Why is there so much crackpot physics?

LogicFail said:
Many of these so called "unexplained" structures have been explained. But the woomeisters who make Ancient Alien shows and books just ignore that part.

Glaciation has a lot to do with stone movements, not to mention many of the megalithic structures were carved over many many years. It seems impossible to us because we can't imagine 200 people doing nothing but eating,sleeping and carving huge stones for 25 years or so. But it's the easiest explanation for most of them and thus, the most likely.
Click to expand...

I supplied a great answer to the TS and look what I get! This is my fourth post after my answer.

You mean carved in granite too? So 200 of the strongest people that ever lived can lift up a stone weighting over 200 tons a couple hundred feet with the technology available as we know it thousands of years ago?

I'm not taking this thread off topic. My answer to the TS is:

In fairness when conventional science can not explain things that can be observed with ones own eyes such as the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world, many of which contain stones weighing hundreds of tons, people are compelled to 'think out of the box".

Therefore, the door is open to these crackpots to try to explain what real scientists can not.

As stated. Thanks
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Maybe some of those crackpots can take that discussion over to the General Skepticism and The Paranormal section and elaborate on the out-of-the-box explanations that somehow seem to elude real scientists.
Click to expand...

Silly, how would they gain fame and make money? It's much better to go on TV and prove simply that scientists can not explain certain things and try to sell their books. All of this is actually now completely on topic as to a reason "why there is so much crackpot physics".
 
tedlazer said:
therfore, logiclly there was an alternate technology used that we do not have at this second.
Click to expand...

The thing is, when you say "alternate technology ... that we do not have", it calls to mind advanced technology. "dilithium beam teleporters" or "sub-ether gravity cancellation" or something.

"sliding a rock along a bed of greased logs" or "wedging a rock up an inch at a time, and adding cribbing" is more the sort of thing I think likely. Those are not really alternate technology, nor a technology we don't have at the moment. The technology is levers, rollers, guideways, wedges, and manpower. We don't know the details of how they implemented that technology, but that's a question for archaeology/history, not science.
 
ben m said:
The thing is, when you say "alternate technology ... that we do not have", it calls to mind advanced technology. "dilithium beam teleporters" or "sub-ether gravity cancellation" or something.

"sliding a rock along a bed of greased logs" or "wedging a rock up an inch at a time, and adding cribbing" is more the sort of thing I think likely. Those are not really alternate technology, nor a technology we don't have at the moment. The technology is levers, rollers, guideways, wedges, and manpower. We don't know the details of how they implemented that technology, but that's a question for archaeology/history, not science.
Click to expand...

Excellent points!

This is the mistake the ancient alien loons make. They think "we haven't discovered a giant wooden crane, so it must have been some sort of advanced technology!!" When the truth is that the probably just did things slowly over long periods of time.
 
Farsight said:
...And yet you dismiss "the electric universe" as nonsense whilst giving credence to "the mathematical universe". That seems a bit black and white, with a whiff of Emperor's New Clothes.

...
Click to expand...

I know of no coherent theory called "the electric universe" or "EU" or "plasma cosmology" -- but you can correct me if I am wrong. What I am aware of is an incoherent collection of blatantly crackpot conjectures that go under the banner of these crackpot labels, like:

The surface of the sun is solid iron.
The sun is a giant cathode somehow sucking in and emitting electrons.
Gravity is an emergent electromagnetic phenomenon.
The force that dictates galaxy structure is not gravity but is electromagnetic.
Saturn was once the sun, or some wildly similar fantasy.
Solar flares are analogous to lightning on earth.

I sincerely hope you do not hold to any of these fables.
 
EU stuff is as silly as saying the moon is made of green cheese.... seriously, this has been debunked so many times. Like how does an electrical sun (that would be positively charged) emit electrons as solar wind? How com the EU people claim we can't detect neutrinos that should exist if the sun was nuclear powered when, well, we can. We detetc bajillions of them every day!

