Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Farsight said:
Some of these guys are making things up. Things that have rumbled on for decades with absolutely no evidential support, but people believe in them.

I do, and I'm not. Hawking is fooling you, and you're fooling yourself. Note that the Lucasian Chair, is a mathematics professorship, and the current holder is Michael Green, a string theorist. The problem is that people will believe any old crackpot tosh from "high priest" celebrity physicists, and if some guy like me explains why it is tosh, backed up by hard scientific evidence, they won't entertain it. It's a conviction thing. Creationists won't listen when you show them fossils, strata, carbon dating, glaciation, magnetic reversals, etc. People usually think that the trait they display is to do with religion, but it isn't, it's to do with how people are. Pick a subject if you like, start a thread, let's put this to the test and let's see how you get on.
Click to expand...

Evidence? (and i don't mean evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about, I've seen plenty of that)
 
Tubbythin said:
You seem to have a high opinion of your own evidence. And yet you lack knowledge of quantum mechanics and relativity that a student would learn in introductory degree courses.
Click to expand...

Degree course? I am a layman with an interest in physics and even I can spot his lack of knowledge.
 
Farsight said:
There's certainly no internal mass. But there certainly is internal motion.

Here we go again. I'm with Einstein, and I'm the outlier? How did that happen?

LOL! Do you seriously think I just googled something at random? Oh are you in for a shock. OK, let's have a thread on electromagnetism. Afterwards you can withdraw your ad-hominem aspersions, eat some humble pie, apologise, then crawl off to lick your wounds again.

But later, because I gotta go. Ciao.
Click to expand...

Your arrogance really is misplaced. When are you going to come up with some evidence of your claims?
 
catsmate1 said:
Yes I was. It's an interesting site with potentially significant implications for the history of development of human civilisation, the transition form nomadic hunter/gatherer to mixed cultivation/pastoral to settled agricultural society.
Just because you're unwilling to accept this, as it contradicts your beliefs, is no reason at all to invoke gods, ancient aliens or magic as you seem to want to.
Perhaps you should actually read the article, and additional material? Do you wonder why the actual archaeologists and other experts don't jump to the same conclusions as you?
Science explains it just fine the problem is people don't want to accept reality but rather their own fantasies of gods, magic, aliens et cetera.
Repeating this doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

I guees in reality it is you who can not accept that cavemen eleven thousand years ago did not construct the site with the technology you say they had alone without exception! Flint tools, and strong cavemen to quarry the rock from miles away weighing 12 metric tons. Then carve, shape and position them them into megalith rings.

In fact I think it's clear that you seem as buffoons by saying this is even possible! .

BTW the first paragrah above is non sequitur to the sites construction period.

I have read every available material on this site and many others. What conclusuions of mine? That it can't be done by cave men 11000 years ago? The very article referenced by Smithsonian magazine is titeld "Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization"'. Thereby concuring that the entire theroy of the conventional view of the rise of civilization is false!

I NEVER MENTIONED ALIENS, GODS OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU DID BTW!
further anyone that says an alien built anything at all on this planet is IMO perhaps bigger fools that those that say cavemen from 11K years ago with flint tools made this site!

What did science explain as to the creation of this site ("just fine"). There is NO CURRENT EXPLANATION EXCEPT SCIENTISTS AGREE THEY MUST HAVE HAD HISTORY incorrect!

Now all of this is VERY IMPORTANT in this thread, because if the poster I am addressing is a scientist (really I'm addressing all here that answered. or would answer as such), then reasonable people will dismiss such ignorant answers & be open to any argument even from "crackpot physics" as to how these objects were moved to there current positions 11 thousand years ago!

After all what could be as foolish as as saying that something is explained when there is clear evidence it is not!
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Um, yeah, so some old theories are wrong.

Homo sapiens sapiens roamed the landscape and did not always live in caves?

So what?

Rollers and rope will move large stones.

It has been established for quite a while that 'civilization' started elsewhere than europe and that stonehenge is no big deal.

So why you act like this is big deal is strange.
Have you heard of Mohenjo-daro?

Big cosmopolitan area at about 4,500 years ago.

Catal Hyuk has been known for a long time as have many neolithic sites in the 'middle east' area.

So maybe you did not know, but gosh this is something at least 50 years old, that civilization started in the fertile crescent, the indus valley and the yellow river basin.

Now yes, many victorian brits and germans made up a lot to say that they were the successors to the the rise of civilization, but they weren't.
Click to expand...

