279 replies to this topic

[ShadowSot]

Hugo Stiglitz, on 28 September 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

I Think that the guy who made the corral house in florida used the same process that whoever built the pyramids did.

No, the Egyptians didn't have access to chains, or block and tackle.

[the L]

When we talked about golden ratio and advanced math...

If it AE didnt come naturally I realy dont see why wouldnt they come to it as Herodotus claim they did? Because seems to us that they didnt knew about it. Because it was too sofisticated for them. Too advanced.


Austrian mathmatician Otto Neigebauer studied ancient astronomy and mathematics. In 20s of last century he discover that Babylonians used advanced math such as Pythagora theorem 4000 years ago.
We have evidence that our ancestors knew about  Pythagoras theorem which we can easily call Babylon theorem. Babylonians knew about so called Pythagoras theorem 1000 years before Pythagora and Euclid. Advanced math didn’t start in Greece, probably in Nippur or around. If we have it in valley around Tigris and Euphrat I realy don’t see why Egyptians wouldn’t have it. Especially if we know how transit was Babilonia.

[Harte]

Pythagorus has his name attached to that theorem because, as far as we know, he was the first one to prove it was true using rigorous mathematical methodology.

Regarding the theorem itself, there's some fairly scant evidence that the property of a right triangle that the theorem states was known even in prehistory.  Long before, perhaps 6,000 years before, the Babylonians.

Harte

[the L]

Harte, on 08 October 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Long before, perhaps 6,000 years before, the Babylonians.

Any link for such claim?

[Arbitran]

the L, on 08 October 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Any link for such claim?

Wait just a minute... I thought you didn't like links. I mean, isn't it all just "scientific dogma" to you?

[the L]

Arbitran, on 08 October 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Wait just a minute... I thought you didn't like links. I mean, isn't it all just "scientific dogma" to you?

I dont like "here is the link" posts. True. I like people who wrote and describe it simply, cut and clear. Or if they know theme to elaborate and develop discussion. However I also know some members such as Harte who has penetrating posts. I knew if I ask him to elaborate that he would again gave me link. So I skip steps in process.
And Arbitran dont you think its patetic to bring scientific dogma in casual conversation? Or you are still amazed from moment you hear that such thing exist so you want to talk about it?
It would be easier to you to ask, or open thread or sent PM.
If you understand what scientific dogma means then you wouldnt ask those kind of questions. No offence.

[Harte]

the L, on 08 October 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Any link for such claim?

Like I said, there is scant evidence for the idea, but one example is at Karnak, where pythagorean relationships in the arrangements of standing stones have been claimed.

Karnak is "only" about 2500 years older than Babylon, though.

I'll see if I can find a reference concerning the claims of earlier cultures, if you like.

Harte

[Arbitran]

the L, on 08 October 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

I dont like "here is the link" posts. True. I like people who wrote and describe it simply, cut and clear. Or if they know theme to elaborate and develop discussion. However I also know some members such as Harte who has penetrating posts. I knew if I ask him to elaborate that he would again gave me link. So I skip steps in process.
And Arbitran dont you think its patetic to bring scientific dogma in casual conversation? Or you are still amazed from moment you hear that such thing exist so you want to talk about it?
It would be easier to you to ask, or open thread or sent PM.
If you understand what scientific dogma means then you wouldnt ask those kind of questions. No offence.

I understand what "scientific dogma" means, based on what you've defined it as; it doesn't exist. Your imaginings that it exists does not make it spontaneously real. Science is the antithesis of dogma; ergo, "scientific dogma" in the sense you've described is simply oxymoronic and imaginary.

You have yet to cite a single demonstrable example of your claimed "scientific dogma", either way.

Edited by Arbitran, 08 October 2012 - 08:48 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Arbitran, on 08 October 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

I understand what "scientific dogma" means, based on what you've defined it as; it doesn't exist. Your imaginings that it exists does not make it spontaneously real. Science is the antithesis of dogma; ergo, "scientific dogma" in the sense you've described is simply oxymoronic and imaginary.

You have yet to cite a single demonstrable example of your claimed "scientific dogma", either way.

Yeah, it's alot like "sorta pregnant" or "honest politician".

cormac

[the L]

This isnt thread about scientific dogma. I has been warned by mods to stay on topic several time. And last what I want is to be out of this great site. Im aware that scientific dogma exists. There are two types of scientists. One who prostitute themselves for money for next research and those who are not. Sorry no other word then this. I know that many people dont agree with me. But knows many who did. So I will leave it there. We dont agree. Non of UM member will convinced me othervise because I know what I know. Let it go Arbitrans. I have been banned for 3 days because ________(say whatever you want) debate. Its pointless. Im know that fakery and scinetific dogma exists. Modern Lysenkoism. For me people who think othervise are either naive or uninformed.

Read this article for example.



http://www.unexplain...howtopic=233998

Edited by the L, 08 October 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 08 October 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

This isnt thread about scientific dogma. I has been warned by mods to stay on topic several time. And last what I want is to be out of this great site. Im aware that scientific dogma exists. There are two types of scientists. One who prostitute themselves for money for next research and those who are not. Sorry no other word then this. I know that many people dont agree with me. But knows many who did. So I will leave it there. We dont agree. Non of UM member will convinced me othervise because I know what I know. Let it go Arbitrans. I have been banned for 3 days because ________(say whatever you want) debate. Its pointless. Im know that fakery and scinetific dogma exists. Modern Lysenkoism. For me people who think othervise are either naive or uninformed.

Read this article for example.



http://www.unexplain...howtopic=233998

The idea of "scientific dogma" that you're peddling is imaginary; it isn't real. I've asked you to give a demonstrable example, and you didn't. So yes, we'll leave it at that. It is indeed off-topic.

[the L]

Arbitran, on 08 October 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

The idea of "scientific dogma" that you're peddling is imaginary; it isn't real. I've asked you to give a demonstrable example, and you didn't. So yes, we'll leave it at that. It is indeed off-topic.

Only mystery to me is why you brought it up again? You know that we dont agree. Yo know that I have been banned for it fro three days. Please Arbitrans, I dont have best social skills but lets try to be social, friendly, easygoing, polite in order to discuss threads which we can discuss. You constantly want to discuss science vs. everything else. Go in scepticim vs. spiritiuality then. Plenty threads. Friendly advice.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 09 October 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

Only mystery to me is why you brought it up again? You know that we dont agree. Yo know that I have been banned for it fro three days. Please Arbitrans, I dont have best social skills but lets try to be social, friendly, easygoing, polite in order to discuss threads which we can discuss. You constantly want to discuss science vs. everything else. Go in scepticim vs. spiritiuality then. Plenty threads. Friendly advice.

I didn't bring it up again, I let it go. You've just brought it up again. I know that we don't agree, but that's irrelevant: you haven't supplied any reason for me to agree with you in the first place. Ergo, I don't. It's that simple.

[Arbitran]

As a more back-on-topic note, I recently heard an odd hypothesis that the Great Pyramid's blocks were transported with the assistance of teams of trained gorillas. Any thoughts anyone? As a biologist, and not a historian/archaeologist/etc., I don't really know how credible the idea is, suffice to say that all I do know is that adult male gorillas are approximately twenty times stronger than an equivalent human. I don't know, but the idea did intrigue me, regardless of it's veracity. At the very least, I suppose one has to acknowledge that it's certainly a creative idea, if nothing else.

[cormac mac airt]

Arbitran, on 09 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

As a more back-on-topic note, I recently heard an odd hypothesis that the Great Pyramid's blocks were transported with the assistance of teams of trained gorillas. Any thoughts anyone? As a biologist, and not a historian/archaeologist/etc., I don't really know how credible the idea is, suffice to say that all I do know is that adult male gorillas are approximately twenty times stronger than an equivalent human. I don't know, but the idea did intrigue me, regardless of it's veracity. At the very least, I suppose one has to acknowledge that it's certainly a creative idea, if nothing else.

The idea is more plausible than AA theories or ancient giants, since gorillas actually exist.

cormac