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html


read this, forget yer woo
 
Buckaroo said:
I don't quite get why you're so fixated on Tegmark. He's completely up front about his mathematical universe ideas being highly speculative, and has relegated them to a "just for fun" status. He has suggested possible observations that would confirm these ideas, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't be willing to abandon them should they be found wanting. Furthermore, I see no a priori reason to reject them. They're neat, interesting, probably not correct, but worth thinking about. So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Exactly! Well put.
 
tedlazer said:
Not an issue although I'm sure you understand exactely. "The belief that there are technologies we do not have at this very second" as used means that given the tools for building and possible methods to move rocks weighing up to hundreds of tons for large distances available thousands of years ago when these ancient megalithic structures were built, these structures should not exist without exception;therfore, logiclly there was an alternate technology used that we do not have at this second.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the builders of the numerous megalithic structures (e.g. Newgrange, the Maoi of Easter Island, Stonehenge, Bryn Celli Ddu, the Egyptian pyramids, the Talaiot et cetera) were constructed using techniques or technology unknown today? If so please state your evidence for these claims.
And "I can't understand how they did it" doesn't constitute evidence, BTW.
 
ben m said:
The thing is, when you say "alternate technology ... that we do not have", it calls to mind advanced technology. "dilithium beam teleporters" or "sub-ether gravity cancellation" or something.

"sliding a rock along a bed of greased logs" or "wedging a rock up an inch at a time, and adding cribbing" is more the sort of thing I think likely. Those are not really alternate technology, nor a technology we don't have at the moment. The technology is levers, rollers, guideways, wedges, and manpower. We don't know the details of how they implemented that technology, but that's a question for archaeology/history, not science.
Click to expand...

Well first off Ben it does not matter what comes to mind really does it? I'm stating simple facts here only.

Merriam-webster.com
ar·chae·ol·o·gy
noun \ˌär-kē-ˈä-lə-jē\
Definition of ARCHAEOLOGY
1
: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities

well I guess you are disputing this definition as well. Archaeology is not a science??????????? Talk about trying to use a back door! What a cop out!

I'm not here to educate you, my post answers the TS's question and it's a strong answer.

So I will not talk about speciifics about a site in Turkey where escavation is has been under way over a decade and it will takes many more to fully unearth the sand covered stones covering many square miles dated from before we are told our first human civilization even existed! We will not talk about Pama Punku and the granite carved stones either. Not even the failed attempts using the exact materials you describle above to move the smallest of these stones to duplicate what is seen.

The last few responces from seemingly ignorant posters including the one below yours also points to another answer to the TS's question!

When you can't point out simple facts to 'scientists' without strinking such a 'nerve' and getting blown off (even though per the 1st post on the top of this page I was looking to just answer the TS and move on), as shown in the last few posts, those promoting 'crackpot psysics' may step in trying to fill the void you 'real scientists' have left!


LOL, good day
 
tedlazer said:
I supplied a great answer to the TS and look what I get! This is my fourth post after my answer.

You mean carved in granite too? So 200 of the strongest people that ever lived can lift up a stone weighting over 200 tons a couple hundred feet with the technology available as we know it thousands of years ago?

I'm not taking this thread off topic. My answer to the TS is:

In fairness when conventional science can not explain things that can be observed with ones own eyes such as the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world, many of which contain stones weighing hundreds of tons, people are compelled to 'think out of the box".

Therefore, the door is open to these crackpots to try to explain what real scientists can not.

As stated. Thanks
Click to expand...
It's simple.
 
catsmate1 said:
Are you saying that the builders of the numerous megalithic structures (e.g. Newgrange, the Maoi of Easter Island, Stonehenge, Bryn Celli Ddu, the Egyptian pyramids, the Talaiot et cetera) were constructed using techniques or technology unknown today? If so please state your evidence for these claims.
And "I can't understand how they did it" doesn't constitute evidence, BTW.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy if you could supply me with an explanation as to how there is actually even writing deep inside the dam pyramids!

if we can not duplicate these things with the same technology they had as in the sites I just taked to Ben about, that is the proof PERIOD!
 
tedlazer said:
I'd be happy if you could supply me with an explanation as to how there is actually even writing deep inside the dam pyramids!

if we can not duplicate these things with the same technology they had as in the sites I just taked to Ben about, that is the proof PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Do you really think we could not build the pyramids and put "writing deep inside" using bronze age technology?
 
tedlazer said:
ben m said:
The thing is, when you say "alternate technology ... that we do not have", it calls to mind advanced technology. "dilithium beam teleporters" or "sub-ether gravity cancellation" or something.

"sliding a rock along a bed of greased logs" or "wedging a rock up an inch at a time, and adding cribbing" is more the sort of thing I think likely. Those are not really alternate technology, nor a technology we don't have at the moment. The technology is levers, rollers, guideways, wedges, and manpower. We don't know the details of how they implemented that technology, but that's a question for archaeology/history, not science.
Click to expand...

Well first off Ben it does not matter what comes to mind really does it? I'm stating simple facts here only.
...
Click to expand...

