Disparaging Lemaitre

[Joe]

The Earth was not the center of the universe for 1,500 years.

Scientific truth is established by the Scientific Method, and confirmed by successful, scientific predictions.
The best that Ptolemy and his successors could achieve, in establishing scientific truth, was apparently better than what the Heliocentrists could achieve for 1,500 years. There's nothing wrong with the scenario of humans believing in Geocentrism, if this system offers the soundest results. But, as I said, science is progress. Therefore, paradigms change, regularly.
Total Science, you do know that even Heliocentrism has been superceded,right?

So you think the pyramids were built with magical spells and sorcery?

No, they were built with technological knowledge, and not scientific knowledge, which is the same way that European cathedrals were built. The ancients did not have the laws of gravity and EM, and ,therefore, could not have benefited from these. (And, of course, they were even-more not in possession of nuclear laws.) Brute force and cantilevering carried the day.

Is this what you call mindless technology?

A very simple mechanical calculator, that works manually, is not a scientific achievement. What laws of nature have been elucidated by it? None. Frankly, it's not much of a technological achievement, either. The application of gear-ratios is not worth crowing about.

"This [Antikythera Mechanism] was tantamount to finding a jet airplane in the tomb of King Tut." -- David H. Childress, author, 2009

Jet-propulsion is the result of true scientific inquiry. Without the laws of modern chemistry, we would not know the concept of jet-propulsion.

This contradicts your debunked claim that science didn't exist prior to 1000 A.D.

I said "discoveries" based on the Scientific Method were absent before this time. But, this is only to be logically expected since the Scientific Method was still in its early stages of theoretical development.

1. "It was Pythagoras also who carried geometry to perfection [e.g. Euclid Proposition I:47], after Moeris had first found out the principles of the elements of that science, as Aristiclides tells us in the second book of his History of Alexander; and the part of the science to which Pythagoras applied himself above all others was arithmetic." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Aside from the fact that it is disputed whether Pythagoras ever actually devised any mathematical relations, here we are discussing math, not science -which is the elucidation of the laws of nature. Math is a purely intellectual endeavor; there's no need for a guiding method. Throughout history, many different foundations for math have been laid out, each contributing something important to the overall knowledge of math.

4. "Parmenides, too, assures us, that he was the first person who asserted the identity of Hesperus and Lucifer [Venus]." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Total Science, do you categorize this as science? What fundamental laws of nature are being elucidated here?

5. "... [Pythagoras said] the earth ... is also spherical." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Actually, most near-ancient thinkers believed that the Earth was spherical, for various, obvious reasons. Science never played a role in establishing this belief.

7. "And that the moon derives its light from the sun." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

My response, here, is similar to my last response.

8. "Also, that animals are born from one another by seeds, and that it is impossible for there to be any spontaneous production by the earth." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Ditto my last response.

Also, it sounds like Pythagoras was anti-evolution. Are you anti-evolution, Total Science?

9. "... [And] that deliberation (nous), and reason (phren), reside in the brain...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Ditto, again.

Also, this is philosophy, not science.

(By the way, is there a chance that "deliberation" and "reason" reside in another part of the body? )

10. "But Eratosthenes says, as Favorinus quotes him, in the eighth book of his Universal History, that this philosopher, of whom we are speaking, was the first man who ever practised boxing in a scientific manner, in the forty-eighth Olympiad...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Boxing ?!
Here, "scientific manner" means technique, which is even less inquisitive than technology. Don't even mention true science, which elucidates the fundamental laws of nature, by way of the one-and-only Scientific Method.


-Joe

[Total Science]

Scientific truth is established by the Scientific Method, and confirmed by successful, scientific predictions.

You wish. The history of what you call science is an infinite graveyard of failed predictions. You yourself have already conceded this fact.

The best that Ptolemy and his successors could achieve, in establishing scientific truth, was apparently better than what the Heliocentrists could achieve for 1,500 years.

LOL.

That's absurd.

There's nothing wrong with the scenario of humans believing in Geocentrism, if this system offers the soundest results.

That's absurd.

But, as I said, science is progress. Therefore, paradigms change, regularly.

Paradigms change and are ephemeral but truth is unchanging and eternal.

Total Science, you do know that even Heliocentrism has been superceded,right?

In a manner of speaking. The fact that there is no center proved universal gravitation is a lie. Gravitation relies upon absolute motion, absolute space, and absolute Cartesian coordinates, all of which are imaginary and do not exist in nature.

No, they were built with technological knowledge, and not scientific knowledge, which is the same way that European cathedrals were built.

Technological knowledge is a type of scientific knowledge.

The ancients did not have the laws of gravity and EM, and ,therefore, could not have benefited from these.

Actually the ancients knew the real and true laws of gravity and EM, not the false fairy tales that we have today.

And they did benefit from them (e.g. The Baghdad Battery, the Parthian Cells, helicopters, vimanas, and celestial weapons).

The laws of gravity were understood by the ancients whereas contemporary scientists do not understand the laws of gravity and EM today.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

"... a treatise on the Magnet. These are his [Democritus's] miscellaneous works." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"The scientific community starts its annals with Newton, paying some homage to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, unaware that the great ones of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries searched through classical authors of antiquity for their great discoveries. Did not Copernicus strike out the name of Aristarchus of Samos from the introduction to De Revolutionibus before he signed imprimatur on his work? Did not Tycho Brahe find the compromising theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth—but Mercury and Venus circling around the Sun—in Heracleides of Pontus, yet announce it as his own? Did not Galileo read of the equal velocity of heavy and light falling bodies in Lucretius; did not Newton read in Plutarch of the Moon removed from the Earth by fifty-six terrestrial radii and impelled by gravitation to circle around the Earth, the basic postulate of Newton’s Principia, and did not Halley read in Pliny about comets returning on their orbits?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1974

"This question of measurement is only one example of Newton's faith in the prisca sapientia of Ancient Egypt. He was also convinced that atomic theory, heliocentricity and gravitation had been known there [See McGuire and Rattansi (1966, p. 110)]." -- Martin Bernal, historian, 1987

(And, of course, they were even-more not in possession of nuclear laws.) Brute force and cantilevering carried the day.

Atoms were known by Democritus and the ancients were well aware of nuclear laws.

And the Indians and Hebrews also suggest otherwise.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." -- Genesis 19:24

"... and he [Lot] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." -- Genesis 19:28

"When I heard that the just and renowned Arjuna after having been to the celestial regions, had there obtained celestial weapons from Indra himself then, O Sanjaya, I had no hope of success. When I heard that afterwards Arjuna had vanquished the Kalakeyas and the Paulomas proud with the boon they had obtained and which had rendered them invulnerable even to the celestials, then, O Sanjaya, I had no hope of success." -- Dhritarashtra, Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"Thou hast heard, O Raja, of the greatly powerful men of vast exertions, spoken of by Vyasa and the wise Narada; men born of great royal families, resplendent with worthy qualities, versed in the science of celestial arms, and in glory emblems of Indra; men who having conquered the world by justice and performed sacrifices with fit offerings (to the Brahmanas), obtained renown in this world and at last succumbed to the sway of time." -- Ugrasrava Sauti, Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"Then is narrated the ascent on the hills of Kailasa by Bhimasena, his terrific battle with the mighty Yakshas headed by Hanuman; then the meeting of the Pandavas with Vaisravana (Kuvera), and the meeting with Arjuna after he had obtained for the purpose of Yudhishthira many celestial weapons; then Arjuna's terrible encounter with the Nivatakavachas dwelling in Hiranyaparva, and also with the Paulomas, and the Kalakeyas; their destruction at the hands of Arjuna; the commencement of the display of the celestial weapons by Arjuna before Yudhishthira...." -- Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

"This weapon [astra] can slay any being within the three worlds, including Indra and Rudra." -- Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

A very simple mechanical calculator, that works manually, is not a scientific achievement. What laws of nature have been elucidated by it? None. Frankly, it's not much of a technological achievement, either. The application of gear-ratios is not worth crowing about.

I agree that modern microprocessors and supercomputers are no achievement. They are pitiful compared to what the ancients had achieved.

Jet-propulsion is the result of true scientific inquiry. Without the laws of modern chemistry, we would not know the concept of jet-propulsion.

Chemistry is not modern. Chemistry is ancient and was known by Democritus, all the atomists, and Zoroaster before them.

Total Science, do you categorize this as science? What fundamental laws of nature are being elucidated here?

Do you think Venus is two different stars?

Actually, most near-ancient thinkers believed that the Earth was spherical, for various, obvious reasons. Science never played a role in establishing this belief.

Do you think that the statement that the Earth is a sphere is a religious or metaphysical belief?

Also, it sounds like Pythagoras was anti-evolution. Are you anti-evolution, Total Science?

Yes. Darwinian evolution is a Victorian myth.

According to Popper, a theory can only be considered scientific if it is prepared to state in advance what could possibly falsify it.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

Fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, therefore evolution is falsified.

And if you don't believe that then you must admit that evolution is not scientific.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

There is no evidence of one animal evolving into another animal.

There is no evidence a velociraptor decided to pick up it's talons one day and fly off into the sunset.

Modern octopuses were found in the Cretaceous. No evolution there. What are octopuses evolving into?

The tuatara, alleged to be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't changed since the Triassic. No evolution there. What are sphenodons evolving into?

Sharks and echinoids are the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. No observed evolution. What are they evolving into?

Cyanobacteria are exactly the same as they were 2.8 billion years ago. No evolution. What are they evolving into?

Archaea are exactly the same as they were 3.5 billion years ago. No evolution. What are they evolving into?

Also, this is philosophy, not science.

If it were science he would've gotten it wrong.

10. "But Eratosthenes says, as Favorinus quotes him, in the eighth book of his Universal History, that this philosopher, of whom we are speaking, was the first man who ever practised boxing in a scientific manner, in the forty-eighth Olympiad...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Boxing ?!
Here, "scientific manner" means technique, which is even less inquisitive than technology. Don't even mention true science, which elucidates the fundamental laws of nature, by way of the one-and-only Scientific Method.


-Joe

The word science was used but you don't realize that.

[Joe]

The history of what you call science is an infinite graveyard of failed predictions.

Of course, that's only to be expected. Part of the logic of having a scientific truth confirmed is that some predictions will fail to materialize. Life is not perfect. And, that's the reason for which we have science.

That's absurd.

No, it's a fact.

That's absurd.

No, accepting the most successful system is never absurd.

Paradigms change and are ephemeral but truth is unchanging and eternal.

Scientific truth is always changing.
Do you think that the scientific truths of today are identical to those of a century ago?...of a millenium ago?

In a manner of speaking.

You're holding out that the Sun may actually be the center of the Universe?!

The fact that there is no center proved universal gravitation is a lie.

Why do you believe that universal gravitation needs a center? Science does not claim such a thing.

Gravitation relies upon absolute motion, absolute space, and absolute Cartesian coordinates, all of which are imaginary and do not exist in nature.

Science does not claim that gravitation depends on these factors. In fact, science accepts General Relativity which describes gravity using concepts that are relative, not absolute.
Also, the presence of relative concepts does not rule out the possible existence of absolute concepts.

Technological knowledge is a type of scientific knowledge.

Technology does not make inquiries. It's all about tool-making and practicality.
Science opens venues for understanding. It is never self-satisfied.

Of course, the 2 do overlap somewhat.

Actually the ancients knew the real and true laws of gravity and EM, not the false fairy tales that we have today.

If that were true, they would have had supercomputers. Did they have supercomputers, Total Science?

And they did benefit from them (e.g. The Baghdad Battery, the Parthian Cells, helicopters, vimanas, and celestial weapons).

1st object: A curious phenomenon from which they never benefited.
2nd object: ??? (It couldn't have been too important if I never heard of it.)
3rd object: Myth.
4th object: More myth.
5th object: The king of myth.

did not Newton read in Plutarch of the Moon removed from the Earth by fifty-six terrestrial radii

If this is true, it would be impressive.
As for the endless, other quotes that you provide, they are instances of simple observation, high speculation, or conjecture. Most are empty successes that rose to the top of a sea of mindless babblings.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." -- Genesis 19:24

Brimstone and fire are not nucleons.

"... and he [Lot] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." -- Genesis 19:28

Smoke is not a nucleon.

"This weapon [astra] can slay any being within the three worlds, including Indra and Rudra." -- Mahabharata, 8th century B.C.

Don't you find it curious, Total Science, that not 1 of these tremendous, alleged weapons has survived to this day?
I mean, there must have been oodles of them used in battle long ago.

I agree that modern microprocessors and supercomputers are no achievement. They are pitiful compared to what the ancients had achieved.

Funny how none of their supposed high-tech gizmos ever made it to our day.

Chemistry is not modern. Chemistry is ancient and was known by Democritus, all the atomists, and Zoroaster before them.

But, did they jet about?

Do you think Venus is two different stars?

Simple observation, coupled with the simplest of deduction, does not science make.

Do you think that the statement that the Earth is a sphere is a religious or metaphysical belief?

No. Refer to my previous response.

Fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, therefore evolution is falsified.

Or, maybe scientists need to refine the theory a little more. Science does not have absolute knowledge of past goings-on.

There is no evidence of one animal evolving into another animal.

Perhaps, it takes a long time.

Sharks and echinoids are the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. No observed evolution. What are they evolving into?

Perhaps, they are perfectly fit for their environment.

Cyanobacteria are exactly the same as they were 2.8 billion years ago. No evolution. What are they evolving into?

Science has fossilized bacteria in its possession?!

If it were science he would've gotten it wrong.

On the contrary, it would have been placed on the firmest of footings.
As is, we can not ascertain its truth-value.
Is there a test that only YOU have, Total Science, that can confirm the veracity of Pythagoras' claim?

The word science was used but you don't realize that.

The old adage applies: "Saying so, don't make it so."
Try to understand the difference between the concepts of science, technology, and technique.


-Joe

[Total Science]

Of course, that's only to be expected. Part of the logic of having a scientific truth confirmed is that some predictions will fail to materialize. Life is not perfect. And, that's the reason for which we have science.

I disagree. The reason why we have science is to succeed, not to fail. But if you think the goal of science is to be imperfect and fail, then you are correct that science is successful in so far as it's hypotheses and theories are failures and it's proponents are failures.

it's a fact.

It's a fact that it's absurd.

accepting the most successful system is never absurd.

The Ptolemaic system is the most unsuccessful system, not the most successful. The Ptolemaic system unsuccessfully predicted the center of motion in the solar system. The Pythagorean (i.e. Atlantean) system is the most successful and you don't seem to accept it.

Do you think that the scientific truths of today are identical to those of a century ago?...of a millenium ago?

If something is true, then it is identical to the truth millenia ago. Even scientists living centuries ago understood the universe better than scientists today.

You're holding out that the Sun may actually be the center of the Universe?!

The Sun is the center of the solar system hence the word solar. Only a mainstream scientist living today or in the past few hundred years would be gullible enough to think the Sun is the center of the universe.

Why do you believe that universal gravitation needs a center?

Newton and the hypothesis of gravitation specifically require absolute space and time.

You've obviously never read Newton and therefore don't understand gravitation.

Science does not claim such a thing.

I agree that gravitation is not science.

Gravitation relies upon absolute motion, absolute space, and absolute Cartesian coordinates, all of which are imaginary and do not exist in nature.

Science does not claim that gravitation depends on these factors.

I agree that gravitation and relativity cannot be considered to be science.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

In fact, science accepts General Relativity which describes gravity using concepts that are relative, not absolute.

You don't understand general relativity either. Relativity specifically relies upon absolute spacetime.

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." -- Hermann Minkowski, mathematician, September 1908

Did they have supercomputers, Total Science?

Quite obviously but you're not impressed by advanced technology and computing.

1st object: A curious phenomenon from which they never benefited.

Why do you think batteries are curious? This just goes to demonstrate exactly how far ahead of you the ancients were. The ancients understood what batteries are and how to benefit from them and you don't. All of this does is prove my point. Contemporary man is an absolutely clueless caveman and the people in the past were actually living in a world of advanced science and technology millenia ahead of our contemporary stone-age hunter-gatherer capacities.

It couldn't have been too important if I never heard of it.

LOL. Typical arrogance of someone who has only been on one planet.

3rd object: Myth.

Why do you think helicopters are myths?

In fact, helicopters exist and have been known since ancient times.

"Well it's certainly plagiarism. Today obviously people would be horrified if previous authors were not acknowledged but I think in those days it was accepted. Now, just take Leonardo Da Vinci for a moment. He suddenly produces, out of the blue, drawings of helicopters, submarines, parachutes, machine guns, bazookas, underwater swimmers, paddlewheel ships, God knows what, as if by magic they appear in his brilliant and wonderful drawings. Well, as I explain in the book [1434], there is nothing there original. Everything which Leonardo drew were improvements on an earlier Italian, called Francesco Di Giorgio, whose notebooks Leonardo possessed and copied and improved on. And Di Giorgio was not original either. He copied everything from another Italian an earlier Italian called [Mariano] Taccola. Now my book then shows the link between Taccola and the Chinese. So none of of them, Taccola, Di Georgio, Leonardo, not one acknowledged where he got his information from." -- Gavin Menzies, historian, June 2008

Brimstone and fire are not nucleons.

Brimstone and fire are made of atoms and nucleons...

Atoms were discovered by people who lived millenia before the 20th century stone-age.

Smoke is not a nucleon.

Smoke is made up of atoms and nucleons and if you knew what a shot looks like you would know they produce a column of smoke. The ancients understood nuclear weapons; you don't.

Don't you find it curious, Total Science, that not 1 of these tremendous, alleged weapons has survived to this day? I mean, there must have been oodles of them used in battle long ago.

I don't find it curious because 21st century stone-age hunter-gatherers have devolved too much to recognize, let alone produce, such weapons.

Funny how none of their supposed high-tech gizmos ever made it to our day.

The people in our day aren't intelligent enough and are too devolved to produce such weapons.

Simple observation, coupled with the simplest of deduction, does not science make.

Yes it does. That is precisely what makes science.

Science does not have absolute knowledge of past goings-on.

Real science does and it's called history (e.g. Plato).

The fake 21st century stone-age hunter-gatherer myths about the past that you are going on about (e.g. gravitation and general relativity) cannot be considered to be science.

Perhaps, it takes a long time.

Forever.

Perhaps, they are perfectly fit for their environment.

Perhaps they aren't.

Science has fossilized bacteria in its possession?!

There hasn't been any real science for millenia, but yes, 21st century stone-age hunter gatherers have fossils in their possession but they have no idea what to make of them. Grunting at them doesn't seem to help any.

Is there a test that only YOU have, Total Science, that can confirm the veracity of Pythagoras' claim?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassi ... 07967.html

"And he [Pythagoras], after having enquired into physics, combined with it astronomy, geometry, and music." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

"He [Pythagoras] declared ... that the nature of the cosmos is according to musical harmony, wherefore the sun makes his journey rhythmically." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

"He himself [Pythagoras] could hear the harmony of the Universe, and understood the universal music of the spheres, and of the stars which move in concert with them, and which we cannot hear because of the limitations of our weak nature. This is testified to by ... Empedocles." -- Porphyry, philosopher, 3rd century

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

[Joe]

The reason why we have science is to succeed, not to fail.

Failure is a necessary by-product of the process that we call Science.

It's a fact that it's absurd.

To what do you contribute the 1,500-year acceptance of the Ptolemaic system over a Heliocentrist one?

The Ptolemaic system is the most unsuccessful system, not the most successful.

On the contrary, its successes were very real, and practical.

The Ptolemaic system unsuccessfully predicted the center of motion in the solar system.

If, by this, you mean that the Ptolemaic system did not foresee Heliocentrism, then you are right.
But, this is the reason for which we stopped using the Ptolemaic system long ago.

The Pythagorean (i.e. Atlantean) system is the most successful and you don't seem to accept it.

1. I never heard of it.
2. Did this "Atlantean" system predict eclipses, and other ephemeral events, with the predictatory power of the Ptolemaic system?

If something is true, then it is identical to the truth millenia ago.

Give us, specifically, the equations for gravity, EM, and nuclear interactions that were used millenia ago. And, please, give references. Thanks.

Newton and the hypothesis of gravitation specifically require absolute space and time.

You should not synonymize Newton with gravitation; Newton was a man, and gravitation is a natural phenomenon.
Newton had his ideas about gravitation, but these are not the final word on the matter. It is true that his ideas included the concepts of absolute time and space, but these were not wrong in themselves. They formed part of a coherent system. But, it was superceded by the concept of inertial reference-frame, introduced by Lange in the last quarter of the 19th century. And, even this concept is but a limiting case of the more comprehensive concept of non-inertial reference-frame. And, this is where we are today.
Still, you should not imagine that absoluteness is without logic or merit. For example, a measurement of absolute -not relative- speed of rotating binary stars is the quantity that is demanded by the formula for determining the aberration of the light emanating from them.

gravitation and relativity cannot be considered to be science

Gravitation is the general discussion of a natural phenomenon.
Relativity is a specific approach to this natural phenomenon.
Why do you believe that neither one merits the label of Science?
How do you define Science?

Relativity specifically relies upon absolute spacetime.

Why do you place the adjective 'absolute' before the noun 'spacetime'? I've never read it this way.

Quite obviously

Obvious, eh?
Can you show us a photograph of an ancient supercomputer? If so, then it will be obvious.

The ancients understood what batteries are and how to benefit from them and you don't.

They did not ask scientific questions.
They tinkered with this curious phenomenon. It did not even rise to the level of technology.
How exactly did they benefit from them?

Typical arrogance of someone who has only been on one planet.

Yeah...I've only spent time on 1 planet...please, forgive me.
Sooo...you've visited other planets, then?

drawings of helicopters, submarines, parachutes, machine guns, bazookas, underwater swimmers, paddlewheel ships

And, drawings of very general ideas are all that the ancients had. These are modern inventions.

Atoms were discovered by people who lived millenia before the 20th century stone-age.

False. Modern scientists discovered atoms, using the Scientific Method.
Ancient philosophers entertained many possibilities about matter. But, these were ideas generally founded upon a lack of experimentation. The ancients were far from the Scientific Method.

if you knew what a shot looks like you would know they produce a column of smoke

1. What is a "shot"?
2. How do you know that this "shot" is responsible for the physical devastation in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

I don't find it curious because 21st century stone-age hunter-gatherers have devolved too much to recognize, let alone produce, such weapons.

Sooo...these super-advanced, ancient weapons are in our midst, but they are invisible to us because we lack the intelligence to recognize them? And, if a monkey tripped over a supercomputer created by Man, would the monkey actually see it when he turned around to investigate the cause of his tumble?

That is precisely what makes science.

False. That is precisely what makes 'common sense'.

Forever.

How do you know that an animal would take forever to evolve?

Perhaps they aren't.

If animals were not fit for their environment, they would not survive. And, yet, they survive.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassi ... 07967.html

What has NASA to do with the discussion of the concepts of deliberation and reason in the thought-world of Pythagoras?


-Joe

[Total Science]

To what do you contribute the 1,500-year acceptance of the Ptolemaic system over a Heliocentrist one?

Infinite human stupidity and the childish gullibility of modern mathematicians and scientists.

its successes were very real, and practical.

And it's failures even more real and impractical.

If, by this, you mean that the Ptolemaic system did not foresee Heliocentrism, then you are right.

That's not what I mean. The Ptolemaic model did see heliocentrism and wrongly rejected it. Such are the endless failures and errors of mainstream science.

But, this is the reason for which we stopped using the Ptolemaic system long ago.

The ancient Indian gymosophists and the Pythaogreans never used the Ptolemaic system.

The Pythagorean (i.e. Atlantean) system is the most successful and you don't seem to accept it.

1. I never heard of it.

On account of ignorance and a lack of education.

2. Did this "Atlantean" system predict eclipses, and other ephemeral events, with the predictatory power of the Ptolemaic system?

Yes. Indeed.

"... he [Thales] is said to have been the first who studied astronomy, and who foretold the eclipses and motions of the sun, as Eudemus relates in his history of the discoveries made in astronomy; on which account Xenophanes and Herodotus praise him greatly; and Heraclitus and Democritus confirm this statement." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"He [Anaximander] said that certain fiery exhalations exist in those places where the stars appear, and by the obstructions of these exhalations come eclipses." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

"He [Anaxagoras] was the first [Greek] to determine the facts about eclipses and renewals of light." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

Give us, specifically, the equations for gravity, EM, and nuclear interactions that were used millenia ago. And, please, give references. Thanks.

They were far more advanced than we are now and you no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

"The thunderbolt steers the course of all things." -- Herakleitos, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

"The mind has lost it's cutting edge, we hardly understand the Ancients." -- Grégoire de Tours, historian, 6th century

"The atomic theory, adopted later by the Epicureans, came to us, and she is still professed today by the majority of chemists. It thus seems that it is by a kind of natural affinity that the alchemists reported their origins to Democritus." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1885

"... people living over seven thousand years ago may have possessed technical knowledge in astronomy and physics more advanced than our current understanding of the same subjects." -- Robert M. Schoch, geologist, 2002

"We get a sense that the significance of [Laird] Scranton's work, he is showing that, he is showing in a way that's practically incontrovertible, that the ancients had our science." -- John A. West, egyptologist, December 2003

"It is clear from many fragments of evidence, traditions and lore that we have an incomplete picture of the earliest days of human civilization. It's possible that whole civilizations, some with advanced technology, have come and gone." -- Stephen Wagner, author, February 2004

"If you look at practically any of the writings of ancient civilizations, the ancient Sanskrit writings of India are the ones I'm most familiar with, speak of spaceships, of weapons resembling our modern weapons, they had, apparently, the ability to look inside the human embryo and see what was going on, so, it appears, yes, ancient peoples did have quite a bit of knowledge that perhaps, some of it that we're rediscovering." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, August 2006

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by [Anthony] Peratt's petroglyphs. They chose, for some strange reason, to disguise their knowledge by creating myths and legends in archaic petroglyphs and mythological symbols." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... r-map.html

Newton and the hypothesis of gravitation specifically require absolute space and time.

You should not synonymize Newton with gravitation; Newton was a man, and gravitation is a natural phenomenon.
Newton had his ideas about gravitation, but these are not the final word on the matter.

Newton invented the myth of gravitation. You either beleive it or you don't. I don't and from what you are saying it sounds like you reject Newtonian gravitation as well. You are wise to do so.

It is true that his ideas included the concepts of absolute time and space, but these were not wrong in themselves.

I agree that Newton and Einstein were wrong about gravitation, space, time, and the universe.

Why do you believe that neither one merits the label of Science?

Because science is supposed to be about what's true not about what's false. And Universal Gravitaion and General Relativity are false.

How do you define Science?

Science is knowledge.

Why do you place the adjective 'absolute' before the noun 'spacetime'? I've never read it this way.

That's because you don't read what I post and you've never read Newton or Einstein.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

Can you show us a photograph of an ancient supercomputer? If so, then it will be obvious.

They did not ask scientific questions.

You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... ogy.turkey

"In my opinion, the people who carved them were asking themselves the biggest questions of all. What is this universe? Why are we here?"

"And he [Pythagoras], after having enquired into physics, combined with it astronomy, geometry, and music." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

How exactly did they benefit from them?

They benefited from science the same way the rest of the world does.

Modern scientists discovered atoms, using the Scientific Method.

You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education.

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

"Democritus ... introduced atoms ...." -- Plutarch, historian, 1st century

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

"The atomic theory, adopted later by the Epicureans, came to us, and she is still professed today by the majority of chemists. It thus seems that it is by a kind of natural affinity that the alchemists reported their origins to Democritus." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1885

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"Democritus understood that the complex forms, changes, and motions of the material world all derived from the interaction of very simple moving parts. He called these parts atoms." -- Carl Sagan, cosmologist, 1980

1. What is a "shot"?

I rest my case. The ancients understood the atom and you don't.

[Total Science]

And one last point.

Ptolemy wasn't born until approximately 90 A.D.

By that time over 600 years of eclipses had already been successfully prophesied based upon the heliocentric model.

"... there was war between the Lydians and the Medes for five years; each won many victories over the other, and once they fought a battle by night. They were still warring with equal success, when it happened, at an encounter which occurred in the sixth year, that during the battle the day was suddenly turned to night. Thales of Miletus had foretold this loss of daylight to the Ionians, fixing it within the year in which the change did indeed happen. So when the Lydians and Medes saw the day turned to night, they stopped fighting, and both were the more eager to make peace." -- Herodotos, historian, Book I, ~440-420 B.C.

"Among the Greeks, Thales the Milesian first investigated the subject [eclipses], in the fourth year of the forty-eighth olympiad, predicting the eclipse of the sun which took place in the reign of Alyattes, in the 170th year of the City . After them Hipparchus calculated the course of both these stars for the term of 600 years, including the months, days, and hours, the situation of the different places and the aspects adapted to each of them; all this has been confirmed by experience, and could only be acquired by partaking, as it were, in the councils of nature. These were indeed great men, superior to ordinary mortals, who having discovered the laws of these divine bodies, relieved the miserable mind of man from the fear which he had of eclipses, as foretelling some dreadful events or the destruction of the stars." -- Pliny the Elder, historian, 77

[Birkeland]

They were far more advanced than we are now and you no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

He don't have to. The burden of proof is on you.

Argument from ignorance
James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Can't Prove a Negative

[Total Science]

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"... nobody remembers anything, not even poems." -- Jaime Manrique, author, 1999

[Total Science]

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

Was the Trojan War faught with atomic bombs?

[Joe]

Infinite human stupidity

Humans have their foibles by their very nature. And, this is true even for your vaunted ancients. But, no person is all-stupid.

gullibility of modern mathematicians and scientists

Gullibility occurs when we suspend our critical faculties. The application of logic and the Scientific Method will always steer us right.

And it's failures even more real and impractical.

As I've already mentioned, failure is part of science because science is progress.

The Ptolemaic model did see heliocentrism and wrongly rejected it.

The followers of the Ptolemaic system were not without enough cause to rightly accept a Geocentric paradigm. The cause, for the most part, being success in prediction.

Such are the endless failures and errors of mainstream science.

As I've said, just par for the course.

The ancient Indian gymosophists and the Pythaogreans never used the Ptolemaic system.

Well, bully for them. But, they also never came near to the predictive power of the Ptolemaic system.

On account of ignorance and a lack of education.

So, why don't YOU educate us about this "Atlantean" system?

"... he [Thales] is said to have been the first who studied astronomy, and who foretold the eclipses and motions of the sun

"...motions of the sun..." Hold on, here. You're telling us that this individual is a Heliocentrist, and then you put up a quote indicating otherwise.

"He [Anaximander] said that certain fiery exhalations exist in those places where the stars appear, and by the obstructions of these exhalations come eclipses." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

How does this vindicate Heliocentrism?

"He [Anaxagoras] was the first [Greek] to determine the facts about eclipses and renewals of light." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

See my previous answer.

They were far more advanced than we are now and you no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Your statement is illogical. It's not for me to prove a negative, but for you to prove a positive.
Also, I've asked for specific equations, with references, that you contend that the ancients had. And, you have not provided me with them.

They chose, for some strange reason, to disguise their knowledge by creating myths and legends in archaic petroglyphs and mythological symbols." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

No, they could not disguise something that they never possessed.

Newton invented the myth of gravitation. You either beleive it or you don't.

I'm wise enough to believe in scientific progress.

I agree that Newton and Einstein were wrong about gravitation, space, time, and the universe.

Ideas are stepping-stones in our scientific progress.

science is supposed to be about what's true not about what's false

Truth is an elusive goal, not a fait-accompli.

Science is knowledge.

How do you define knowledge?

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

I asked about the placement of the adjective 'absolute' before the term 'spacetime', and then you quote Newton explaining time -and not 'spacetime'.

Also, you consider that the image that you've posted is a supercomputer? Well, I think that that supercomputer needs a hand-crank!

You say that on account of ignorance and a lack of education.

You've taken my quote out of its context. When I said that they never asked scientific questions, I was referring to the builders of the Baghdad Battery, who obviously never went further with it.

They benefited from science the same way the rest of the world does.

Be specific, please. How exactly did the ancients benefit from these batteries?

"Democritus ... introduced atoms ...." -- Plutarch, historian, 1st century

I've already explained to you that the ancients entertained many ideas about nature. It is not beyond simple reasoning to conclude that matter is corpuscular at a very small level. And, leaving out the other innumerable utterances that have been proven false over time is disingenuous on your part.

I rest my case.

All that I did was ask for the definition of the word 'shot'. And, for this, I have been judged.


-Joe

[Joe]

Thales of Miletus had foretold this loss of daylight to the Ionians, fixing it within the year in which the change did indeed happen.

Assuming that this is not a myth, where does it say that Thales used a Heliocentric model?

Hipparchus calculated the course of both these stars for the term of 600 years

Again, assuming that this is not a myth, where does it say that Hipparchus used a Heliocentric model?
Also, if, by the phrase "both these stars", we mean the Sun and Moon, then Hipparchus believed that the Sun was also moving, as well as the Moon. And, that, of course, would make him a Geocentrist!
(You've accused me of not reading your work. Try reading YOUR OWN work before posting. This is not the first time that you've mistaken a quote.)

discovered the laws of these divine bodies

Equations, please.

relieved the miserable mind of man from the fear which he had of eclipses, as foretelling some dreadful events or the destruction of the stars

I doubt very much that the mass of human beings were ever afraid of eclipses. Let's face it, nothing terrible ever really happened in connection with eclipses. You can only cry "Wolf!" so many times.


-Joe

[Joe]

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

How about quoting a little more? You have a tendency to make things appear as you would like.
This sounds too much like a volcano, and nothing like a nuclear detonation.


-Joe

[Joe]

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer

Was the Trojan War faught with atomic bombs?

Just because a few ancients believed in corpuscular interactions at a very small level does not mean that they did what we consider is advanced research by today's standard. And, because of this, the ancients most certainly did not possess atomic bombs. Where did they get the power to refine the fuel?


-Joe

[Grey Cloud]

Hey Joe,
Take no notice of Total Science he likes to (mis)quote things he has not read and/or not understood. See:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =30#p28388

Titus Lucretius Carus
Of the Nature of Things
Again, all things by fire consumed ablaze,
Within their frame lay up, if naught besides,
At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under,
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide.
If, with like reasoning of mind, all else
Thou traverse through, thou wilt discover thus
That in their frame the seeds of many things
They hide, and divers shapes of seeds contain.
Further, thou markest much, to which are given
Along together colour and flavour and smell,
Among which, chief, are most burnt offerings.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lucreti ... hap10.html