Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

originally posted by: Dolour
First of all he DOES say "Realize that every single physics textbook is wrong!"
wich isnt that far from my original wording.
He then proceeds with the statement regarding dark matter quoted by you.

In context, re: dark matter, given that it's a relatively recent discovery. It doesn't say "Anything EVER written in ANY science book is WRONG!". That's not even close.

Again did you not bother to waste a single second, otherwise youd figured its the first result...
And sayd statement can be explained in pretty simple terms: singularity and any factor containing distance related operators dont go well togeather.

Please simply post a scientific source for your claim. I'm not interested in wild google goose chases.

its his statement, not mine. the quotation, quoted by you again btw, is exact, and just a synonyme for my wording.

Please simply post a scientific source for your claim. I'm not interested in wild google goose chase.

your trolling me again? what happens to the speed of light if space ceases to exist?

The experimental proof would inevitably fail, and what did Fineman say about theories not making it through experimental verification?
...oooooooh....
/edit: just for clarification: if space would be compressed to a infinitesimal small point, lightspeed would become inifite, and since its a multiplicator ENERGY would become infinitely large, wich doesent make any sense at all.

Maybe some basic Physics lessons would be a good point on your personal agenda...

a reply to: Dolour

I'm only asking for a scientific source for your claim. I won't bother asking again as this is like the 4th time already.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Dolour

I'm only asking for a scientific source for your claim. I won't bother asking again as this is like the 4th time already.

The equation itself is the scientific source, you wont find any mainstream science articles falsifying fundamental beliefes.
What you do find however are all kinds of "workarounds" to make the standard model "work by force"(again).
We need arbitrary frames to prevent nasty infinities.

/edit: just lean back for a minute and reflect about what einstein sayd about simple equations, then have a look at the standard modell-mess, and then rethink einsteins statement again...
maybe then youll realize that we "somewhere on the road" made a fundamental flaw in our conception, that ultimately led to this horribly complex "ugliness" we refer to as standard-model.
nature works with SIMPLE terms!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

wait wait, i've read about this.
conditions exist that violate the null energy condition. i learned this while studying about a new type of wormhole that was discovered that generated its own exotic matter.

originally posted by: Dolour
just lean back for a minute and reflect about what einstein sayd about simple equations, then have a look at the standard modell-mess, and then rethink einsteins statement again...
maybe then youll realize that we "somewhere on the road" made a fundamental flaw in our conception, that ultimately led to this horribly complex "ugliness" we refer to as standard-model.
nature works with SIMPLE terms!

Einstein was smart, but not smart enough to tell nature how it's supposed to behave.

We don't dictate to nature how it behaves, nature reveals to us how it behaves. In some sense Einstein understood this very well, but in another sense he didn't want to accept what nature revealed in observation and experiment, as he seemed to be in denial about some aspects of quantum mechanics.

I think Einstein's approach of dictating to nature how it's supposed to behave is fundamentally flawed. In contrast, I think Feynman got it right. He said nature could be exceedingly simple (as Einstein suggested), or it could be exceedingly complex, but whichever way it is, we need to let nature reveal itself to us the way it actually is, which is paraphrased, but there's the actual quote from 45:25 in this video:

I'm just looking to find out more about the world. If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers ... then that's the way it is. But whatever way it comes out, nature's there and she's going to come out the way she is. When we go to investigate it, we shouldn't pre-decide what we're trying to do except find out more about it.

-Richard Feynman

So which makes more sense, dictating to Nature how it must behave, or observing nature and letting nature reveal to us how it behaves?

originally posted by: Dolour

just saying, if your incapable of utilizing google(wich every kiddo can do with ease), chances arent that great for you beeing the one to ask if it comes to in-depht physics...

Ability to use google does not equate understanding of in-depth physical concepts, nor is it better than a rounded education. Just saying.

One of the more basic justifications of E=mc^2 is simply to look at radioactive decay. The Q value or decay energy is directly related to the change in binding energy of a nucleus before and after the decay. If you look at an easy to model nucleus say for example tritium, you can actually look at the decay profile, look at the energy of the electrons and make a very detailed map of the endpoint energy of the decay. What you find is that it comes out exactly at the point that is the energy of the decay, from Tritium to Helium-3

Understanding how nuclear species decay is somewhat fundamental to many things we do day to day. Most commonly power generation. To suggest that it is wrong, we simply would not know how much power nuclear power generators will make when we set them up. We would also not understand or know anything about how the sun generates power. Yet we do know those things, since we have mounted a great deal of evidence for.

a reply to: ErosA433

We would also not understand or know anything about how the sun generates power.

you guess and calculate
others think different

a reply to: KrzYma

We observe, and theorize... They are quite different things to simply guessing.

If you knew anything about the history of solar neutrino measurements you would see that a theorist (John Bachall) had a model of what he thought the Solar Core activity must be, to produce the amount of energy we see the sun emanating each second. This theory had an important prediction, that is a solar neutrino flux.

Experimentalists went out and attempted to measure it. At first the measurements did not match observations, they where about 1/3rd of the expected flux. So the experimentalists went back to the drawing board, John went back to the drawing board, and he came back with a more detailed calculation and even with more complex theory it was still quite close to his original.

The experimentalists change their methods, but still they had observed reduced flux.

Now other theorists had predicted the possibility that if neutrinos had mass, they change flavour as they propagate. The experiment Super Kamiokande was tasked to observe neutrinos from high energy cosmic ray showers, what they saw is that muon type neutrinos had oscillated into a different type depending upon the distance travelled exactly as predicted by the theory.

So was all good? we can add a fudge factor? Well no we cant, so Experimentalists came up with an idea of using Heavy water in a detector to allow separation of all types of neutrino interactions. They were able to use this detector (SNO) to determine the flux of electron-neutrinos and the flux of all neutrino types. The experiment was able to account for all the expected neutrino flux from the sun. John Bachall's model was very accurate.

So lets just say a little bit more evidence based physics went into solar neutrinos than I have ever seen from self appointed expert EU Prophets, secondly, while it is a very nit picking thing, evidence shows that the narrator has not really got any experience in the field of neutrino physics, not being able to pronounce super Kamiokande correctly... seriously, while that should be unimportant, it shows a lack of exposure to the field he is speaking about.... anyway, nitpick as i said

Secondly, all neutrino flavours are produced on the sun... mmmmm I doubt this given the energy required to produce a tau...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

We don't dictate to nature how it behaves, nature reveals to us how it behaves. In some sense Einstein understood this very well, but in another sense he didn't want to accept what nature revealed in observation and experiment, as he seemed to be in denial about some aspects of quantum mechanics.

No he wasn't. He brought up very important conceptual difficulties which sparked a large subfield of quantum mechanics, and the modern theoretical approaches are quite different from the 1930's orthodoxy.

Though some proposed theories of his turned out not to be true---the experimental evidence was not known until after he passed. And increasing work on chaos and decoherence had not been developed. Can you blame him for that?

So, Einstein was not "in denial" (which means to me not accepting high-quality theoretically sound interpretations of experimental evidence).

Ability to use google does not equate understanding of in-depth physical concepts, nor is it better than a rounded education. Just saying.

education is memorized knowledge, wich is =/ intelligence.
solving problems(like googling the right link if your given a term to search for, and a related topic) on the other hand does require brains.
...just saying.

Understanding how nuclear species decay is somewhat fundamental to many things we do day to day.

And why exactly would the assumption that matter is a product of spacetime change atomic decay?
It doesent really matter weather a particle containins energy, or beeing provided with it.
Im not challanging anything thats experimentally proven(and for that matter atomic clocks are a pretty convincing one), but the underlying nature of matter!

Your again ignoring strong evidence wich indicates our current metaphysical model(yes, even our MSC theories are built uppon a metaphysical "idea") is flawed.
Assuming matter not IS condensed energy, but merly the product of energy infused by the environment, gets rid of some of the most mind boggling paradoxons, like the sigularity crux.
Quantum-mechanics, and the FACT that particles cant just exist "everywhere", but only in areas where "constructive interferences"(i put it in quotes bc i dont know the english term) occour, is a VERY strong indicator for frequency and interference being matters origin.

If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers ...

i too agree on the universe being like an onion with tons, if not unlimited ammounts, of layers(holographic universe and stuff), wich doesent mean its awfully complicated.
You just need to understand the pattern with wich the onion "layers", wich by itself, if watched layer by layer, could be pretty simple.

We don't dictate to nature how it behaves, nature reveals to us how it behaves.

yet we do the complete opposite, and invent "dark matter" and "dark energy" to dictate it how it has to behave.

So which makes more sense, dictating to Nature how it must behave, or observing nature and letting nature reveal to us how it behaves?

good question. does science actually take observations not fitting the model into account AT ALL, or is it trying to dictate natures behaviour, despite what experiments reveal?

originally posted by: mbkennel
No he wasn't. He brought up very important conceptual difficulties which sparked a large subfield of quantum mechanics, and the modern theoretical approaches are quite different from the 1930's orthodoxy.

Though some proposed theories of his turned out not to be true---the experimental evidence was not known until after he passed. And increasing work on chaos and decoherence had not been developed. Can you blame him for that?

So, Einstein was not "in denial" (which means to me not accepting high-quality theoretically sound interpretations of experimental evidence).

I qualified my statement by saying "In some sense Einstein understood this very well", so it wasn't complete denial, but he did reject the lack of deterministic causality. I think we've danced this dance before about Einstein's "God doesn't play dice" where you don't see it as a form of denial but I and many others do because I think there was already evidence to the contrary, so maybe we have to agree to disagree:

Quantum mechanics

Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept many of the more "philosophical consequences and interpretations" of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality. He is famously quoted as saying, in response to this aspect, "My God does not play with dice".

Here are Einstein's own words:

www.informationphilosopher.com...

We have become Antipodean in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.

(The Born-Einstein Letters, p.146)

To me this echoes my comment about acceptance of the evidence yet denial (of the fundamental dice-game).
He's aware enough that his view departs from the evidence that he comments "our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility". If that's not enough, he says he was more convinced by his little finger than by the evidence, so how is this not a form of denial?

I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is, I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand.

(The Born-Einstein Letters, p.155)

By the way, I'm not saying his little finger was wrong, it could eventually be proven right, but what I am arguing is he wasn't convinced by the evidence.

a reply to: ErosA433

We observe, and theorize...

yes, sorry, no guessing, I see...

Secondly, all neutrino flavours are produced on the sun... mmmmm I doubt this given the energy required to produce a tau...

I assume you will also deny the Sun is liquid like proposed here

originally posted by: KrzYma
yes, sorry, no guessing, I see...

It's a three step process:
1. Guess
2. Make a model based on the guess
3. Make observations or perform experiments to see if they match the model. If they do, the guess might be right, experiment more to confirm. If they don't the guess was wrong.

In electric universe, quite frankly I don't even see step 2 as there's no coherent model. Even the electric universe guys don't agree with each other, and they never seem to get to step 3. The steps are explained here:

I assume you will also deny the Sun is liquid like proposed here

You could at least quote a time index, I made it through the first half and he never mentioned liquid once, but even if he did, I thought EU theory at least agreed with mainstream that the sun is plasma, as in solid, liquid, gas, then plasma being the 4th state of matter? So now it's not plasma but a liquid?

so, you take one thing that i disagreed with and used it to ask a question totally unrelated. Good logic there.

The sun is most definitely made up of hot plasma, this is not disputed. Its modelling can be done as both a liquid fluid dynamics or as plasma, to the zero order this works very well. It is the same for the internal structure. Models based upon what we know about fluids and thermodynamics in such systems determines when conditions will create convection cells.

I have done those calculations myself, and what we know about the sun through looking at the sun, and also listening to it pulsate seem to give a thumbs up the models.