If we go back to your first post, you said that "conventional science" could not explain "the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8136287&postcount=590

I thought you were saying that modern science was somehow wrong, but you explained that you were talking about "technologies we do not have at this very second" and that you were not saying that conventional science was wrong:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8136434&postcount=594

(FWIW, I still see this as self-contradictory, but perhaps it's a mundane definitional issue. Let's move on.)

So there seem to be, in your view, "technologies we do not have at this very second" that you imagine "conventional science can not explain", which would provide the explanation for "the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world". What sort of technology did you have in mind, precisely?

ETA: OK, never mind. I am contributing to a derail of the thread and I apologise. I'll leave this post here in case this lot gets moved to a more appropriate location.
 
Last edited:
tedlazer said:
I'd be happy if you could supply me with an explanation as to how there is actually even writing deep inside the dam pyramids!
Click to expand...
Sigh. Go and do some research for yourself.

tedlazer said:
if we can not duplicate these things with the same technology they had as in the sites I just taked to Ben about, that is the proof PERIOD!
Click to expand...
We can. We can build far superior structures.
 
tedlazer said:
Well first off Ben it does not matter what comes to mind really does it? I'm stating simple facts here only.
Click to expand...

Another testy response to a reasonable question. I can't read your mind. If you meant to say "ancient builders must have had access to advanced technology", then my response would be "no they didn't." If you meant to say "ancient builders must have been handy with muscle, rope, wood, and stone in ways we can't pin down" my response would be different. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean and you're jumping.

well I guess you are disputing this definition as well. Archaeology is not a science??????????? Talk about trying to use a back door! What a cop out!
Click to expand...

Jumpy again. I am happy to clarify---I should have said the question is one for archaeology, not physics.

So I will not talk about speciifics about a site in Turkey where escavation is has been under way over a decade and it will takes many more to fully unearth the sand covered stones covering many square miles dated from before we are told our first human civilization even existed! ...
Click to expand...

Yep, and this is what I would call "crackpot" archaeology. I am aware of no convincing evidence that any ancient people used advanced technology. I am aware of:

a) Megaliths (Stonehenge, the pyramids, obelisks, moai, Pumapunku, etc.) which, though impressive, could reasonably have been built with primitive technology and labor.

b) Random piles of *natural* rock (the Bosnian pyramids, for example) that crackpots misidentify as manmade.

c) Random bits of modern material ("out of place artifacts") that Fortean enthusiasts mistakenly label as ancient.
 
tedlazer said:
Well first off Ben it does not matter what comes to mind really does it? I'm stating simple facts here only.

Merriam-webster.com
ar·chae·ol·o·gy
noun \ˌär-kē-ˈä-lə-jē\
Definition of ARCHAEOLOGY
1
: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities

well I guess you are disputing this definition as well. Archaeology is not a science??????????? Talk about trying to use a back door! What a cop out!

I'm not here to educate you, my post answers the TS's question and it's a strong answer.

So I will not talk about speciifics about a site in Turkey where escavation is has been under way over a decade and it will takes many more to fully unearth the sand covered stones covering many square miles dated from before we are told our first human civilization even existed! We will not talk about Pama Punku and the granite carved stones either. Not even the failed attempts using the exact materials you describle above to move the smallest of these stones to duplicate what is seen.

The last few responces from seemingly ignorant posters including the one below yours also points to another answer to the TS's question!

When you can't point out simple facts to 'scientists' without strinking such a 'nerve' and getting blown off (even though per the 1st post on the top of this page I was looking to just answer the TS and move on), as shown in the last few posts, those promoting 'crackpot psysics' may step in trying to fill the void you 'real scientists' have left!


LOL, good day
Click to expand...


First off, coming onto a skeptics site and then calling us ignorant for not believing your woo is, well foolish.

Second, your spelling is atrocious and doesn't lend much to your already sketchy scientific holdings.

Finally, most of the above referenced "megaliths" like Pama Punku have been explained. (it's not granite, that's a total fabrication)
 
tedlazer said:
In fairness when conventional science can not explain things that can be observed with ones own eyes such as the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world, many of which contain stones weighing hundreds of tons, people are compelled to 'think out of the box".
Click to expand...

Actually we can explain how those ancient megalithic structures were built with relatively primitive technology.

For instance, the people of easter island actually explained how their ancestors moved and mounted their famous statues. That some people don't want to believe these simple (and demonstrable) explanations doesn't mean that they are not correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom