Bartholomew Jones

Because we let them think they invented the calculator; the first was five fingers on the left, and five fingers on the right.  Who made that one?

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ignorance is bliss! 🙄

You call it ignorance.  I call it not worth my time.  Like uhh, aliens, ufo's, saskwatch, ghosts and goblins, etc.

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What's bible code?

If I'm going to read a book as renowned as the Bible I'm going to consider it from the point of view of its authors, not some freakish idea of third parties, which is what bible code sounds like to me.

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What do you think he might have meant?

I've heard of bible code many times.  I've never taken it seriously enough to find out what it is.

40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

This isn't some sort of bible code stuff, is it?

What's bible code?

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Wiki.

Contemporary english.

Mine have been translated.

9 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

My sources are from the ancient Hebrews.  Yours?

Also from Aramaic

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Don't you mean energy from Samash?  The Babylonians didn't know about energy, did they?

My sources are from the ancient Hebrews.  Yours?

On 12/4/2020 at 1:04 PM, John Cuthber said:

I'm going with "none whatsoever".
Feel free to show that I'm wrong.
 

 

Very non-scientific answer.  I expected something like: for every successive layer a season passes, during which the vivid green moss cyclically decomposes, older layers resembling petrification.  And that during each cycle exchanges between energy from the sun and hardened minerals at greater depths exhibit new mineral formations.  Not bad for a minstrel hehh?

On 12/4/2020 at 2:38 AM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

If science is based on the footing of what we can observe and what we can predict then is advancement in science based on the tools we can use to do observation with and what we simply can't do based on laws established?

I rember reading a few months back on physicsforums, a person posted about how he thinks physics is coming to a close end because of the lack of major discovery in physics in the last 50 years and that innovation requires new foundational laws which need to be discovered , which haven't been. 

I was wondering if there will be a limit to how far we can progress in science due to limitations of tools and limits of the universe we live in. In the past they could do giant leaps in picking the low hanging fruit but now people have to specialize in taking little tiny steps like stuff you see on arXiv.

 

Sorry if this is written a little muddled up. I'm asking more than I know about. But still curious so I ask anyway. I have no real specialized knowledge in any science which you can tell by most of my posts.

I think the only limitation is those limitations IMPOSED by man; not remembering that nature is dominant.

On 12/4/2020 at 1:04 PM, John Cuthber said:

I'm going with "none whatsoever".
Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

I'm not here to show you you're wrong.  I'm here to prove a truth.  If I can avoid being banned.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’ll use GPS as an example, since I work in support of it with no commercial interest in the system.

We could use computers and the internet as commercial products based on modern science that work, and you nonetheless use.

 

Companies produce an end product directly or indirectly.  What is it?  Your customers at the end of the service line must produce something.

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yes, moss is a major contributor to soil formation where there is no soil.

How does that contradict the fact that moss grows on rock, with no soil? That's what it does, and you said it.

And more importantly, what does that have to do with the Babylonians?

If you don't subscribe to modern science, my suggestion is: Don't use electricity, ok? Use Babylonian science only.

The thread was worded and intended as a question.  It wasn't stated as something contradicting something something else.

As far as how the moss question relates to the topic, it's introductory to the topic.

And as for your kind suggestion, that's my intent.

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you have evidence that modern science has not only been infiltrated by commercial interests, but in a way that invalidates science? Otherwise, why does it matter that there are commercial applications of science?

What’s the pathway for flawed science resulting in a product that works?

 

 

What other service to mankind does modern science make?

On 11/11/2020 at 7:09 PM, Occcams5 said:

What year would be between 3000 BC 1400 AD

Unless we know the definite number of solar years there's no answer.

On 11/9/2020 at 12:44 AM, CuriosOne said:

In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world, especially the environment I "always" come across scientist whom for "political reasoning" need to bash others with discriminate words and other "in-direct" or """passive""" insults that brake forum rules systamatically to "diverge" the very fact that scientist have not one clue of what they speak of when dealing with out of the box thinkers" and authentic reasoning...

There is no such thing as a dumb question as there is no such thing as absolute concepts..

So the saying goes, there will always be better thinkers as there will always be better mouse traps, as there will always be jealousy and haters....

Because they disown their ancestry, that being philosophy.

Quote

 

I don't subscribe to modern science.  Here's why: That genuine science began as a branch of ancient philosophy.  Modern science disowns it's ancestry for the sake of modern commercial interests, primarily institutions descending from mass manufactures.

So this thread concerns the science I subscribe to, that being ancient science.  That being said, I noticed today in my natural observations, some moss growing along the railroad as I was doing my daily winter rounds for next year's crop.

And I remembered how moss will grow without soil and actually manufacture it.  I remembered how vivid green it grows even sometimes on manmade concrete.  I remembered that modern science objects, saying that the moss utilizes a minimal amount of soil in such circumstances. 

But I discovered some moss a few weeks ago growing on rock projecting laterally where soil could not have been.  And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?