Arb is right, it is a multi step process and there is often guessing involved, this is correct. But those guesses are always studied and it is always a goal of a scientist to figure out if those guesses are reasonable and replace them when they can be replaced by something that is not a guess.


We don't dictate anything about dark matter, to say this is not to understand the observations or to outright deny they have any credit. We observe galaxies and the motion of the observable gas is far to fast outside the inner part of the galaxy. There are many many many dark matter models... I shall find a venn diagram with them all on if you care to look... saw one at a conference recently, was pretty awesome to see

a reply to: ErosA433

I think the question here will be, why do someone expects certain particles to be produced. Right ?
Isn't this coming from first, the theory itself and its expectations and secondly, from particle collider experiments somehow mistaken (collision results) as what fusion results "should be" ?
You know it's just mathematics on work in all theory predictions.
Is there any working fusion reactor somewhere to check the outcomes if they come as predicted ?
any hot fusion working in experiments or just collisions for a fraction of time ?

a reply to: KrzYma

You too quickly dismiss things.

I think you are trying to ask, why do we expect certain particles to be produced? Well we have through many years of experimentation discovered lots of different types of particles. Watching them decay in certain ways, and not other ways, developed into the Standard Model of particle physics. The behaviour of high energy particles is extremely important and of interest.

What you need to look at is available energy in a reaction and understand that energy is quantized. Energy transport is performed via mass movement or by radiation. Plasma at the photosphere is at a temperature of around 4500-6500 Kelvin. Particles colliding with thermal energy do not have the thermal energy to create higher order particles in the standard model. So lets go with the video and say "Oh it is produced in electrostatic discharges" OK well first, I don't think we have observed lightening in the same manner as is generated on the Earth. We do observe solar flares which are mass ejections from the sun. The total energy of these events is large, but that energy is in momentum of pushing material away from the sun, it doesn't appear to be expended in the production of muons and tau particles which are required if you are to produce the neutrinos too. I do not see a mechanism to produce GeV level gammas, or have that energy to produce multi-GeV collisions. The content of the solar wind is also known to be mainly hydrogen, helium and the rest being trace elements at a similar abundance as is observed by spectral lines of the solar atmosphere.

It is a logical step that if heavy ions are produced by the stellar atmosphere, then the content of these ions in the stellar atmosphere should increase with time. As much as I am aware, this is not happening.

Mistakes made in collision results? Well maybe, but there is a hell of a lot of data, we are not talking about pioneer days of particle physics, we are talking about many thousands of experiments performed, data carefully analysed, experiments carefully calibrated. We are talking about knowledge of radioactive decays from direct many hundreds of isotopes, in which samples are collected and experiments performed in extreme detail and control in order to determine nuclear structure. Mistakes if made would be absolutely enormous and would not have been ignored. The thing about the models is that the predictive ability is tested at all levels. A great example of how knowledge of what is happening in the physics of a nucleus and its decays is a rare type of decay known as double beta decay.

This for example is where the model predicts that certain isotopes are energetically forbidden to single beta decay. This is based on nuclear structure models. BUT if the particle performs two instantaneous beta decays, it can reach a lower energy state and such the decay is not forbidden.

This process occurs, it is predicted by nuclear structure models, and is observed. So my point (very long winded sorry) is that many of these theories have had zero order nitpickings and passed already. Many of them are on 2nd or 3rd order corrections.. What you are suggesting here is zero order corrections. Zero order corrections being where a theory kinda works, but breaks down for say 10-20% of cases. What we have data wise and model wise, is very mature. The whole reason a nuclear reactor works is because scientists spent years figuring out neutron capture spectrum... I am pretty sure that they didn't just make it up, there are piles and piles of research papers you could get, print out and fill several libraries with.... While it cannot be that they are all 100% correct, absolutely not, but they are certainly not at the level of incorrectness that is often suggested here on ATS

Zero nitpicking? Youve got to be kidding...
Whats with protons and neutrons having WAY more mass then they should?
Yeah, yeah, i know, strong force, as its allso energy, contributes to mass too(wich btw is nowhere nearly consistent with "mass quarks" being the origin of mass), and we can only see the 3 valenz-quarks of the quark-seas "top layer" anyways to begin with... -.-

I can only give you one advice. listen closely, and try to view this from a standpoint as neutral as possible for a moment.
Your above statement about countless experiments verifying the model was one of my own favorite arguments, and for amany years i did not have the shadow ofa doubt, about thousands of the brightest minds of our age, could not have overseen really alot of details, that decades of science would sure have revealed any major flaws long ago...

