There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

As to what this alternative to natural science is you invoke the vaguery of "deeper knowledge" and mystical experiences with the adept gibberish of a New Age guru. Then...

Yes it is mystical. Just like how Gods spirit works. Paul calls it a mystery. But its real. The reason we humans have been preoccupied with this for all our existence and it will never fade. Is that its real. Its a real part of being human and there is some truth to this mysterious realm existing in one form or another.

All the expressions of religion, transcedent ideas, Information, Mind or Consciousness as fundemental are attempts to explain this. But its as real as the experience of a red apple on the table.

you invoke a series of *PHYSICAL* processes (acoustics, advanced machining, piezoelectric effects, chemical alterations) which are not only "material science" but as you immediately state:

The *PHYSICAL* process are just descriptions of what is happening. Nothing in that process tells us the nature of how that was caused. As some science tells us 'the *PHYSICAL* is just a reflection of something deeper such as Mind or Information. Like a Hologram or computer screen pixel.

So even what you call *PHYSICAL* may be an illusion and part of the mystery.

The point is if say there was some deeper mind state that the acoustics of the pyramid brought that gave knowledge. Or created some effect that could be used. Though you can measure the effects. How do you tell how it was caused.

If the ancients knowledge allowed them to understand how to soften or weaken stone. We can measure the softened stone. But how do you tell where the knowledge came from. Especially if it shows advanced tech that should not have been available according to the slow evolution of knowledge from simple to advanced.

As indeed it is. None of these thing are demonstrated and if you want to demonstrate them "material science" not New Age woo woo is the way to do so. Speaking of which, you conclude with several paragraphs of the alternatives to "natural science",

So if someone claimed a miracle we could measure the physical effects and results of the healing. But how can you tell that this was not supernatural. Science only describes what is or has happened. It does not tells us the nature of how those things happened.

As some say we may be living in a simulation and programed to believe and think these things are really happening. You don't know and its an assumption to say that this is all *PHYSICAL* ontologically.

that come straight of the poisoned tree of Helena Blevatsky. When you invoke these alternatives to natural science you sound less like a Christian and more like a refugee from the Theosophical Society.

Actually its also mainstream science.

Physicists Are Starting to Suspect Physical Reality Is an Illusion
They think the physical universe might be a sort of mass hallucination derived from pure information.

Physicists are starting to suspect physical reality is an illusion

"To some physicists, this indicates that what we call 'matter,' with its solidity and concreteness — is an illusion."

futurism.com

Reality Is in the Eye of the Beholder
Our perception of reality is a subjective lived experience, a virtual construct shaped by our senses, biology, and personal history.

Reality Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Our perception of reality is a subjective lived experience, a virtual construct shaped by our senses, biology, and personal history.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

I don't doubt that.

Now you claim to be able to do my thinking lol.

I see to (two) paths for you to retain a smidge of credibility with alternative Egyptology and history.

Only a smidge, gee thanks. Is this an either/or fallacy.

1. Embrace lost advanced civilization that has left few traces but did amazing things with their naturalistic advanced technology (in the same way that we have advanced naturalistic technology) and put aside all of the spiritual claims and attacks on "material science" regarding the ancient past.

Except if we accept this then the out of place advanced tech is an anomely that breaches the gradual and reductive slow process of simple to complex.

Its also a false equivelance that because few traces have been left that this negates advanced knowledge. Like I said it could be all in the mind and all we see is the physical evidence of softened or changed materials and their signatures.

The same logic would also wipe out the orthodox narrative as we have little traces of the tools claimed.

2. Embrace the theosophical esoteric cosmology and claim the lost civilization was part of the 4th "root race" of humanity that built great monuments (for later civilizations like Egypt to find) using their technologies based on psychic powers and other supernatural magic.

This is definitely an either/or fallacy. What a strange category to put the options into of all possible alternatives. Almost as though its one of your possibilities rather than one that applies globally.

There are many options for the fundemental idea of Mind or Consciousness and experiential phenomena as bringing a deeper knowledge of nature and reality. Probably as many as there are cultural beliefs in transcendent realities. .

OR, you could just accept that the professionals know what they are talking about. (I'm not holding out for that.)

No I agree with the experts. I am not doubting the science. I am saying that it only tells us so much and is not the complete picture. Like Marys direct experience of the color red.

I agree the science tells us everything about the physical processes that come along with the experience of red or any direct experience. We can scientifically measure all the nuerons and snapes firing around the optical nerves to the brain. We can know the color light spectrum.

But none of that tells us about direct experiences of nature and reality. This is just a physical description of the vessel recieving the physical effects. Like the monitoring of the electrical activity. But it does not tell us anything about the phenomenal experiences that come along with this. That cannot be measured in those physical terms.

So we have an entire realm of direct experiential phenomena that gives us knowledge and I would say more direct knowledge of nature and reality that science or the physical world cannot tell us about.

That in itself without even knowing what that knowledge is exactly tells us that science is incomplete and cannot make ontological claims about nature and reality.

At best its a commentary, a description of something happening with a specific realm of reality. But not complete reality. So logically there is a big chunk of knowledge out there that is not accounted for and it could be within this realm that the ancients gained a deeper knowledge of reality.

If todays science is even suggesting that tru knowledge is at this level and that the physical is just the superficial level knowledge. Then it makes sense that if the ancients were immersed in this deeper more fundemental level. They would have unlocked keys to how nature works. Because they are not just seeing at the surface level but whats underneath that creates that surface level physical interface.

 

[stevevw]

No one has denied it. In fact I think most of us would maintain that it is the only way to get knowledge. You seem to be the one touting more than one way.

Yes there is more than one way and skeptics have shown this.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes it is mystical. Just like how Gods spirit works. Paul calls it a mystery. But its real. The reason we humans have been preoccupied with this for all our existence and it will never fade. Is that its real. Its a real part of being human and there is some truth to this mysterious realm existing in one form or another.

If you want to talk about mystical gibberish go post on the mystical gibberish sub-forum. I'm not here to discuss you "spirituality".

All the expressions of religion, transcedent ideas, Information, Mind or Consciousness as fundemental are attempts to explain this. But its as real as the experience of a red apple on the table.

Do. Not. Care.

The *PHYSICAL* process are just descriptions of what is happening. Nothing in that process tells us the nature of how that was caused. As some science tells us 'the *PHYSICAL* is just a reflection of something deeper such as Mind or Information. Like a Hologram or computer screen pixel.

So even what you call *PHYSICAL* may be an illusion and part of the mystery.

Nonsense. The physical is described by this:

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The point is if say there was some deeper mind state that the acoustics of the pyramid brought that gave knowledge. Or created some effect that could be used. Though you can measure the effects. How do you tell how it was caused.

Acoustics is the study of sound propagation, not "mind states"

If the ancients knowledge allowed them to understand how to soften or weaken stone. We can measure the softened stone. But how do you tell where the knowledge came from. Especially if it shows advanced tech that should not have been available according to the slow evolution of knowledge from simple to advanced.

Name. The. "Tech". Don't just wave your hands about. What is that tech? Panther urine? Miller Lite?

So if someone claimed a miracle we could measure the physical effects and results of the healing. But how can you tell that this was not supernatural. Science only describes what is or has happened. It does not tells us the nature of how those things happened.

We are not talking about miracles.

As some say we may be living in a simulation and programed to believe and think these things are really happening.

Sheer nonsense. Anyone propagating "simulation theory" has no idea how to do an actual simulation. (I do.)

You don't know and its an assumption to say that this is all *PHYSICAL* ontologically.

You haven't demonstrated any thing else it could be. All we get is dodging and hand waving.

Actually its also mainstream science.

Physicists Are Starting to Suspect Physical Reality Is an Illusion
They think the physical universe might be a sort of mass hallucination derived from pure information.

Physicists are starting to suspect physical reality is an illusion

"To some physicists, this indicates that what we call 'matter,' with its solidity and concreteness — is an illusion."

futurism.com

A philosopher?

Reality Is in the Eye of the Beholder
Our perception of reality is a subjective lived experience, a virtual construct shaped by our senses, biology, and personal history.

Reality Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Our perception of reality is a subjective lived experience, a virtual construct shaped by our senses, biology, and personal history.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

A psychologist? Good grief.

Now you claim to be able to do my thinking lol.

No. But your confusion illustrates my point that we should expect any better from you in reasoning on this topic. The limitations of your thinking are laid bare repeatedly.

Only a smidge, gee thanks. Is this an either/or fallacy.

I was being generous, and as you will eventually get to, I gave you three ways to gain/maintain credibility and then there was the fourth option -- continue to do what you are doing here. Please, for the love

Except if we accept this then the out of place advanced tech is an anomely that breaches the gradual and reductive slow process of simple to complex.

Its also a false equivelance that because few traces have been left that this negates advanced knowledge. Like I said it could be all in the mind and all we see is the physical evidence of softened or changed materials and their signatures.

The same logic would also wipe out the orthodox narrative as we have little traces of the tools claimed.

No, no, no, no. If you want to go with the "advanced tech" route, you just need to demonstrate actual physical technologies, but not at the same time invoke "supernatural woo woo". (That is path A.)

This is definitely an either/or fallacy. What a strange category to put the options into of all possible alternatives. Almost as though its one of your possibilities rather than one that applies globally.

There are many options for the fundemental idea of Mind or Consciousness and experiential phenomena as bringing a deeper knowledge of nature and reality. Probably as many as there are cultural beliefs in transcendent realities. .

Still not "either/or" and your "alternative knowledge" claims seem to very much fall in this category of the esoteric non-physical claims.

No I agree with the experts. I am not doubting the science.

Not from the view over here on "Science Island".

I am saying that it only tells us so much and is not the complete picture. Like Marys direct experience of the color red.

I agree the science tells us everything about the physical processes that come along with the experience of red or any direct experience. We can scientifically measure all the nuerons and snapes firing around the optical nerves to the brain. We can know the color light spectrum.

But none of that tells us about direct experiences of nature and reality. This is just a physical description of the vessel recieving the physical effects. Like the monitoring of the electrical activity. But it does not tell us anything about the phenomenal experiences that come along with this. That cannot be measured in those physical terms.

So we have an entire realm of direct experiential phenomena that gives us knowledge and I would say more direct knowledge of nature and reality that science or the physical world cannot tell us about.

That in itself without even knowing what that knowledge is exactly tells us that science is incomplete and cannot make ontological claims about nature and reality.

At best its a commentary, a description of something happening with a specific realm of reality. But not complete reality. So logically there is a big chunk of knowledge out there that is not accounted for and it could be within this realm that the ancients gained a deeper knowledge of reality.

I'm not interested in discussions of "perceptions of reality". The topic is ancient civilization development levels, paces, and regression.

If todays science is even suggesting that tru knowledge is at this level and that the physical is just the superficial level knowledge. Then it makes sense that if the ancients were immersed in this deeper more fundemental level. They would have unlocked keys to how nature works. Because they are not just seeing at the surface level but whats underneath that creates that surface level physical interface.

You are confusing science and its goals with philosophy or religion. I am only here to discuss the former.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to talk about mystical gibberish go post on the mystical gibberish sub-forum. I'm not here to discuss you "spirituality".

Actually the thread is on alternative forms of knowing. Its actually about philosophy and metaphysics and behavioural sciences which includes cultural and mystical beliefs lol.

That you call it gibberish only proves my point that you regard this alternative knowledge as unreal and dismiss it.

Do. Not. Care.

Then. Don't. Post. But. Because. You. Keep. Posting. You. Do. Care.

Nonsense. The physical is described by this:

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And what caused these forces and fields. Where do they originate from. Or is this just a description of reality within a certain parameter of the physical forces and fields.

What about quantum indeterminism.

What is an electron. How do we know electrons don't have a form of consciousness. How do we know these wiggling bits of energy are not created by God. Where did this energy come from.

 

[sjastro]

If this is the case then you have just admitted that humans can gain knowledge through direct experiences of nature and reality.

Because I I keep saying knowledge does not work that way. Nor does finding tools in a location mean that this was the only method. We are talking nearly 5,000 years of different people using the quarry. So we will find all sorts of different methods in the one place from different levels of knowledge.

Knowledge is not a case of using just one method. Methods may overlap, come and then disappear and are discovered again. It may be the dolomite pounders were from a later or earlier people and that some earlier culture softened stone. They tried to copy the work with pounders.

Or it may be that both methods were used at the same time. The weakening or softening of stone used for the major works and the pounders for finer work in smothing the work.

But the fact is for example that studies have shown that the signatures in the stone at the unfinished obelisk were not made by small dolomite pounders. Another method or methods were used. One method showing a particular pattern like the granite was scooped out. So already we see the dolomite pounders orthodoxy undermined by the evidence that only one method was used.

There you go. This shows they at least were thinking along those lines.

But we don't know how they were used. It may have been that they used them in conjunction with the pyramid chambers where this actually is proven to have an effect on the brain.

But the point is the ancient Egyptians were thinking and believing at this level. Thinking about expanding the mind and the mind and body mystery we humans have been contemplating for millenia.

Skeptics just dismiss it all as psuedoscience. But this type of science is coming back into mainstream thinking. So it may well be that the ancients were already there and had found some way through direct experiences and altering mind states or psychical states.

In another post you accused me of lying for making things up, in my last response part of it was made up as comedic value.
The Egyptians never wore pyramid headwear to increase their brainpower and the neuroscientists Hunt, Blunt, Lunt and Cunningham are fictitious and their surnames lead to an unfortunate word association.

Here lies the problem, if you cannot seperate fact from fiction, how are you able to recognise rubbish such as the Egyptians having the technology to soften granite?
As pointed out dolerite pounders were found at the Aswan granite quarry in large quantities in various states of wear because it is harder and more durable than granite hence was used as pounder stones.
If granite was softened to a paste then why would the Egyptians go through the trouble of using dolerite when any material harder than this paste such untreated granite, limestone or even copper tools would have sufficed?

Then their your favourite word signature, why is there no signature for softened granite such as a modification of its crystal state to a glassy state which can occur in nature due to lightning strikes or meteorite impacts?

 

[BCP1928]

If there was such a thing a phenomena of consciousness beyond brain then it opens the doore for understanding fundemental reality more fully. That will lead to further discoveries based on the expanded possibility.

If there was. If fundamental reality was different form objective reality.

In fact consciousness as fundemental has been posed as the best fit for the data.

Fundamental? Are you talking about substance dualism?

If there is to be any theory of everything then it has to include subjective consciousness.

Sure. And maybe someday we will have a "theory of everything" and it will include subjective consciousness if it is truly a theory of everything.

 

[BCP1928]

How do we know these wiggling bits of energy are not created by God.

We don't. Science cannot, does not deny it. What does that have to do with the consciousness outside the brain?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually the thread is on alternative forms of knowing. Its actually about philosophy and metaphysics and behavioural sciences which includes cultural and mystical beliefs lol.

Then what is it doing on this forum, Steve?

 

[stevevw]

Acoustics is the study of sound propagation, not "mind states"

But it may be associated with Mind states.

How Music Resonates in the Brain

How Music Resonates in the Brain

Scientists tune in to the brain’s emotional response to music

magazine.hms.harvard.edu

Binaural Beats’ Effect on Brain Activity and Psychiatric Disorders: A Literature Review

https://openpublichealthjournal.com/VOLUME/17/ELOCATOR/e18749445332258/FULLTEXT/#:~:text=showed%20that%20binaural%20beats%20at,performance%20%5B1%2C%205%5D.

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/5059a30d-dce1-47a6-8089-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

Archaeoacoustics: Physiological Effects of Sound in Ancient Megaliths

Archaeoacoustics: Physiological Effects of Sound in Ancient Megaliths

Ancient megaliths across the globe have been a source of wonder and inspiration since their discoveries. How and why they were built remain a mystery but some of their functions, whether intentional or just a coincidental by-product, can be measured.

www.academia.edu

Name. The. "Tech". Don't just wave your hands about. What is that tech? Panther urine? Miller Lite?

Lol, how do I know, that is what we have to work out. Like I said if there was some chemistry or physics involved in softening or weakening stones. Then its something the ancients discovered that we have lost. If I know what that was I would be very rich.

We are not talking about miracles.

But its the same principle. If a miracle comes from knowledge that is beyond what science can explain. Then the same with direct conscious experiences that may give deeper knowledge. Just like science cannot explain a 'Red Experience'. It belongs in the same realm as spirituality and the supernatural phenomena.

Sheer nonsense. Anyone propagating "simulation theory" has no idea how to do an actual simulation. (I do.)

Thats not the point. Its a thought experiement and I doubt that you could create such a simulation that would contain people like ourselves believing we are conscious beings. When it was really a simulation all along.

The point is can such a possibility happen. Can be be living in some sort of Information reality or like a hologram or characters in a computer game. How can you tell if you cannot get outside your own mind to check.

You haven't demonstrated any thing else it could be. All we get is dodging and hand waving.

You also have not demonstrated that all there is is the physical.

In fact I at least gave scientific support that the physical may just be an illusion and the fundemental reality is Mind or Information. It is a logical interpretation from QM.

Even John Wheeler, Wigner and Hentry Stapp who were all pioneers on QM support this idea.

A philosopher?

A psychologist? Good grief.

So what about Wheeler, Wigner, Stapp, Heisenburg, Schrodinger, Plank and Bohr. All toyed with and supported the idea of Mind, Consciousness and Information as being Fundemental.

In fact I think it was Bohm who said electrons have rudimentary "mind-like" qualities, a concept supported by quantum mechanics' weirdness (like wave-particle duality and superposition).

No. But your confusion illustrates my point that we should expect any better from you in reasoning on this topic. The limitations of your thinking are laid bare repeatedly.

They seem to be supported by some great minds as above.

I was being generous, and as you will eventually get to, I gave you three ways to gain/maintain credibility and then there was the fourth option -- continue to do what you are doing here. Please, for the love

No, no, no, no. If you want to go with the "advanced tech" route, you just need to demonstrate actual physical technologies, but not at the same time invoke "supernatural woo woo". (That is path A.)

Still not "either/or" and your "alternative knowledge" claims seem to very much fall in this category of the esoteric non-physical claims.

Not from the view over here on "Science Island".

I'm not interested in discussions of "perceptions of reality". The topic is ancient civilization development levels, paces, and regression.

You are confusing science and its goals with philosophy or religion. I am only here to discuss the former.

In another post you accused me of lying for making things up,

Show me where I said this.

in my last response part of it was made up as comedic value.
The Egyptians never wore pyramid headwear to increase their brainpower and the neuroscientists Hunt, Blunt, Lunt and Cunningham are fictitious and their surnames lead to an unfortunate word association.

Ok so you got me there lol.

Here lies the problem, if you cannot seperate fact from fiction, how are you able to recognise rubbish such as the Egyptians having the technology to soften granite?

Its funny as you want to make claims without evidence to tell whether its fact or fiction and now you want to make destinctions. The line between fact and fiction has already been blurred with all the logical fallacies.

I was taking your word and maybe I should have checked. But the thing is thats exactly what has been happening on this thread and you have never called it out. So the precedent had already been set. If anything you should be flattered that I respected your word enough to take it as truth.

But it was not just out of thin air. There is evidence that the pyramid can have influence on the brain.

As pointed out dolerite pounders were found at the Aswan granite quarry in large quantities in various states of wear because it is harder and more durable than granite hence was used as pounder stones.

Yes but this does not show that they were used to pound the block out. The tests done show that the signatures don't match small pounders.

This is the problem that your associating tools found with the work must have created the work. Thats an assumption.

If granite was softened to a paste then why would the Egyptians go through the trouble of using dolerite when any material harder than this paste such untreated granite, limestone or even copper tools would have sufficed?

As mentioned the pounders may have been from a different period. The fact is the signatures within the scoops do not match small dolerite pounders. So we can discount them. Whether it was from a different time or the pounders were used for something else. It was not dolerite pounders.

Then their your favourite word signature,
why is there no signature for softened granite such as a modification of its crystal state to a glassy state which can occur in nature due to lightning strikes or meteorite impacts?

There is lol. The vitrification of many of the megalith stones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VX4Qv5upeE&t=236s

Remember I showed the snake cut into the stone block wall which had melted glass like edges and you ignored it. I have shown these before and they were ignored.

The ‘melted’ granite stairs in the Temple of Hathor, Egypt.

 

[sjastro]

Show me where I said this.

Ok so you got me there lol.

Its funny as you want to make claims without evidence to tell whether its fact or fiction and now you want to make destinctions. The line between fact and fiction has already been blurred with all the logical fallacies.

