on the science. On behavioural sciences. On the psychology you referred to earlier which is my expertise and not yours. Like I ackowledged you know more about physics. You should now ackowledge I know more about the psychology and socialogical patterns of behaviour that go into this.

Its not as simple as one side = epistemic truth and the other false. Even science itself can be used as an epistemic beating stick to deny other forms of knowledge. Including the ploy of making out all altenative knowledge that does not conform to scientific material epistemics and ontologies is pseudoscience or grifting.

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.

All I know is the very thing (that the pyramids are some sort of energy producer" that you claimed Dunn was a whacko for suggesting such. Has been verified by independent studies. So you automatically labelled his idea as whacko when it was actually correct.

Thus expsoing your bias, your beliefs and asumptions that creep in and distort how you see this whole issue.

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?

So what if some of those skeptics are themselves grifters who go through social media sites looking to save the poor unaware who are being fooled. With the epistemic truth. Thus creating their own religion of saving the religious or fools who are falling for such ideas.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At the moment you tar all such ideas as pseudoscience and I just showed you how you did that wrongly to a good man in Christopher Dunn with 50 plus years of the fields he is addressing. You throw all that into the box of pseudoscience and grifters. That in itself is very telling of a personal belief and not facts.

We (you, I, the other posters) have been over the evidence over and over Steve.

No you havn't. We got ito the vases and that was the only specific item we got into deeply. At the very least this is ongoing. BUt you have already made up your mind.

We are beginning to touch on the many signatures of saw cuts but we have yet to establish anything. Another assumption that everything must then fall into pseudoscience before its investigated.

The images I linked which showed obvious out of place examples was ignored for most of this thread or dismissed as pseudoscience without any investigation. I think the majority of this thread has been on fallacies and especially ad hominems and not actually on content.

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.)

Hum, like I said this started from the very beginning and has just got worse. That you want to discuss that the sources are all grifters and pseudoscience and not the content or label all of Dunns work as whacko is the problem.

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.

There you go you just admitted it. You label Dunns work as equalivelant to a podcast. You cannot seperate out the facts from the podcast thats hosting it. You assume everything presented is pseudoscience.

Which is surely an unfounded assumption as I don't think you have even had the time or bothered investigating these proposals properly (Dunns pyramid energy hypothesis).

In fact the reality is I have not mentioned anything about (aliens/lost civ/Atlantis) or anything magical. Rather it is you and others who are making it so over and over and over again. You have used this narrative that many times that you cannot see that you are creating the false dichotomy of aliens and Atlantis vesrse proper science lol. When its far more complex and varied than that.

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.

But you have created a strawman to begin with based on the above reasoning and facts actually of what actually haooens and not what ideal you are subjective determining as the case. What if people challenge your premise to begin with.

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.

Ok sorry I must have missed it. Not on purpose. Just having so many posters to respond to. I will go back and answer it specifically. I will leave this section and respond to the rest seperately.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a story for you:

Many years ago when acupuncture started to become trendy the American Medical Association sent a team of (methodological naturalist) doctors over to China to work with traditional Chinese healers to see if there was anything in it. When they returned they reported that

1. Acupuncture was actually effective in many (though not all) cases as claimed.
2. The traditional explanation for its effectiveness, Qi energy channels, yin & yang, etc. was all post hoc moonshine.
3. They had discovered two new useful acupuncture points previously unknown to traditional Chinese medicine.

What do you make of that?

I think that this is a either/or fallacy. Either all situations have a physical or spiritual affect. That there is not mixture of causes or explanations. Lets apply the same scenario to miracles and prayer. I am sure they will come back and say that miracles and prayer is post hoc and in the imagination.

It still may be that remedies that are outside the box have a physical affect on reality. It may be that acupuncture though having a physical explanation ie stimulates the area. But we don't know the affect it has on minds. Much of this kind of medicine is based on mental states overcoming physical states. Even psychology is based on this. It is the mind that creates certain realities mentally. Physics even tells us this now.

So you don't know what degrees of influence the non material or spiritual has on the physical. You just assume its all physical. We even have an entire journal on spiritual auggmentation which shows that the spiritual actually changes the physical outcomes of patients. What sort of physical explanation could explain this. I am sure skeptics will find one. Even for miracles and prayer.

This whole debate about what line or threshhold is material or spiritual and transcends objective reality. Or visible and invisible is itself represents. Or what even the physical represents ontologically is an unsettled philsophy.

Here's another:

I worked for a while in a small island nation .The natives cultivated a plant, unique to those islands, which had medicinal properties. Of course the existence and use of the plant was surrounded with a traditional spiritual framework, but the important thing was that it worked. While I was there the plant came to the attention of (methodolically naturalist) Western medicine. The main concern of the Islanders was not that their spiritual framework would be dismissed, but whether or not they would get royalties from pharma companies.

Lol yes money always trumps everything else. The same thing has happened with some indigenous groups who have claims to the land as original inhabitants. They are now using the system that took their land to make money by holding it to ransom for big $ deals. They realise they sit on valuable minerals. But this is not the average Abroriginal who just wants to be free on the land as it is like their spiritual home.

Look there are all sorts of specific examples which are not so black and white and I am not claiming that material sciences that explain the naturalistic causes are not explaining something real. There are degrees where the scientific explanation fits well and others it doesn't.

Of course the results of the knowledge work. Otherwise its useless. But it doesn't tell us the nature of how that works. The science is just describing what is happening. The physical processes and results. The results come from the physical explanations.

