That sounds like a personal problem.I am being visited by "aliens" now!
Ancient Aliens, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
No snow around the London area. In fact, the weather is very mild.
I was talking about science, not an opinion. My proof is that observable data suggests one thing, so I go with the thing it suggests. You're still entitled to your opinion and I agree completely that it's your opinion. It's just not supported by current observable phenomena, which is how we have determined all other laws of nature.
Atomic theory was logically theorized based on observable data long before it became more certain because of modern science since Ancient Greek philosophers knew that matter could change and mix together. Their theory was that there had to be an underlying substance that was all the same in order for matter to change from one thing to another. It was based on a lot of speculation, but there was underlying observation as well.
Okay, what, exactly, defines a 'mainstream scientist?'
It seems like there are plenty of scientists around who, the moment someone mentions anything to do with any kind of unexplained phenomena, immediately start shouting it down as completely explainable or that the witness is delusional. When that kind of thing happens at conferences or other scientific gatherings and most, if not all, of the scientists take the same view, isn't that 'mainstream?'
Self-correcting? There have been plenty of instances in which a body of evidence, proving something, was ignored and/or ridiculed by the majority of scientists for a long time, simply because they did not want to be wrong. It happens all the time.
Scientists don't believe that their 'laws' are set in stone? Funny, but the widespread teaching is that those 'laws' are fundamental and that nothing can ever change them. For set of conditions A you get result B. Always and without exception.
It's my contention that scientists should not put 'laws' in place, because they have yet to explain everything in the universe. It may take time, it may occur in very few instances, it may be in some far-flung place, but their 'laws' may be broken.
Why can't they just say 'Here is something that seems to work most of the time, but nothing is infallible; everything is subject to sudden and unexpected change.'
Why the big egos? Why sit up on Mount Olympus with their noses stuck up in the air? Why the venomous fights with their colleagues? Why does it have to be that way? If the 'scientific method' works, why is there so little cooperation in the scientific community and so much discord?
It seems like there are plenty of scientists around who, the moment someone mentions anything to do with any kind of unexplained phenomena, immediately start shouting it down as completely explainable or that the witness is delusional. When that kind of thing happens at conferences or other scientific gatherings and most, if not all, of the scientists take the same view, isn't that 'mainstream?'
Self-correcting? There have been plenty of instances in which a body of evidence, proving something, was ignored and/or ridiculed by the majority of scientists for a long time, simply because they did not want to be wrong. It happens all the time.
Scientists don't believe that their 'laws' are set in stone? Funny, but the widespread teaching is that those 'laws' are fundamental and that nothing can ever change them. For set of conditions A you get result B. Always and without exception.
It's my contention that scientists should not put 'laws' in place, because they have yet to explain everything in the universe. It may take time, it may occur in very few instances, it may be in some far-flung place, but their 'laws' may be broken.
Why can't they just say 'Here is something that seems to work most of the time, but nothing is infallible; everything is subject to sudden and unexpected change.'
Why the big egos? Why sit up on Mount Olympus with their noses stuck up in the air? Why the venomous fights with their colleagues? Why does it have to be that way? If the 'scientific method' works, why is there so little cooperation in the scientific community and so much discord?
Despite the "orthodoxy," I don't think too many scientists see laws etched in stone.
Newton was basically wrong (for example, in Newton's universe, something may travel faster than light). But his "laws" still work so well in the realm of "everyday" science that they are still useful.
Einstein was ultimately wrong. Quantum physics is real. But Einstein's work still explains so much so well that it cannot be discounted.
In other words, a lot of scientists probably know the laws they apply are flawed in some way, but they (or parts of them) still work well within the parameters of what they are trying to explain.
The "orthodoxy" is necessary to create consistency and the ability to replicate results. And, when the orthodoxy is challenged, a lot is at stake. So, the burden of proof that the orthodoxy is wrong should then be on the accuser. And, the standard for accepting the accusations should be set high.
Also, science is empirical. Despite what we may wish we could see or even believe probablistically has to be true, until it is seen or it's effects are seen, something can't be said to exist. Even Einstein's work was not accepted until there was empirical proof of it.
I have no idea what mainstream science is. The thing I'm more concerned about is the habit of taking things that aren't science and making them science. Scientists don't set anything in stone. Science is continually self-correcting to explain flaws in their theory.
The reason they fight is because it's continually changing. If they were able to agree, no one would strive to change anything. There was a time when everyone thought Aristotle was 100% right. Then we figured out that the Sun doesn't revolve around the earth, the heavens aren't perfect celestial bodies, and a heavier object doesn't fall faster than a lighter one. Since then, someone has come up with a theory to explain something and others have corrected that theory. We didn't stop at Aristotle, we didn't stop at Isaac Newton, and we haven't stopped with Einstein.
The reason they fight is because it's continually changing. If they were able to agree, no one would strive to change anything. There was a time when everyone thought Aristotle was 100% right. Then we figured out that the Sun doesn't revolve around the earth, the heavens aren't perfect celestial bodies, and a heavier object doesn't fall faster than a lighter one. Since then, someone has come up with a theory to explain something and others have corrected that theory. We didn't stop at Aristotle, we didn't stop at Isaac Newton, and we haven't stopped with Einstein.
I'm sorry, but you have an incredibly warped view of what science is and how it works and I don't think there's any percentage in trying to convince you just how distorted your perspective is. I think you are a prime example of why Americans are falling behind in education. Being distrustful of knowledge and the processes used to acquire it is just baffling to me.
The moment someone mentions "mainstream science", "scientific orthodoxy" or "priests in labcoats", I know all I need to know.
Since when? Blackholes weren't proven for years, we still think there are wormholes even through we can't prove it.
It seems likely that aliens are or have been to the Earth. More so if you want to take parts of the Bible as truth, most of that can be explained through aliens which makes more sense to me than God.
To me, the knock on the whole "Chariots of the Gods" explanation of how ancient civilizations built certain things is Western ethnocentrism. In other words, some Westerners can't believe that ancient, non-European civilizations couldn't possibly have been a bit more advanced and used forgotten methods to, say, erect the statues on Easter Island, or the ziggurts in Meso-America. Horseshit!
Now, it it possible that extraterrestrials did visit us in the distant past? If they could figure a way around the currently accepted theories regarding the speed of light -- ergo, if they journeyed here using shortcuts like a wormhole -- maybe. Perhaps these ETs, seeing how "primitive" we are, have placed Earth on a restricted list of less advanced civilizations -- in other words, no contact till we reach a certain level. Kind of like how Starfleet will only contact a civilization when it achieves warp drive, as seen in TNG.
Now, it it possible that extraterrestrials did visit us in the distant past? If they could figure a way around the currently accepted theories regarding the speed of light -- ergo, if they journeyed here using shortcuts like a wormhole -- maybe. Perhaps these ETs, seeing how "primitive" we are, have placed Earth on a restricted list of less advanced civilizations -- in other words, no contact till we reach a certain level. Kind of like how Starfleet will only contact a civilization when it achieves warp drive, as seen in TNG.
They absolutely could have been that advanced, and that's equally as interesting to me as the alien visitation theory. It's interesting because, given our advanced levels of technology, we can't figure out how these ancient civilizations accomplished certain things. I'd love to find evidence of this ancient technology. In a weird way, it would almost make me proud of our race, that we DID accomplish such great feats without anybody else's help.
That said, the scifi fan in me would be gitty if we found proof that it was aliens all along.
A
Amaris
Guest
They absolutely could have been that advanced, and that's equally as interesting to me as the alien visitation theory. It's interesting because, given our advanced levels of technology, we can't figure out how these ancient civilizations accomplished certain things. I'd love to find evidence of this ancient technology. In a weird way, it would almost make me proud of our race, that we DID accomplish such great feats without anybody else's help.
That said, the scifi fan in me would be gitty if we found proof that it was aliens all along.
I think a lot of people forget that the ancient civilizations that built these structures had other advantages. Time and manpower. They didn't have to follow quarterly budgets, union negotiations or deal with zoning laws, they just committed 10,000 workers to the job, and just built whatever they wanted to build, and took 10, 15, 20+ years to do it.
I'm sorry, but you have an incredibly warped view of what science is and how it works and I don't think there's any percentage in trying to convince you just how distorted your perspective is. I think you are a prime example of why Americans are falling behind in education. Being distrustful of knowledge and the processes used to acquire it is just baffling to me.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said that I am "distrustful of knowledge and the processes used to acquire it."
My view is that, in any field of endeavor, the best approach to learning is to keep an open mind. If you are in the field of science, don't dismiss something that might seem like it's outside the field of science, because you never know how it might tie in. If not at present, then perhaps at some point in the future.
Debates and disagreements can be handled in a diplomatic way. There does not have to be all of this name-calling, condescension, snide remarks, etc. That just takes away from genuine progress.
A
Amaris
Guest
There is science, and there is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience begins when the words "keep an open mind" become a cover for not following the scientific method. It's one thing to keep an open mind. It's another to keep one so open that one's brain falls out. "Keeping an open mind" doesn't mean "disregard the evidence."
As far as the pyramids go, as one aspect of this discussion, I will offer this:
Over the course of decades and centuries, a lot of knowledge becomes forgotten, lost, altered, etc. Progress brings about new ways of doing things and the old ways fall into disuse. There are plenty of things that were 'all the rage' back in the 1800's, but which are not seen anymore today.
The builders of the pyramids may not have had any extraterrestrial help. They may have had knowledge developed on their own that was subsequently lost.
This man may have rediscovered it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle
Over the course of decades and centuries, a lot of knowledge becomes forgotten, lost, altered, etc. Progress brings about new ways of doing things and the old ways fall into disuse. There are plenty of things that were 'all the rage' back in the 1800's, but which are not seen anymore today.
The builders of the pyramids may not have had any extraterrestrial help. They may have had knowledge developed on their own that was subsequently lost.
This man may have rediscovered it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle
A
Amaris
Guest
The pyramids were built by humans. There is no secret knowledge of the Ancients. As for the article you cite, the man didn't build that structure using magnetism and supernatural abilities. That's pseudoscience.
Similar threads