Address the second post on page 17 David. Not sure what are talking about.
we are talking not about 4500 years hear but 11000. Thanks
 
Perpetual Student said:
This has nothing to do with crackpot physics, but it is a classic example of crackpot archeology!
Click to expand...

One of my favorate posts. Got many laughs out of it TY.

So who are the crackpots here? Smithsonian magazine or all the other scientists that have dated this site from 11000 from years ago? I'm at a loss here, you I take are disputing the dating of the site correct?

You know more than the scientists that have studied this site correct? Once again who is the crackpot?

I guess a laymen reading Smithsonian magazine or National Geographic magazine about this site and then hear a scientist call it "crackpot archeology", whould again be very open to an explanation from a proponent of 'crackpot psysics' as to how these structures came to be where they are 11000 years ago! Thanks for the laughs again really. At dinner tonight there were dozens of people laughing at you, thanks so much!
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Nobody is saying that.
Click to expand...

Read the last line of his post. "Scientists explain it just fine" , in conjuction with the first sentence of his post. He (everyone here) is saying the site was made my locals 11K years ago sir. If not then who anyway? We are going back per the referenced article before the known start of civilization. There were no metal tools sir. "flint tools" sir were refereced by yet another poster BTW in tems of the sites construction! Ok, on with blood shed.
 
Last edited:
Complexity said:
No, dude, I don't have the time.

You need to stop being so gullible, forget much of the garbage that you think you've learned, and start over again learning some science from some good books.

You don't have the background to make sense out of the topics you seem most interested in.

You are in serious danger of settling into the crackpot/conspiracy-theorist stereotype and rotting there.

It is not too late to begin a real education. Get rid of the garbage and make room for the good stuff.

Trying to learn about reality through science is far more interesting (and far cooler) than any of the delusions that you seem to be attracted to.
Click to expand...

So how and where do you get this background from, and where do you get the money from to fund the education?

What would you recommend?
 
I really don't understand the claim being made here. I've read several articles regarding the site, and yes, it does suggest the previous timelines are not correct or incomplete for the spread of civilisations and so forth.

The articles do not however, propose unknown science or physics. Again, a relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
 
mike3 said:
So how and where do you get this background from, and where do you get the money from to fund the education?

What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

That's it Mike! Don't let us down!

Tell us please how cavemen eleven thousand years ago constructed the site with the technology your 'fellow scientists' here say they did so with!

Flint tools, and strong cavemen to quarry the rock from miles away weighing 12 metric tons. Then carve, shape and position them them into megalith rings.

I can tell U R a winner! It's your quality eduation that helps you and your fellow scientists with their posts!

And U wonder why there are so much crackpot psysics after reading your fellow scientists posts, no way!
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
I really don't understand the claim being made here. I've read several articles regarding the site, and yes, it does suggest the previous timelines are not correct or incomplete for the spread of civilisations and so forth.

The articles do not however, propose unknown science or physics. Again, a relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
Click to expand...

You can't be serious here with wikipedia as a reference right? You know it could be written by an number people who are proponents of crackpot psysics no?

I'll help you out, the site was origionally dated from 9 thousand years ago true. But latter scientists move the date back to 11000 years ago. Again, The very article referenced by Smithsonian magazine is titeld "Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization"'. Thereby concuring that the entire theroy of the conventional view of the rise of civilization is false! The tools did not exist to build this site 11000 years ago as far as we understand.
 
tedlazer said:
You can't be serious here with wikipedia as a reference right? You know it could be written by an number people who are proponents of crackpot psysics no?

I'll help you out, the site was origionally dated from 9 thousand years ago true. But latter scientists move the date back to 11000 years ago. Again, The very article referenced by Smithsonian magazine is titeld "Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization"'. Thereby concuring that the entire theroy of the conventional view of the rise of civilization is false! The tools did not exist to build this site 11000 years ago as far as we understand.
Click to expand...


Here's a word you need to learn:

Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]
 
tedlazer said:
That's it Mike! Don't let us down!

Tell us please how cavemen eleven thousand years ago constructed the site with the technology your 'fellow scientists' here say they did so with!

Flint tools, and strong cavemen to quarry the rock from miles away weighing 12 metric tons. Then carve, shape and position them them into megalith rings.

I can tell U R a winner! It's your quality eduation that helps you and your fellow scientists with their posts!

And U wonder why there are so much crackpot psysics after reading your fellow scientists posts, no way!
Click to expand...

