Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About cladking

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

10614 profile views
  1. Finally something on which we can agree. If I can say that.
  2. There are numerous ways to "cheat" gravity. We can throw ourselves forward and using our legs to convert the momentum to lifting. Essentially we can use most of our muscles to lift ourselves rather than just those designed for the task. As you get older you find that such tricks are less a luxury and more a necessity. Where you were once able to leap to your feet from a prone position in one single movement you'll find that six or eight movements become needed. They say if you can get up in two or fewer movements you won't die for five years. It's been a long time though sin
  3. I can not properly address these questions in someone else's thread. I have threads around in which I'd be happy to address them. So far as ancient technology; it is everywhere. They didn't invent agriculture based on Darwinian beliefs. They didn't use first year physics to calculate the ideal angle for "ramps". They made fantastic shapes like the tri lobed disc of Sabu by unknown means and for unknown reasons. While they had almost no words in their language most of the nouns (which all invention would need) have no known referent. It is hardly logical to assume they lacked sophis
  4. Yes!!! We are exceedingly arrogant. We see our beliefs preferentially to everything and mistake these beliefs for omniscience.
  5. We are led by our beliefs and the beliefs that we are exactly like our ancestors has led us for centuries. It did not lead the inventors of modern science and it did not lead early scientists. If we are wrong then we are off the rails. I believe the subject of this thread is critically important to the continuation of the human race. Perhaps you think that because I refer to us as "homo omnisciencis" that I have no respect for us. Far from it! Our ability to survive (and eventually prosper) despite knowing everything shows a great deal of character and countless positive traits.
  6. This is Einy and The Greeks thread so I'm not going to get into science based on logic and observation instead of experiment and observation. But the technology is everywhere. "Agriculture" was a very highly complex and multidisciplinary technology. They didn't cultivate a few crops or animals as non-human animals have but dozens of different types of plants and animals. They mined and refined metals and created alloys. They worked all sorts of stone with results that are impossible to duplicate today. They invented cities and built megaliths all over the world. Most of their acco
  7. No. No experiments because experimental science hadn't been invented yet. The Greeks were successful because they were free and were excellent observers. Yes, they obviously staged observations which is extremely similar to experiment but it misses the mark. Ancient people left numerous clues to how they invented their technology but we don't think as they did. They invented agriculture using a different kind of science that generated a different sort of technology. It is very difficult to see because all our assumptions are wrong and we can't think like they did. We are for all p
  8. "Technology" today is an outgrowth of things seen in lab experiments. The Greeks had no experiments so any technology more complex than the observation that water runs downhill was unlikely for them. If you want to find ancient science you need to look for the source of ancient technology. Unfortunately all your sources appear to be corruptions of original writing so the science would be very difficult to see here. Any science you find will necessarily correspond to ancient technology and ancient knowledge, not to modern experimental science.
  9. No. It's most probably not true. Newton studied the pyramids largely because he thought the builders knew the size of the earth (probably true) and he needed the data to test his theory of gravity. While he never found it he did ironically translate the Emerald Tablets of Hermes from Syriac to English. He was truly a remarkable man. He couldda moved heaven and earth if he had google. 😎
  10. I can't defend the idea "intelligence" exists on earth but the word appears (per Mercer) in the oldest writing known to man; 1701a. To say: Nun has begotten N. on his left hand 1701b. a child; the intelligence of N. is not. 1701c. N. is freed from the evil gods; 1701d. N. is not given to the evil gods. https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt47.htm It appears twice in fact; 411a. N. is disgusted when he licks the emetics which are in the red crown, 411b. (but) he is delighted when their magic is in his belly. 411'c. The dignities of N. s
  11. I don't rebut that. My point is that we don't know everything about anything. This leaves open the possibility that our ignorance is far broader and deeper than anyone can imagine. Even a butterfly can use hot air rising from a fire to gain altitude but that hardly means he "understands" any kind of scientific theory whatsoever. Yes. Additionally to not being able to predict the future due to chaos and subtle effects we obviously don't even know all the fundamental "laws" which govern any event.
  12. To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.
  13. Thank you for taking the time to explain that but you lost me early. By "not being able to quantify anything at all" I merely meant that no event can occur in which all variables will ever be quantifiable. We quantify conditions or possibilities using as much knowledge as we can. But words and thought are much more events than conditions. Good luck in your work.
  14. If I understand you correctly (I'm not at all sure) then our positions are not so very different. In light in the fact that we essentially exist as individuals by virtue of our ability to recognize patterns then how could it be possible to not have philosophy? So long as we use words to think how could it ever be possible to quantify words? Our primary agreement I think is that we see the quantifiable as the basis of reality but, then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.
  15. I'm a big fan of science as well. It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge. Any philosophy that denies free will or the life, liberty, and happiness.In practice there are always trade-offs but this is politics, not philosophy. Only individuals think or come up with new ideas. Only when an idea becomes theory can it benefit science or people. Of course we do! If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions. There are even sexual differences such as women tending
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.