1828 replies to this topic

[Harte]

nopeda, on 21 June 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

You need to explain why you think people would have gone to the trouble of carving things into stone, but were too lazy to remove what was already there in order to get what they wanted for a final outcome.

The glyphs weren't carved in stone.

The Egyptians used a kind of plaster over the stone in most of their decorating of the insides of their temples, etc.

Ramesses II plastered over his father's titulary (Seti I) and had his own put up there.

Some of the covering plaster has fallen off, revealing a mixture of two distinct Nebty names, one for each king.

Harte

[Oniomancer]

nopeda, on 21 June 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Here's a better shot:
http://i35.servimg.c...57/landeb10.jpg
It does NOT look like runoff cut the top off that mountain and I could never persuade myself to believe it did. Nor did a glacier. In contrast to those things that clearly did NOT do it, it does look like it was done deliberately by something intelligent using a tool or tools of some sort.

And for the umpteenth time, you've got it completely backwards. The top of the "mountain" is a remainder of the original plateau surface.  Everything _around it_ was eroded away by runoff. You can see how the ridgeline leading away from it was formed by two parallel "valley" channels. You must've studied some earth science in high school. How are v-shaped valleys formed?

[Harte]

Oniomancer, on 29 June 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

How are v-shaped valleys formed?

In utero?

By standing with feet apart?

Harte

[Myles]

nopeda, on 28 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

For one thing I expect they would have known what our atmosphere is like before leaving to come here, plus I consider the possibility that they had an influence on what kind of atmosphere developed here. For another I would expect that they have things like very advanced 3D printers on as large a scale as they want so they can make things that they want. Why would they want helicopters? Quite possibly for some of the reasons that humans do. Can't you think of any?

"Clearly" they had these printers.   "Clearly" they did not develope anything better than the humans 1940's era helicopter.  "Clearly" they must use tube-based monitors in their spaceships.

[Sensible Logic]

nopeda, on 28 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

For one thing I expect they would have known what our atmosphere is like before leaving to come here, plus I consider the possibility that they had an influence on what kind of atmosphere developed here. For another I would expect that they have things like very advanced 3D printers on as large a scale as they want so they can make things that they want. Why would they want helicopters? Quite possibly for some of the reasons that humans do. Can't you think of any?

How would they know what our atmosphere would be like from light years away?  Why do you and others always view alien technology as somehow paralleling our own/  They might never have invented printers of any kind.  Can't I think of any?  Why of course and I can think that if they did visit they would have vehicles that would work in any type of atmosphere which helicopters wouldn't.    Now you feel the symbol at Abydos is a helicopter so please point out what ancient Egyptian texts have descriptions of helicopters.  If they were flying overhead for all to see, they would have been written about.

[Sensible Logic]

nopeda, on 28 June 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

If there were no evidence of God's existence then no one would believe God exists. If there were no evidence of Santa's existence then no one would believe Santa exists. That is the starting line, but you will probably never get that far during your entire life.
Trying to discuss which things are significant evidence and which are not with someone who can't recognise any isn't any better than trying to discuss it with a hamster, other than that the human MIGHT have a very slightly better chance of someday getting to the starting line than the hamster does, though an extremely poor chance in spite of whatever possible potential the human MIGHT have...

Instead of posting the same thing over and over that there would be no belief if there wasn't evidence, try posting the evidence for the existence of God and Santa.  I especially want to see what you use as proof for a fat man in a red suit making toys in his workshop and flying around the world in one night to deliver them.  Maybe you would be better prepared for the discussion if you stopped using your hamster as a sounding board.

nopeda said:

Obviously I "understand" that you people believe 186K miles per second is as fast as anything can go relative to anything else, since I've pointed out that I DON'T BELIEVE IT. That's the starting line for that one, and so far you haven't gotten to it either.

Your disbelief in facts has absolutely no impact on the facts.

nopeda said:

Try to explain what you think you think:
1. actual speed is relative to
2. absolute speed is relative to
3. relative speed is relative to

It has been explained to you but you ignore or refuse to accept the explanation and continuously say that it hasn't been explained.  So from now on when you ask for it to be explained I will reply only that it has been.

nopeda said:

Your interpretation regarding the light beam is too naive for you to be able to think about it realistically.

I know you believe the light beam will pass each observer at 186K miles per second. I'm not convinced that you're right and consider it more likely that you are not, but you haven't provided enough (ANY!) information about the velocities of the observers and the light source relative to each other because you can't appreciate any significance to velocities, so as far as trying to think about it realistically you've thus far provided nothing at all. From your naive position it seems like you did, but you did and I expect you can NOT. If you can then provide the missing info and then explain what you think adjusts light so that it somehow manages to pass Earth and moon at the same velocity relative to each. Of course since you didn't bother to mention what you want me to say the velocity of light is relative TO because you can't think about it in that much detail, I'm guessing you mean its velocity relative to each observer.

The example was simple and straight forward and as I stated before I didn't expect you to answer it as you have no answer.  Funny the observers are on the moon and the earth yet that isn't enough to get their velocities?  How sad you internet search skills are.  You have missed the point of the example as I expected you would.  The light beam passes between the earth and the moon and the observers on both bodies at the exact same moment.  You need only indicate what you think the speed of the light beam is at that moment and if it is a different speed for each observer explain how the beam of light can be moving at two different speeds at the exact same moment.

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 30 June 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Quote

nopeda challenged:
Try to explain what you think you think:
1. actual speed is relative to
2. absolute speed is relative to
3. relative speed is relative to

It has been explained to you but you ignore or refuse to accept the explanation and continuously say that it hasn't been explained.  So from now on when you ask for it to be explained I will reply only that it has been.

It has not been which is why you can't provide any examples of you having explained it. And I knew when I challenged you that this would finally prove for a fact that you have no idea what you think you think you're trying to talk about. I've been wondering how you would wuss out of it, and you did pretty much what I expected. I considered the possibility that you MIGHT be honest enough to admit the fact that you finally realised you really don't have any idea what you're trying to talk about, but we see now that you're not that honest. I now challenge you to prove me wrong and show where you have already explained it, and you will fail to meet the challenge because you never have been able to, are not now able to, and never will be able to try explaining what you think you think regarding the above challenges. In order to get to the starting line this time you would need to be able to try to explain what you think you think the distinction is between what actual, absolute and relative speeds are relative to. You can't, meaning that AGAIN you can't get to the starting line and this time it's your own concept.

Your interpretation about the light beam is still too naive to even discuss, and your lack of appreciation for velocities of the Earth relative to its moon are naive to the point of absurdity from my pov. It's like you've never actually given it any thought at all, but are just parroting things you've read in the past but could never begin to think about in any detail yourself.

[nopeda]

Oniomancer, on 29 June 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

First off, it's not De Sitter's speculation, it's his critic's.
Now, the extinction effect is the absorption and re-emmission of light
. . .
All said, it seems to be a non-starter since according to the wiki article, Brecher was observing the x-ray spectrum in a way which eliminates extinction as a possability, though you'd have to read the original paper as to exactly how.

Where did you get your definition of the extinction effect? Do you think it applies to fluorescent lighting fixtures? Why or why not?

I can't take your word for anything, but if you think you can find an explanation as to how the possibility of the extinction effect has been eliminated I'd like to read it. If you can't present one then that will let me know you don't really have any idea about it at all.

Edited by nopeda, 03 July 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[nopeda]

Harte, on 29 June 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

The glyphs weren't carved in stone.
The Egyptians used a kind of plaster over the stone in most of their decorating of the insides of their temples, etc.
Ramesses II plastered over his father's titulary (Seti I) and had his own put up there.
Some of the covering plaster has fallen off, revealing a mixture of two distinct Nebty names, one for each king.

I don't believe it since it doesn't appear that that's what happened. What DOES appear to have happened is that humans carved images which look like several DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIR VEHICLES into rock for some reasons. What those reasons are is all that's in question. The possibility that some parts of those carvings randomly fell away in the most remarkably coincidental ways that made each carving look like a different type of air vehicle is so remote that it's not even worthy of realistic consideration, especially since they DO NOT!!! LOOK LIKE SOME PARTS OF THEM HAVE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE FALLEN OFF!

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 30 June 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

How would they know what our atmosphere would be like from light years away?  Why do you and others always view alien technology as somehow paralleling our own/  They might never have invented printers of any kind.  Can't I think of any?  Why of course and I can think that if they did visit they would have vehicles that would work in any type of atmosphere which helicopters wouldn't. Now you feel the symbol at Abydos is a helicopter so please point out what ancient Egyptian texts have descriptions of helicopters.  If they were flying overhead for all to see, they would have been written about.

Some of the evidence that exists for children that Santa does exist is adults lying to them that he does exist. More evidence is when they are lied to by television and movies that he does exist. More evidence is when people give them presents, but dishonestly get the children to believe that Santa left them for them. Again that is the starting line and you haven't been able to get to it. During your entire life you still haven't gotten to the starting line regarding Santa Clause. Wow, you REALLY are behind badly!

They could learn about our atmosphere through spectroscopy, but I don't know what other ways they would be likely to have TOO. You have no idea what beings from other star systems would use helicopters for, so of course you are completely clueless as to why they would want them on this planet. You'll just have to live in bewilderment by the concept since you can't get a grip on it.

Maybe they did write things about them, and then other people who didn't believe it destroyed the texts. Or maybe it was people who DID believe it... It may be hard for you to imagine such a thing happening, but humans have been known to destroy each other's writings for a number of different reasons. Come to think of it, this is yet another example of you not being able to get to the starting line AGAIN.

[nopeda]

Harte, on 29 June 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

Nobody is actually lying here.

Anyone who claims the glyphs don't look like air vehicles is lying. That lie has been told more than once in this thread. What ELSE people are lying about may be in question, but there's no question that people are lying when they tell that one. One clue as to how we can know it to be a lie, is the fact that we wouldn't be discussing why they look like air vehicles if they did not look like air vehicles. No one would discuss it in regards to those particular carvings.

Edited by nopeda, 03 July 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[nopeda]

trigger1, on 29 June 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

sorry for being new
basic leverage moved 100 ton stones..wood then?

These people have no idea. All they know for sure is that they have faith no beings from other star systems have been to this one, in large part because they don't believe anything can travel at a velocity of over 186 thousand miles per second relative to anything else. To me that is naive and childlike, and it doesn't get any better from there...they have no idea about possible velocities or likelyhood of beings from other star systems having been to this one.
As for the moving of huge stones, each situation is unique to itself and there's no reason to believe they were all done the same way. For example from what I've been led to believe there aren't enough trees to do the job on Easter Island, though that's only one such example if it's true.

[nopeda]

Oniomancer, on 29 June 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

You could've helped it very easily, because that's not what she said. She's talking about both sets of glyphs seperately. The second statement is about the second set. I believe she's honestly leaving open the possibility, which she didn't have to do. If she's being sarcastic, it's considerably less than some of what you've pulled in this very thread.
You've answered your own question. It's in stone. Which is easier, to level the whole thing and then re-carve it all, (on a relatively thin support member which is already installed how many feet in the air instead of waiting to go up no less) or do just enough to get the job done and spackle over the old parts?
Now _I_ couldn't help noticing that _you_ skipped over all examples linked where did almost exactly that.

I can't believe it, in part because it certainly doesn't look that way at all. Another part is that I strongly doubt they would have been so lame. So since I can't believe you I must continue to wonder why they deliberately carved things in stone which very clearly resemble air vehicles.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 29 June 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

Are you saying we could move massive stones but not wood? Do I have that right?
Sorry, the premise is so incredibly nonsensical I best make sure that I approach your enquiry in the most honest and accurate fashion that I am capable of.

Hilarious!!!

Ol' Bullsh*t just can't stop trying to bullsh*t people...

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 29 June 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Basic leverage principals such as those used at Coral Castle.

Since you think you know all about it, explain the basic leverage principals used at Coral Castle and also where those same methods were used by people in the past to move huge stones. If you think that those same methods were used to move all huge stones in the past then let us know that, or if you believe they were used in some cases and other methods used in others then tell us about some of the distinctions. Also, tell us how you think you found out.

(prediction: he can make no attempt to meet any of the above challenges)