Zarkov

Apparently searchers, have uncovered "living quarters" for pyramid builders, and the evidence shows that they were treated very very well, and well educated. Search google, yes I have plenty of links, but most of these are at the SSS forum, ABC, Australia. Well worth a search through our archives, it will give you not only a good read, but higher insight, and answers to many questions you may be asking. >

Yes they are quite fine structures, however there are about 100 of them. The method of building seems to be just human labour, no not slaves but dedicated highly skilled artisans. Maybe stones were transported to the site at Nile flood times, the stones were quarried quite a long way away. Getting the stones to the height required seems to have been achieved via ramps and ?? wooden wheels encircling the blocks? Who did the actual design, is a complete mystery. The engineering details are of an extreemly high level. This all adds to the mystery

Again, Thanks Blike. BTW I do not hold grudges nor do I keep peeves as pets >)

I am very pleased to announce, that discussion is now possible on Pyramid Sacred Water, in the civil engeneering catagory. Thank you, thanks >

Thanks, for reopening up this thread for comment. I am sure a lot of people would like the mysteries of the pyramids cleared up

Radical Edward, as a matter of fact there is far better explanations for all the thoughts on the galaxy. Spin gravity opens up enormously powerful explanations for a number of observed phemonena, and rational explanations at that. But of course it is under discussion, because it is rediaclly new, so in this forum that equals NO PROOF. These people really want to keep their heads in the sand.....not a good call for science!!!

First it was a typo, and I appologised.....my topic was closed. Pyramid sacred water was closed. and yes I have been unreasonable harrassed right from the start of my postings. and in reality there is NO direct evidence for a BB, it is all conjecture.

My Pyramid Sacred Water topic has been prematurely CLOSED Discussion has been destroyed

Maybe ignore that lasr post, might have been due to my machine not updating. Actually Radical Edward, there is a backgroung microwave radiation, and there is red shifts, but that is no proof of a big bang. The BB is just a theory, and the evidence you cited is taken as proof, but in reality, there are other explanations that are more realistic. Pyramid water has more proof, if it was asked for than all the Universe forming from nothing all at once and the exploding, and then becomming stable. Any reasonable scientist would severly question this. >

My posts are dissappearing into somewhere, this thread had some good support for my position, I have a copy of it. More censureship <

Radical Edward, yes I know there is suggested that there is water all over the place, but may be this came from other planets that had life on them. But that aside, water is very reactive, it is both acid and basic, it disolves almost everything in time, and the compounds formed with metals are all stable. No water would not be formed in a planet forming process. I can not talk of planet forming process unless I have evidence, but this does not stop administrators talking of big bangs, when there is no evidence. And by the way, if I make a typo, I get sin binned!!! Wow what a place to discuss science

"The lack of substantial evidence is precisely why I labelled him troll" If the administration knew even an atom of science....errr excuse me, make that an inkling (atom was too hard a concept) of science, then they would clearly see that all my posts included an immense amount of scientific thought and data. Without even enquiring how, for instance pyramids made water, the thought was dismissed out of hand, because they do not know the science AND do not want to know.... ' Well what about you readers, it is your rights they are trampling.

Sanity, one in a million, it is so hard to find in these times

No Menry. When Man meets GOD and askes the final question, and God gives the answer... Man will scratch his head ???

All nutrients, some metal ions, a lot of organics, just the way we were designed by the Creation. More away from those perscribed levels and the organism can not exist. Creating an environment that will guarantee that these required levels can be maintained but not exceeded, is the reason why LIFE is so diverse, that coupled with the recycling of nutrients (saves a lot on energy).

Cool, Aman, I understand >

Only if you hang out with trolls, Radicle E >

The discontinuity of the gist of this thread is due to censurship. Cooking utensils, and containers of food and drink have been, and still are, very important sources of contaminating toxic substances

What about salt water then Fafalone

Don't forget, the real Science forum where tolerance is practiced http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/

Thanks for the vote of sanity, Memry > Don't forget, the most tolerant forum where real science is practiced http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/

I have been informed that I am unscientific. Goodbye < If you wish to follow then log onto the ABC's Self Serve Science Forum at http://www.abc.net.au

I have been informed that I am unscientific. Goodbye < If you wish to follow then log onto the ABC's Self Serve Science Forum at http://www.abc.net.au

That's true, generally animals require stricter and stricter control of toxic inorganice, but plant life eats the stuf, sometimes gleefully, sometimes to it's detriment. Some bacteria eat rock direct, fungi often eat anything. In this way each "species" detoxifies it's environment and sets it up for the next most fastidious requirement organism. In the process of growing, all organisms remove some toxic materials from the environment, and lock them away in eg bones, leaves, fibre, lignins, and numerous other biochemicals. These locked toxic substances are thus effectively removed from the environment, making the area just a little more safe for LIFE. PS LIFE, capitals, I am referring to the whole super organism, which includes all the different types of supercells, including humans.

Fafalone, I am new here, yes I understand your dilema, but I would urge you ( I do not really care) to understand that science has a huge body of accepted data and logic. Do I need to reference well established understandings, these are the backbone. Most people are not multi disiplinary, so questions need to be asked, but does a "correct" answer need to be constantly followed by references. People must get in the habit of self check, they must decide what is truth or not. Yes my assertions are different, but they do not break any laws of science, just stand on the toes of a few cherished theories. Once again I will say questioning over time usually sort out the problem you seem to think you have >