Who says they were cavemen?
 
dafydd said:
Who says they were cavemen?
Click to expand...

Meaning their known available tech was not far from that sir 11K years ago. How do you you propose the site was built? Clearly at least you have the brain enough to dismiss flint tools! The issue even the poster above you fails (yet again) to see as the primary issue in my responce.
 
tedlazer said:
I guess a laymen reading Smithsonian magazine or National Geographic magazine about this site and then hear a scientist call it "crackpot archeology", whould again be very open to an explanation from a proponent of 'crackpot psysics' as to how these structures came to be where they are 11000 years ago!
Click to expand...

For my own curiousity, could you have done it? Suppose that some local king/baron/whatever said, "You're in charge. I want this project done within the next 20 years. You have 1000 of the best craftsmen, thinkers, laborers, whatever you need, and you have them for the next 20 years. You can even take a couple of years to plan it, and to run tests with various techniques for cutting and moving the blocks, and you'll have the full 1000 of our best men for those years of experiments.

But if you don't get it done, I'll torture and kill your daughters." (I have no idea whether you have daughters, but it seemed like a compelling thing to threaten).

Would you have thrown up your hands and said, "It can't be done?" 1000 skilled laborers, 20 years, and your daughters killed if you don't succeed. Do you think you might have found a way to do it?
 
tedlazer said:
One of my favorate posts. Got many laughs out of it TY.

So who are the crackpots here? Smithsonian magazine or all the other scientists that have dated this site from 11000 from years ago? I'm at a loss here, you I take are disputing the dating of the site correct?

You know more than the scientists that have studied this site correct? Once again who is the crackpot?

I guess a laymen reading Smithsonian magazine or National Geographic magazine about this site and then hear a scientist call it "crackpot archeology", whould again be very open to an explanation from a proponent of 'crackpot psysics' as to how these structures came to be where they are 11000 years ago! Thanks for the laughs again really. At dinner tonight there were dozens of people laughing at you, thanks so much!
Click to expand...

The archaeological site in question provides insights into mankind"s history. As the wiki article states:
Göbeklitepe is regarded as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change our understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human societies. It seems that the erection of monumental complexes was within the capacities of hunter-gatherers and not only of sedentary farming communities as had been previously thought. In other words, as excavator Klaus Schmidt puts it: "First came the temple, then the city."[26] This revolutionary hypothesis will have to be supported or modified by future research.
Click to expand...
That's it. The crackpot archeology I referred to were your naive comments. To conjecture mysterious lost technology, mysterious forces, gods, whatever is crackpot. Your comment that, "The tools did not exist to build this site 11000 years ago as far as we understand." is patently crackpot since -- obviously -- the site was built, so the tools did exist. Genuine scientific inquiry will eventually tell us more about this site and its implications and provide scientifically based conjectures as to what tools were used. Trying to make it all mysterious and woo is crackpot!
By the way, learn how to spell or use spellcheck.
 
tedlazer said:
Meaning their known available tech was not far from that sir 11K years ago. How do you you propose the site was built? Clearly at least you have the brain enough to dismiss flint tools! The issue even the poster above you fails (yet again) to see as the primary issue in my responce.
Click to expand...

The site was built, so they had tools and these tools were not part of some advanced, lost technology. Men did it, and mankind has always been smart.
 
Last edited:
tedlazer said:
You can't be serious here with wikipedia as a reference right? You know it could be written by an number people who are proponents of crackpot psysics no?

I'll help you out, the site was origionally dated from 9 thousand years ago true. But latter scientists move the date back to 11000 years ago. Again, The very article referenced by Smithsonian magazine is titeld "Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization"'. Thereby concuring that the entire theroy of the conventional view of the rise of civilization is false! The tools did not exist to build this site 11000 years ago as far as we understand.
Click to expand...

And again, what is your point? Yes, its discovery changes the conventional view of the rise of civilisation.

Let's suppose, just for a moment, that this does make the *entire* conventional theory of the rise of civilisation invalid (something that is NOT in evidence).

So what? This does not equal mysterious science or physics. Nothing in any of your referenced articles makes a case for it either. Indeed, the Smithsonian article mentions the flint tools and observes that the stones were dragged from *yards* (not miles) further down the slope of the hill.

Your argument from ignorance, as presented in the last para of the quoted post, pretty much sums it up (noting you should have said "I", not we, as evidently the tools *did* exist....).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom