Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFey2vMRf50

It's completely possible to create a perfectly square corner with nothing more than a plumbob, a bubble level (or a pebble in a trough), and plenty of time. Nobody's going to argue the ancients didn't have a lot of time on their hands.

As for "power tools" Yep, the Romans had those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierapolis_sawmill

I just don't know, and it's way above my pay grade, but I find stuff like this fascinating.

Here's another one : The.Doomsday.Prophecies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Y4IEJGmzw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ#t=218s

Thank you. Thank you for possessing logic or at least being able to recognized it.

`OP you need to wake up. Every thing on the History channel is a joke.

Well, not everything. How the States Got Their Shapes is pretty good. But the doomsday stuff, the aliens, and the Nostradamus crap is barely worth the effort required to ridicule it.
By the way, does anyone else think this guy:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/160x/627067.jpg

is starting to look a lot like this guy?

http://sharetv.org/images/babylon_5/cast/large/londo_mollari.jpg

Must be close relatives.

White has many good points in his "work" but his analysis is full of assumptions and is riddled with manipulative inaccuracies and conveniently referenced vagueness in it's own right.  I'm not going to watch the whole thing because I feel many details within the broader subject matter are unexplainable by both parties/sides of the argument bottom line.

I find it funny and contradictory to a degree however that a fundamentalist "Christian" (and the belief system/ideology that goes with it) is allegedly debunking historical theory and ancient physical evidence that goes back thousands of years with critical acclaim.  Essentially a professional "debunker" and with what credentials?  I'm actually a bit shocked that Corbett had him on and was doting all over his personal theories and "facts" though there is validity in his interpretation of information and some of his points to one degree or another.  I certainly like Corbett's investigative reporting of current events but I feel he discredited himself a bit with that one.

Does White explain, for instance, how the Sumerians knew the correct configuration of our solar system and Earth's orientation within it, the location and configuration of Sirius thousands of years ago when the Earth was thought to be flat and the center of the universe until recently in terms of timeline?  I could be mistaken but I've never heard of 4000 year old precision optics or telescopes.  How did the Mayans create a calendar based on a 25,000 year celestial cycle, strategically and precisely align massive monuments to celestial bodies at significant moments in time and why?  Egyptians orienting pyramids in such a way to physically represent complex phyisical and mathematical relationships as well?  When and how were the massive, now submerged structures similar to the Mayans/Aztecs/Incans off the coast of Japan, India and Chile built?  Archeologists can only hazard a guess of "tens of thousands of years ago" and with what, bones and clubs? What are his interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata given that it's still not known for sure when either was written?

I'm not saying I believe a lot of what the ancient alien guys are saying as truth necessarily either but I feel it's important to remain open-minded to all information and remotely rational interpretation of essentially unknown history and physical historical evidence.  

I think that there is a lot of evidence (and total lack thereof) lending credence to the notion of creationism for instance yet certainly not in the biblical sense.  I'm not at all religious yet find some very striking correlations in some religions (Christianity being one) and what I think could be valid explanations of our history as a world and as a species.  I'm open to all the information and opinion I can get on this subject matter as it's one of my interests but think one should be careful to jump on this guy's bandwagon and proclaim it as "the truth".  Personally, the more I think I know, the less I really know for sure in the end.  The search for truth is a tremendous thing though.  

If we're ever going to find the truth everyone must collaborate, cooperate, share information and ideas.  It's like trying to fight for freedom and liberty against the plantation owners in The States while being distracted and divided by an illusionary concept of Red-vs-Blue political "choice" while being ruled and manipulated by a web of supra-sovereign entities and their common agenda without even knowing it.   United we may be able to learn the truth and evolve, divided (as "the system" would prefer us to be) we certainly will fall or at least fail better.  Sorry if that is a bad analogy but hopefully it makes some sense.  

We have very little knowledge with regards to a veritable sliver in time (~5K years) from which to glean any real truth about ancient history.  

With White's opinions being publicized there have been a number of very good articles published in retort that objectively and scientifically tear this guy's "facts" apart.  However, it would seem that some people choose to default to the comfort of their own belief systems and perceptions of reality to an extent and credit White with being a harbinger of some brand of "truth".

This is not a criticism of what anyone thinks or chooses to believe necessarily but a comment on our entire concept of truth which has been continually revised through time and how many current perceptions of what is true today could very likely be proven to be false looking back some day and/or may simply be false in the present without realizing it or accepting the fact.  Like Einstein's Theories of Relativity, both General and Special, having now been proven false.  Get the average physicist in a white coat living on fat annual grants to entertain that one though.
 
I'm very careful not to be the intellectual descendant of those who laughed at the Wright brothers and am careful what I choose to believe as truth (which is very little actually), that's all I'm saying.  Do not ridicule, lest thou be ridiculed.

Wow, that's a bit of a missive there but my interest in this subject matter compelled me to put it down.

I'll leave you all now to criticize it and me if you like.  ;)

This is false. Greeks knew that the Earth was a sphere and they even misured the circumference.

Sure but interesting that it was held as mainstream truth to be flat many hundreds of years later though eh?

Which brings-up another interesting and very relevant point, or perhaps a "dilemma".  What do the ritualistic, occultist elite class who run this planet (and always have) know that the masses don't and by design at that?  ;)

By the way Gabi, what significance is there in your "ignore" link being shaded yellow? 

Words cannot contain how hard I laughed at 1:08

I do what interests me.

That documentary is also quite fascinating and I enjoyed it a lot.

I dunno, geologists and anthropologists disagree on the age of the sphinx. Pretty much every civilization loves a good great flood myth, plus there is all this weird stuff on mars:

The face:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/catbox1.jpg

Left side looks like a primate face, right a lion face:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/catbox4.JPG


wierd tubes:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/can1.jpg

Its totally possible stuff was going on before the last ice age we know little about.

A mountain. Even the photomanipulations look like mountains, not faces.
Lava tubes.

As for the face, it certainly is more plausible that it is just a mountain. I think it does look like a half primate half lion though, and the connection to the sphinx makes it interesting.

As for the tubes. Find a picture of a lava tube that looks like that. Its not a lava tube, maybe an old gully with sand dunes. Here is a different martian gully:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/gorgonum/gorgonum2_c50.jpg


Looks like dredger tailings too though.
http://wikimapia.org/5696331/Gold-Dredge-tailings-at-Klondike-River-near-Dawson-city


It costs $2.5 Billion to send something to check one of these things out. Well its probably a non-optimal landing site, so lets send 5 making it $10 billion

Good point. That second picture is MUCH better, and I'd say it's just an old gully with wind-blown dunes. That Mars DID have water at some point in fairly recent (geologically speaking) history is, IIRC, a solid fact at this point.

This is the first I have heard of this. What is the source that convinced you?

Well 113, I'm not necessarily convinced as much as both mainstream science and I know that the speed of light is not a constant in the universe for instance.  I'm not a physicist or mathematician by any stretch so I can't confirm anything.  However, scientists have slowed the speed of light down to ft/s in the laboratory using modern scientific equipment so there, in a small way I myself just proved Einstein wrong by referencing it.  ;)

If you'd like to look into it yourself, a lady named Pari Spolter did all the work on this and wrote a fascinating book (even for the physics and mathematically inept) as well.  Gravitational Force Of The Sun.  Her work has been peer reviewed but obviously nothing has been officially published or accepted.  Apparently she does a job on Newton and his law of gravity too.  You can search it yourself if you like as there's some info and interviews out there.  John Lear references this and has some good coverage of it on thelivingmoon.com (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_000.html) as well as a bunch of other really interesting stuff.  If you have an interest in Martian and Lunar anomalies, etc. you will enjoy the fraction of his research he has put up on the site.

Even Einstein admitted that he could be off with some of his theoretical assumptions.  Some of his work and the credit he was given was actually essentially ripped-off from James Clerk Maxwell (among others who cam-up with "relativity" and many other theoretical concepts used by Einstein) in the first place from what I gather.

The theory rests on the assumption that speed of light in a vacuum is constant... so that isn't really related.

 Pari Spolter looks interesting.

O.k.  Maybe neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light at the LHC is more "related".  Regardless, there's boatloads of stuff out there on Einstein being wrong, the Big Bang theory being malarkey, scientists having no idea how the universe actually works in general, etc., etc., etc.  The brightest minds on the planet can't even figure-out what gravity actually is.


Just for posterity's sake:

Gravitational Force Of The Sun (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_000.html)


What If Einstein Was Wrong? (1/3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaT3Gm2ajvU&playnext=1&list=PL53E4BB6DDDA49E19&feature=results_video)

What If Einstein Was Wrong? (2/3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVjDC1t9hqQ&feature=relmfu)

What If Einstein Was Wrong? (3/3) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsOsnjI7znY&feature=relmfu)

What we believe and think we know is continually being turned on it's ear it seems.

So I read this:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/New_Concepts_in_Gravitation.pdf

The main point seems to be this (quoting John Lear's summary):

Mass of the sun: 1.9855E+30 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of sun  X G X pi= 4.1629E+20 m s^-2 m^2

So her position (not explicitly stated in what I read) is that people are using her number but multiplying mass of the sun by an arbitrary constant in order to incorporate mass into the model.




How does she explain that the same constant can be multiplied by the earth's mass to explain the orbit of the moon?

Mass of the earth: 5.9736E+24 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of earth  X G X pi= 1.25245E+15 m s^-2 m^2

Her equation of F= pi*a*v^2 (used to get that 4.16 number for things orbiting the sun earlier) yields 1.261345E+15

a=Semi-Major Axis of Moon =384399 km
v=average orbital velocity of moon=1.02 m/s

Does she address this issue at all?

Wow 113, glad you're having some fun with it as you're obviously capable of entertaining the material on a technical level.

You're asking the wrong guy regarding physics at such a level but from what I understand mass is irrelevant in calculating gravitational force but as far as a constant somehow derived to use... It's "French" to me 113, and I know a little bit of rudimentary French.  ;)

I'm sure you can contact Pari somehow and you can most certainly contact John Lear anytime.  He's a very affable guy and would be delighted to discuss this with you at length or at least liase with Pari if he can't entertain your questions adequately.  John actually has an open offer out to anyone that wants to bring some cigars over to his house in Vegas and discuss any of the multitudes of things he researches.  I've had some correspondence with him myself over the years and if I ever go to Vegas hopefully he'll still be alive and kicking.  He's not only a pretty sharp guy but has done, seen and heard some amazing stuff, rubbed shoulders with many noteworthy people as well as being a bit of a legend of aviation.  Hell, his name has been banned from Wikipedia, that is very cool.  Neither of these people are "snake oil salesman" in my eyes and I'm sure they'd love to speak and/or correspond with you about it.

Thanks and good luck!

Hm ok, I will try. At this point it looks like her theory explains less about gravity than the one that incorporates mass.

Let me restate my issue with it:
Her number she is calculating for the "gravitational force due to the sun" is simply the Standard Gravitational Parameter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravitational_parameter). If we also calculate the "gravitational force due to the earth" and divide both by their respective masses (which differ by orders of magnitude), we will get the same number, this constant "G". You can do the same for jupiter and its moons. For that reason I believe mass is related to gravitational force.

This can all be gathered from observations you can do at home with a cheap telescope and basic algebra.

Edit: Well actually you would have to do something like the Cavendish Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment) to measure the mass of earth from home, and most people seem to be calculating the mass from newtons laws... so maybe there is still room for error here.

If you do and enter into an exchange with one or both of them I'd be very grateful to know how it turns-out.

Thanks, good luck and cheers!

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other), so this is me looking for thanksgiving dinner material.

wut.

How does s/he explain planetary motion, then? Back to crystal spheres?

The gist of it is that the sun is like a giant balloon that (driven by an as yet undiscovered force) inflates and moves higher in the sky in the summer while it deflates and descends in the winter. The earth is still spinning, but stays in one place relative to the sun. I don't remember how the motion of the planets was explained.

You should explain Occam's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). (interestingly, the example used is planetary motion.)

I think AIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion) is better. The basic idea is that when comparing multiple models of reality, both how well the prediction fits the observations and how complicated the model is should be taken into account. This is superior to occam's razor because  there is an actual equation backed with proofs and simulations.