I was taking your word and maybe I should have checked. But the thing is thats exactly what has been happening on this thread and you have never called it out. So the precedent had already been set. If anything you should be flattered that I respected your word enough to take it as truth.

But it was not just out of thin air. There is evidence that the pyramid can have influence on the brain.

Yes but this does not show that they were used to pound the block out. The tests done show that the signatures don't match small pounders.

This is the problem that your associating tools found with the work must have created the work. Thats an assumption.

As mentioned the pounders may have been from a different period. The fact is the signatures within the scoops do not match small dolerite pounders. So we can discount them. Whether it was from a different time or the pounders were used for something else. It was not dolerite pounders.

There is lol. The vitrification of many of the megalith stones.

View attachment 374087 View attachment 374088

View attachment 374089 View attachment 374090

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VX4Qv5upeE&t=236s

Remember I showed the snake cut into the stone block wall which had melted glass like edges and you ignored it. I have shown these before and they were ignored.

The ‘melted’ granite stairs in the Temple of Hathor, Egypt.

View attachment 374094

Here we go again you can't stick to the same story.
So now the latest version is dolerite pounders at Aswan are not contemporary with the melting process technology???
Where is the support by showing evidence of vitrification on the unfinished obelisk, instead you post images that have nothing to with the unfinished obelisk let alone vitrification.

For example the image of "melted stairs" of the temple of Hathor is wrong on many counts.

Firstly the steps are not made out of granite but limestone which does not not undergo vitrification but chemical decomposition of the calcium carbonate to lime. This is basic high school chemistry.

Secondly the temple and stairs were constructed during the Late Period thousands of years after your invisible technology supposedly disappeared.

Thirdly since the stairs are made from limestone which is vulnerable to a process known as haloclasty where salt crystallizes in cracks and pores which breaks down the limestone. This in combination with limestone being of low hardness and wear resistance results in erosion from centuries of people walking on the stairs giving the melted appearance look.
Limestone outcrops which degrade due to haloclasty but subject to wind and water erosion instead can also exhibit a melted look.

Fourthly vitrification can only be confirmed in the laboratory to precisely characterize the structural change from crystalline to an amorphous glass state at the atomic level.

• X-ray diffraction (XRD)
• Sharp peaks = crystalline; broad diffuse humps = amorphous (vitrified).

• Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
• Reveals surface morphology: smooth glassy vs. granular crystalline.

• Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
• Atomic-scale imaging of amorphous vs. ordered lattice structures.

• Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
• Measures glass transition temperature (Tg) to confirm vitrification.

• Spectroscopy (Raman, FTIR)
• Detects changes in bonding and molecular structure after vitrification

As usual your images are next to useless they do not show vitrified or melted rocks, it is another example of pareidolia where you see things that are not there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But it may be associated with Mind states.

So? We're not here to talk about how it makes you feel.

How Music Resonates in the Brain

How Music Resonates in the Brain

Scientists tune in to the brain’s emotional response to music

magazine.hms.harvard.edu

Binaural Beats’ Effect on Brain Activity and Psychiatric Disorders: A Literature Review

https://openpublichealthjournal.com/VOLUME/17/ELOCATOR/e18749445332258/FULLTEXT/#:~:text=showed%20that%20binaural%20beats%20at,performance%20%5B1%2C%205%5D.

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/5059a30d-dce1-47a6-8089-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

Archaeoacoustics: Physiological Effects of Sound in Ancient Megaliths

Archaeoacoustics: Physiological Effects of Sound in Ancient Megaliths

Ancient megaliths across the globe have been a source of wonder and inspiration since their discoveries. How and why they were built remain a mystery but some of their functions, whether intentional or just a coincidental by-product, can be measured.

www.academia.edu

Irrelevant.

Lol, how do I know, that is what we have to work out. Like I said if there was some chemistry or physics involved in softening or weakening stones. Then its something the ancients discovered that we have lost. If I know what that was I would be very rich.

I see. All you have for this guess (it ain't a theory or even a hypothesis) is some vague hand waving.

But its the same principle. If a miracle comes from knowledge that is beyond what science can explain. Then the same with direct conscious experiences that may give deeper knowledge. Just like science cannot explain a 'Red Experience'. It belongs in the same realm as spirituality and the supernatural phenomena.

I thought a miracle was the suspension of the laws of nature. This isn't the miracle section.

Thats not the point. Its a thought experiement and I doubt that you could create such a simulation that would contain people like ourselves believing we are conscious beings. When it was really a simulation all along.

It's not the point that it is impossible. If I want speculative physics, I'll take a trip at warp speed with the crew of the USS Enterprise.

The point is can such a possibility happen. Can be be living in some sort of Information reality or like a hologram or characters in a computer game. How can you tell if you cannot get outside your own mind to check.

You also have not demonstrated that all there is is the physical.

I don't need to. That isn't the subject.

In fact I at least gave scientific support that the physical may just be an illusion and the fundemental reality is Mind or Information. It is a logical interpretation from QM.

Even John Wheeler, Wigner and Hentry Stapp who were all pioneers on QM support this idea.

So what about Wheeler, Wigner, Stapp, Heisenburg, Schrodinger, Plank and Bohr. All toyed with and supported the idea of Mind, Consciousness and Information as being Fundemental.

As a physicist, I can say they should stick to physics and not pretend to be something they aren't.

In fact I think it was Bohm who said electrons have rudimentary "mind-like" qualities, a concept supported by quantum mechanics' weirdness (like wave-particle duality and superposition).

See above.

They seem to be supported by some great minds as above.

Like driving down the road, they should stay in their lane.

Show me where I said this.

Ok so you got me there lol.

For some reason you are now responding to someone else in the same message...

Its funny as you want to make claims without evidence to tell whether its fact or fiction and now you want to make destinctions. The line between fact and fiction has already been blurred with all the logical fallacies.

I was taking your word and maybe I should have checked. But the thing is thats exactly what has been happening on this thread and you have never called it out. So the precedent had already been set. If anything you should be flattered that I respected your word enough to take it as truth.

But it was not just out of thin air. There is evidence that the pyramid can have influence on the brain.

Yes but this does not show that they were used to pound the block out. The tests done show that the signatures don't match small pounders.

This is the problem that your associating tools found with the work must have created the work. Thats an assumption.

As mentioned the pounders may have been from a different period. The fact is the signatures within the scoops do not match small dolerite pounders. So we can discount them. Whether it was from a different time or the pounders were used for something else. It was not dolerite pounders.

Skipping ahead...

There is lol. The vitrification of many of the megalith stones.

View attachment 374087 View attachment 374088

View attachment 374089 View attachment 374090

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VX4Qv5upeE&t=236s

I don't see any "melting here".

Remember I showed the snake cut into the stone block wall which had melted glass like edges and you ignored it. I have shown these before and they were ignored.

The ‘melted’ granite stairs in the Temple of Hathor, Egypt.

View attachment 374094

I spent the day looking at melted rock, and this ain't it. This is wear. Do some digging and be less gullible.

 

[stevevw]

Here we go again you can't stick to the same story.
So now the latest version is dolerite pounders at Aswan are not contemporary with the melting process technology???

Stop trying to put things in my head lol. I never said any of this and your are creating strawmen. Its not an either/or answer. We are trying to work it all out.

All we can do is gather data to get a better understanding. I am not saying the marks are from melting stone or any particular method. Only that the studies done show it was not from small dolerite pounders. Along with the analysis of the patterns in the mark showing a different and more uniform method.

As though the granite was scooped or dug out with a uniform method that was similar to the shape of the scoops. Along with other evidence showing the impracticality of using pounders in tight situations where its impossible.

Where is the support by showing evidence of vitrification on the unfinished obelisk, instead you post images that have nothing to with the unfinished obelisk let alone vitrification.

Like I said this is not a one size fits all kind of determination. There may be a number of methods employed over 1,000s of years. Knowledge comes and goes and changes.

It may be that the scoops in stone come from a different method to thermal treatment. Look at the scoops in stone throughout the world. There are many that show no vitrification. Yet they show softened or weakened stone.

It may some way the structure of the granite was weakened and it was not melted but rather then material was changed at the molecular level. Such as with sonic cutting which weakens the crystals within the stone.

But the point is I am only guessing at the method. All we can do is look at the data which definitely shows the marks of a different method to dolerite pounders and nore like the stone has been scooped out as though the stone was compromised in some way.

For example the image of "melted stairs" of the temple of Hathor is wrong on many counts.

Firstly the steps are not made out of granite but limestone which does not not undergo vitrification but chemical decomposition of the calcium carbonate to lime. This is basic high school chemistry.

If its basic highschool stuff then the ancient Egyptians knew about this. We should expect that many of their works will contain softened or melted limestone. Making it easier to work with. Including the building works containing limestone.

But then we also have examples of basalt and granite melted. What do you say about these.

Secondly the temple and stairs were constructed during the Late Period thousands of years after your invisible technology supposedly disappeared.

No this is the point. Knowledge can come and go. The important thing is they were still living within the same immersion of direct conscious experiences of nature. Which enabled them to discover chemistry and physics. How nature worked and how it could change the physical world.

Thirdly since the stairs are made from limestone which is vulnerable to a process known as haloclasty where salt crystallizes in cracks and pores which breaks down the limestone. This in combination with limestone being of low hardness and wear resistance results in erosion from centuries of people walking on the stairs giving the melted appearance look.
Limestone outcrops which degrade due to haloclasty but subject to wind and water erosion instead can also exhibit a melted look.

I want to know why you specifically choose this example and avoided the others. None of what you have said negates the facts and reality that we have examples of softened and melted stones around the world. Showing there was advanced knowledge in how to mess around with the material structures of rocks.

Fourthly vitrification can only be confirmed in the laboratory to precisely characterize the structural change from crystalline to an amorphous glass state at the atomic level.

• X-ray diffraction (XRD)
• Sharp peaks = crystalline; broad diffuse humps = amorphous (vitrified).

• Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
• Reveals surface morphology: smooth glassy vs. granular crystalline.

• Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
• Atomic-scale imaging of amorphous vs. ordered lattice structures.

• Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
• Measures glass transition temperature (Tg) to confirm vitrification.

• Spectroscopy (Raman, FTIR)
• Detects changes in bonding and molecular structure after vitrification

As usual your images are next to useless they do not show vitrified or melted rocks, it is another example of pareidolia where you see things that are not there.