My point is we don't know that. We don't know how much the experience of nature made a difference to knowing and influencing reality. I don't think the ancients could explain the scientific causes. They have no idea. All they know is that they experienced something about nature that led them to deeper knowledge of how to manipulate it.

Observing from the outside is completely different to immersion within nature. This surely brings a different level of knowledge and one that is more directly linked to what is going on.

I liken it to an intimant relation with something. There are certain aspects you can measure about the material processes. But there are realities that can only be known by the subjective experiences. Just like Marys experience of the color Red. We gain knowledge of reality that all the knowledge of science and material reality could not tell us.

So there may be like knowledge that is gained by the deeper immersion and intimate relation to nature that only comes from conscious experiences of it.

That may be that the phenomenal experiences give a different view or paradigm. Open minds up to levels of nature that are not accessible from the outside in view of 3rd party sciences. Hense the ancients and Indigenous peoples were discovering some of natures secrets that the material sciences could never find or understand without the enlightened knowledge and science looking from the outside in.

 

[stevevw]

It's in the paragraph before the Results section.

I especially like the sudden introduction of a specific frequency, at best there some are some serious language problems going on, at worst it is gobbledegook.

Did you read the section leading up to the so called sudden introduction of microwatts and the reasoning behind how its the best way to measure acoustic sounds that is consistent and does not rely on varying measures from Pascals (air pressure) or subjective hearing levels which could vary from person to person.

The author gives the arguement and calculations for why this is best. One of the first things you should have done was readi the reasoning for the words you selected out of context. Then you would have clarified why he said this rather than an either/or fallacy that its either a serious language problems going on, at worst it is gobbledegook.

That you don't even mention that reasoning whether its right or wrong only shows your taking it out of context and not even bothering to actually read why the words are used in the first place. You spotted a word you thought did not belong and based the whole view of this world on a word or two.

Note, the paper is not peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. What peer-reviewed articles deal with acoustic properties of Egyptian pyramids and free energy? You alluded that they exist.

Ah like the good old provenance back up there is the "its not peer reviewed' objection you can always call on at your selective convenience. Notice how your happy to enage in the content if you think it can get you a "got ya" moment. But then change the goal posts if the article happens to be correct. You can always call on the good old '"its not peer reviewed' objection as a backup lol.

While I might add at the same time never providing yourself any peer review. You have made a lot of truth and fact claims. Or made accusations that authors and articles are so dumb they get 101 science wrong. Yet you never provide anything but personal opinion or out of context objections.

I've only been invited to peer-review papers in predatory journals and I have better use for my time and my field is not archeology or physics.
So I can't show you any articles I am currently reviewing, and I wouldn't be allowed either.

Is this some sort of appeal to authority. It does not matter how may peer reviews someone participates in. Its not going to make a misinformed or biased opinion fact or truth.

I think good science is repeated independent science. The findings of the article you object to and want to pick out so called wrong words has been backed up by other independent findings. Thats what tells me despite your complaints about a word that you think is wrong defines the whole research and authors.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Did you read the section leading up to the so called sudden introduction of microwatts and the reasoning behind how its the best way to measure acoustic sounds that is consistent and does not rely on varying measures from Pascals (air pressure) or subjective hearing levels which could vary from person to person.

Yes, I read it. Microwatts is nothing but 0.000001W (a measure of power).

The author gives the arguement and calculations for why this is best. One of the first things you should have done was readi the reasoning for the words you selected out of context.

I read them. It still is a mistake in the units used.

Then you would have clarified why he said this rather than an either/or fallacy that its either a serious language problems going on, at worst it is gobbledegook.

Because it is still a mistake in the units used.

That you don't even mention that reasoning whether its right or wrong only shows your taking it out of context and not even bothering to actually read why the words are used in the first place. You spotted a word you thought did not belong and based the whole view of this world on a word or two.

That is rich when you couldn't even find the paragraph, I do read before I reference something.

Ah like the good old provenance back up there is the "its not peer reviewed' objection you can always call on at your selective convenience. Notice how your happy to enage in the content if you think it can get you a "got ya" moment. But then change the goal posts if the article happens to be correct. You can always call on the good old '"its not peer reviewed' objection as a backup lol.

I commented on all the articles you pasted last time, go back and read. I've already commented on the article about electromagnetic energy creation, and that have been through peer-review. What are you talking about?

While I might add at the same time never providing yourself any peer review.

What you mean to say is probably that I don't provide articles that have been peer-reviewed. But what claims have I made you think should have been through peer-review? The basic definition of power? You can easily find them at Wikipedia.

You have made a lot of truth and fact claims. Or made accusations that authors and articles are so dumb they get 101 science wrong. Yet you never provide anything but personal opinion or out of context objections.

You gave me the article you should know the context.

Is this some sort of appeal to authority. It does not matter how may peer reviews someone participates in. Its not going to make a misinformed or biased opinion fact or truth.

It is unclear if you understand what peer-review is. Since this is not my field my opinion, my views are always going to be that of a random person on the internet. You'll have evaluate it in that perspective.

I think good science is repeated independent science. The findings of the article you object to and want to pick out so called wrong words has been backed up by other independent findings.

Such as? You have already alluded that there is peer-reviewed articles about the generation of free energy in Egyptian pyramids using sound before, but where are they?

Thats what tells me despite your complaints about a word that you think is wrong defines the whole research and authors.

Says the person who don't seem to read the articles they reference.