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.
Yeah I just threw that in as another example. Though more recent its basically the same. But the point is why is not the older examples acknowledged rather than fobbed off.
The scottish hill forts seems to be from around the same age. Sacsayhuamán seems to be even younger. Just give me the articles published in relevant journals, peer-review is important to me.
I did lol.
There is very little work done of these examples. There was one test on a small sample taken from a site called Tetecacca from the glazed surface. They showed traces of Silicon, Aluminum and Magnesium which is not natural to the stones. It was like a thin glaze over the stone. This is common all the the sites around Peru. Another unusualy feature is that these stones are very magnetic.
secretsofthesunsects.wordpress.com
The orthodox narrative that these ancient ruins in Peru are all from the Inca and other later cultures is false and theres no evidence. In fact the evidence shows that there are at least three different cultures possibly going back 1,000s of years.
Tell them to get it published in the appropriate journals, and link the articles to me.
So you have nothing to say on the evidence. This is what I mean. It all gets dismissed because it does not meet your specifications. There is some good science in those articles.
How would we know if there is any good science, if they refuse to interact with other experts (through publishing it in the appropriate journals)?
Can you quote it? It is different to say "I'm not convinced by what you have presented me" and to say "what you have presented me is false, this is what happened instead".
It is not.
Stop with the self-victimizing, no one is forcing you to post anything.
Looking at only the first few minutes of the video I found it was are riddled with errors.
Because publishing work in appropriate journals does not make it science or good science. This can happen without publishing in particular journals. Are you saying the tests done were not good science. If you think so then show how. Don't just reject it because it doesn't meet some gatekeepers criteria.
But when you claim your not convinced and then leave it at that this comes across as a dismissal. Because you are offering nothing. No explanation or evidence why your not convinced.
I literally just pointed out an example above. I could ask, why are you not convinced. What is it that causes you to not be convinced and yet allows others to be convinced by the same evidence.
You literally just did lol. I don't think you realise that this is what you are doing when you demand the evidence and methology for the evidence has to fall within a certain paradigm (worldview) and can only be known by naturalism.
If it is good science is to be determined by the their peers.
To determine that I would need to test the hypotheses against each other.
First we would have to look at the supposedly vitrified stone, to make sure it actually is vitrified stone. Then we have to make sure that the vitrification isn't the effect of some other process such as a lightning strike
I think that was me, mentioning that vitrification happens in nature from time to time due to lightning strikes and fires. That would have to be excluded as a possibility of at least be shown to be much less likely.
Tell them to get it published.
Because it is premature before the researchers have sat down and written their article detailing their findings and have it go through the process
I already know that you believe otherwise than me, that is not a problem.
It needs to be evaluated by subject matter experts.
No.
If any process leaves an impact on the physical it can be studied.
I have read works by Edmund Husserl. But vitrification is amenable to optical investigations microscopically and chemical investigations.
Your not understanding. If there was such a paper that proposed say that ancient Egyptians gained knowledge of chemistry and physics through their belief and conscious experiences. It would not get past the front door in the first place. You will have to go to alternative journals within philosophy or metaphysics to get such an idea published.
If you see a melted of softened stone or one thats vitrified that your left with whether it was naturally formed or man made. When you see vitrified stones in caves or where only the works are vitrified and the surrounding natural stones are not you can begin to make some findings.
Already done this and it was ignored. If people cannot first even acknowledge the images and that they need to be examined and determined then its not going to work.
Yes and yet some have declared that it was the result of natural occurrances without evidence. Thats the double standard.
Actually it was not just you which shows how this is the standard orthodoxy and the first explanation always assumed by the material science worldview. Has to have a naturalistic explanation and anything else is unreal or deemed less credible.
Nah I am happy with the work so far. It doesn't need to be peered reviwed to be good science. In fact its a cop out to keep fobbing it off as not meeting some gatekeepers criteria.
They already have written the analysis for the tests. Do you think they do tests and make observations an dthen not write anything about this lol.
It is a problem if we both take the position of just fobbing off what each other says without any explanation. Thats easy. Just say the opposite and give no reason. The discussion would breakdown in minutes and be going nowhere lol.
The problem like I said is that this is all fairly knew. For example the casting of stones was hyothesised a few decades ago but it was then a fringe idea and dismissed. It took one scientists to relook in recent years to realised that no one had actually checked the work. When he did he found it had some merit.
So you will accept say the testimony of the ancients themselves. When they tell you that they did not make these works and that they were made by people from the gods or by some other peoples with great knowledge like the gods.
Yes but this tells us nothing about what caused it or how the knowledge that created that physical impact was gained. Methologic al naturalism just describes what is happening. It offers no explanation of how or what the nature of that activity represents.
Already done and I linked this for you.
Ok so I will engage again but please refrain form the personal attacks.
First we would have to determine if the egyptians gained any knowledge of chemistry and physics through their belief and conscious experience, how do you propose to do that? Who would we ask?
Perhaps it was left by the guy that was there yesterday or in 1934? This is why context matters for archeology.
This I don't agree with. Before we make a holisitic judgement on the case, every supporting part needs to stand on its own.
The images are there, but what they show is what the investigation is needed for.
Where have I said that they shouldn't look into it?
They didn't even look like machine cuts to me, what do you want me to do?
But to me they are not clearly made by some thing else than abrasive sawing.
No one is stopping them from keep investigating and building their case.
That was not me.
They might be naturalistic.
Take it up with them.
Ok, but you'll still get the same pushback.
Do you feel like you are actually discussing others questions, instead of just restating your position?
I don't feel that it is obvious evidence.
No ancients are alive, what are you talking about.
It is evidence (again what are we talking about here?) about their thinking about what happened before.
How would you know if they weigh "experiential and lived reality over westernised material sciences"?
So gather up some that claim that they have knowledge gained from some transcendental means, and see if they can manipulate reality with it?
Do you mean the Broborg article (that is the only peer-reviewed one regarding vitrification IIRC)? That is not ancient technology or lost knowledge, no natural catastrophe wiped out iron-age scandinavians or scots.
As a reader of the literature, a practitioner, and peer reviewer, I have never seen any gained knowledge of physics reported that was gained from unconscious experience. We're all awake steve. (On the other hand, belief is never sufficient. Evidence is *always* required.)
Who are you addressing?
Of course it is not in journals. It is not actually science.
Of course, actual experts would see through the failures, fakery, and fantasy.
are we going to find pipes everywhere?
OOOH, cracks.
Showing more random pictures is not going to demonstrate anything.
Oh my, pipes indeed. lol
More out of context pictures and an argument from some deluded tourist's you tube video. Sigh.
Cut out the baloney, you did not even engage when responding to my posts by deliberately ignoring the content and then lying by omission by claiming there are no refutations of your pseudoscience using peer reviewed science or evidence which supports the Egyptians used rudimentary tooling and high levels of craftsmanship.