As usual you skip over the evidence and ignore most of it.

 

[stevevw]

So? We're not here to talk about how it makes you feel.

Actually it is exactly about this and about Mind states. By equivicating the Mind as just feelings and unrelaible you are whether you know it or not pushing a belief that the Mind is just feelings or some unrelaible knowledge.

That only methodlogical naturalism can give us the knowledge and it claims that the Mind is just an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Thus this is a belief claim about an epiistemic and by extention ontological truth claim. Which is a belief and not factual or science.

Irrelevant.

Isn't it hyocritical that you demand peer review or at least some scientific basis which I provide. Yet you just fob it off with a single word. No peer review, no science and no reasoning or explanation for why. This only supports the point I have been making in how this is blantantly biased.

I see. All you have for this guess (it ain't a theory or even a hypothesis) is some vague hand waving.

No its not just a guess. I gave you the reasoning and evidence.

I thought a miracle was the suspension of the laws of nature. This isn't the miracle section.

Whatever they are they are supernatural and beyond the naturalistic processes. I disagree with your short dismissal with no explanation. So from now on I will not give any reasoning or evidence and just use short dismissals.

It's not the point that it is impossible. If I want speculative physics, I'll take a trip at warp speed with the crew of the USS Enterprise.

Its not spectualtive.

I don't need to. That isn't the subject.

It is the subject.

As a physicist, I can say they should stick to physics and not pretend to be something they aren't.

It is physics.

See above.

It is physics.

Like driving down the road, they should stay in their lane.

They are in the right lane.

For some reason you are now responding to someone else in the same message...

Sorry not sure how that happened lol.

 

[sjastro]

Stop trying to put things in my head lol. I never said any of this and your are creating strawmen. Its not an either/or answer. We are trying to work it all out.

All we can do is gather data to get a better understanding. I am not saying the marks are from melting stone or any particular method. Only that the studies done show it was not from small dolerite pounders. Along with the analysis of the patterns in the mark showing a different and more uniform method.

As though the granite was scooped or dug out with a uniform method that was similar to the shape of the scoops. Along with other evidence showing the impracticality of using pounders in tight situations where its impossible.

Like I said this is not a one size fits all kind of determination. There may be a number of methods employed over 1,000s of years. Knowledge comes and goes and changes.

It may be that the scoops in stone come from a different method to thermal treatment. Look at the scoops in stone throughout the world. There are many that show no vitrification. Yet they show softened or weakened stone.

It may some way the structure of the granite was weakened and it was not melted but rather then material was changed at the molecular level. Such as with sonic cutting which weakens the crystals within the stone.

But the point is I am only guessing at the method. All we can do is look at the data which definitely shows the marks of a different method to dolerite pounders and nore like the stone has been scooped out as though the stone was compromised in some way.

If its basic highschool stuff then the ancient Egyptians knew about this. We should expect that many of their works will contain softened or melted limestone. Making it easier to work with. Including the building works containing limestone.

But then we also have examples of basalt and granite melted. What do you say about these.

No this is the point. Knowledge can come and go. The important thing is they were still living within the same immersion of direct conscious experiences of nature. Which enabled them to discover chemistry and physics. How nature worked and how it could change the physical world.

I want to know why you specifically choose this example and avoided the others. None of what you have said negates the facts and reality that we have examples of softened and melted stones around the world. Showing there was advanced knowledge in how to mess around with the material structures of rocks.

As usual you skip over the evidence and ignore most of it.

I can excuse you for failing to understand none of your images are examples of stone softening or weakening which can be explained by other mechanisms such as erosion. Only laboratory testing can confirm any petrological changes to the crystal structure the details of which went way over your head.

What is inexcusable however are your attempts to BS about dolerite pounders not being contemporary with or not used in making the unfinished obelisks.
Not only have the pounders been relatively dated to the unfinished obelisk but have been found in very excavation trench of the obelisk.
There is absolutely no doubt the pounders were used on the unfinished obelisk as there is absolutely no evidence of stone softening or weakening.

Here are reliable, peer-reviewed or academically published references where Egyptian granite, limestone, and tool-marked surfaces were scientifically tested for thermal alteration, chemical weakening, or softening.
All show no evidence of melting, vitrification, or artificial weakening.


I’ve grouped them by granite, limestone, and tool‐marks / quarrying evidence.

---

1. Tests on Egyptian Granite​

1. Klemm, R. & Klemm, D.​

“Geological Survey of Ancient Egyptian Quarries.”
(Geological Society of America Special Paper 2008)

• Includes petrography, XRD, thin sections.
• Confirms Aswan granite is geologically intact with no thermal alteration.

2. Harrell, J.A.​

“Archaeological Geology of Ancient Egypt.” In Encyclopedia of Geology, 2nd Ed.

• Examines quarry samples with thin-section petrography.
• Finds no melting or artificial alteration in granite from Aswan, Giza, Saqqara.

3. Stocks, D.A.​

“Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology.” Routledge, 2003.

• SEM and thin-section analysis of granite surfaces.
• Shows percussion micro-fractures, no heat-softening.

4. Aston, B.G. et al.​

“Stone: Quarrying and Working of Stone in the Ancient Near East.”

• Includes mineralogical tests (petrography & chemistry) on Egyptian granites.
• Reports no vitrification or non-natural softening.

5. Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (eds.)​

“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology.” Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.

• Chapter on stone technology includes petrographic & SEM analysis.
• Confirms granite tool marks are mechanical, not thermal.

---

2. Tests on Egyptian Limestone​

6. Klemm, R. & Klemm, D.​

“Geology of the Pyramids.”

• Thin sections, SEM, and XRD of Tura limestone.
• Shows original calcite grains with zero thermal decomposition.

7. Harrell, J.A. & Storemyr, P.​

“Ancient Egyptian Quarries: An Illustrated Overview.” Geological Survey & University of Bergen (2009).

• Petrographic tests on limestone blocks.
• Confirms unaltered natural sedimentary microfabrics.

8. Bloxam, E.​

“The Organisation, Transportation and Logistics of Egyptian Quarrying.”

• XRD and SEM of quarry limestone.
• Reports no artificial weakening.

---

3. Tests on Tool-Marks, Saw Cuts, Pounding Cups, Drill Holes​

9. Stocks, D.A.​

“Stoneworking Technology in the Egyptian Old Kingdom.”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1999.

• SEM examination of granite saw and drilling surfaces.
• Shows abrasive–mechanical wear, no melting.

10. Goyon, J.-C.​

“Le Tombeau d’Ouserkaf.” IFAO, Cairo.

• Petrography of tool-marked granite in Old Kingdom sites.
• No heat or chemical alteration.

11. Klemm & Klemm (multiple quarry reports)​

• SEM imaging of quarry faces at Aswan and Gebel Fatira.
• All surfaces show impact fractures, never thermal softening.

12. Harrell, J.A.​

“Ancient Egyptian Pavement Saw Marks: New SEM Results.”
Egyptian Archaeology (EA) Magazine.

• SEM analysis shows straight abrasive-striations, inconsistent with any softening hypothesis.

---

4. Materials Science / Mineralogical Papers​

13. El Aref, M. & Afify, R.R.​

“SEM and XRD Characterization of Egyptian Granitic Artefacts.”
Journal of African Earth Sciences (peer-reviewed).

• No amorphous phases, no melted quartz, no lattice damage.

14. Ali, M.M. et al.​

“Raman Spectroscopy of Ancient Egyptian Stone Artefacts.”
Vibrational Spectroscopy.

• All quartz and calcite signals consistent with unheated crystalline minerals.

15. El-Badry, O. et al.​

“Petrography and Geochemistry of Granite Monuments from Egypt.”
Journal of Archaeological Science.

• Microtextures and chemistry unchanged by any high-energy process.

---

✔️ Summary: What these references prove​

Across granite, limestone, statues, quarry marks, and obelisks:

• No vitrification
• No glassy phases
• No amorphous mineral content
• No collapsed lattice structures
• No thermal gradients
• No chemical residues
• Normal hardness values
• Natural fracture mechanics
• Intact mineralogy identical to raw quarry rock

All peer-reviewed geological evidence refutes the claim that ancient Egyptian stone was melted, softened, or weakened artificially.

---

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is physics.
It is physics.

You can't have it both ways, Steve. Either you are talking about things that are outside the purview of physics (in which case physicists are *not* appropriate authorities and experts), or you really want the weight of physics to come down on them (in which case the 4 fundamental forces and associated fields and particles will crush your notions into non-existence).

What I have done is given you the easy way out to let how sounds impact the mind and feelings to the psychologists (sound perception) and philosphers and the like. But, and it is an important 'but', that does mean we have to abandon the notion that physics has anything to say about consciousness.

They are in the right lane.

Unfortunately Steve you are Australian, which means you are driving into traffic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually it is exactly about this and about Mind states. By equivicating the Mind as just feelings and unrelaible you are whether you know it or not pushing a belief that the Mind is just feelings or some unrelaible knowledge.

That only methodlogical naturalism can give us the knowledge and it claims that the Mind is just an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Thus this is a belief claim about an epiistemic and by extention ontological truth claim. Which is a belief and not factual or science.

This thread is about ancient civilizations and their physical remains. It is not about human perception of sound. That's why you list of articles was irrelevant.

Isn't it hyocritical that you demand peer review or at least some scientific basis which I provide. Yet you just fob it off with a single word. No peer review, no science and no reasoning or explanation for why. This only supports the point I have been making in how this is blantantly biased.

Peer review is not needed to recognize material that is off topic.

No its not just a guess. I gave you the reasoning and evidence.

No, no, no. You have provided a plethora of links to crank archeology sites, videos, etc. Nothing explaining *what* that "melting" is is provided or connected to any "evidence" other than things that "look melted". Even if they were ultimately correct, they are at speculation stage. They have not even formed a hypothesis of the mechanism.

Whatever they are they are supernatural and beyond the naturalistic processes. I disagree with your short dismissal with no explanation.

Then they are not on topic for this sub form, unless you'd like to submit them to scientific scrutiny...

So from now on I will not give any reasoning or evidence and just use short dismissals.

If only we could be so lucky.

Its not spectualtive.

"simulation theory" is absolutely speculative (and wrong) and not the topic of this thread on ancient human civilizations.