...until i embarked on a journey that still continues on to this day...
The first step was indeed the hardest one to make. To mentally allow myself to even consider something not beeing total rubbish, only bc alot of highly educated ppl all telling a different story.
I rarely ever bothered doubt anything published, that was widely accepted by the scientific authorities.

That was until a buddy of mine emailed me a link to a youtube video, showing an engineer going to some relic sites at Giza(i told you, try to be as objective and unbiased as possible, lol), armed with an bevelled steel square and a radius gauge.
Beeing familiar with metalworking and machine fitting my yaw dropped like 3 floors down, looking at some of the mesurements taken.
IF that stuff was handcrafted, the guy responsible mustve been some once-ina-cenury-talent, and even then it doesent explain some of the obvious toolmarks that accour if you try to get a square cut into something using a rotating tool.
Not even mentioning that one, or a handful freakin-awsomeish masonry masters couldnt really be accounted for the ammount of objects in question, looking at how much labor someone can do during a lifespan.

Like the Ramses-Statue... Mirroring the face with a graphics program reveals an AWSOME degree of symetry and accuracy regarding the radii.
One radius alone, if you want to work it out of a stone block by hand, is awfully difficult. Leave alone mirroring it and getting it right to that degree...
Its virtually impossible to achieve this wihtout a computer controlled milling maschiene.
Heck, the clearance of our robot welded cars is greater than on that thing...

Im dead serious about this: ive got no clue who or how they build all this stuff, but i bet both my arms and legs that its been maschiened.
Go search for anyone you know familiar with maschiening parts, google up this stuff, show it to him, and listen to HIS response.
I am 100% sure my words wont convince you the slightest, so please do this:
Grab an engineer buddy of yours, or anyone whos in your eyes qualified to draw serious conclusions in this regard from reviewing physical evidence, drag him in front of your computer and force him to watch that "crap".

Thisll hopefully be the beginning of your personal yourney, and the beginning of a process, that leads to the conclusion that alot of the brilliant physicists of our time didnt snap when they started to get into hindu-sanscrit and ancient stuff like that, as they grew older.
Maybe, if you allow yourself to consider this stuff not just to be "ancient religion mumbo-jumbo", you too will realize that the leftovers of theese ancient guys contain a different "metaphysical story" utilizing geometric shapes, fractals and frequency to explain the fabric of reality.

I appologize for the wall of text(id actually like to add quite a couple more sentences, but its been painful and OT enough allready :p), and if you managed to indeed stay unbiased up until now, id like "compactificate" my advice:

Embark on this yourney yourself.
Its not an easy one, granted youll have quite some shattered paradigms to digest, but sure one thats worth it!

originally posted by: ErosA433
There are many many many dark matter models... I shall find a venn diagram with them all on if you care to look... saw one at a conference recently, was pretty awesome to see

I'd be interested in seeing that Venn diagram.

originally posted by: Dolour
Zero nitpicking? Youve got to be kidding...
Whats with protons and neutrons having WAY more mass then they should?

I never heard any rule that all their mass had to be in quarks so to me it seems like they have the amount of mass they should. Everything in the universe is as it should be, including proton and neutron mass, though our understanding of the universe is still evolving and while we've got some models that make some good predictions they are surely imperfect.

I can only give you one advice. listen closely, and try to view this from a standpoint as neutral as possible for a moment.
Your above statement about countless experiments verifying the model was one of my own favorite arguments, and for amany years i did not have the shadow ofa doubt, about thousands of the brightest minds of our age, could not have overseen really alot of details, that decades of science would sure have revealed any major flaws long ago...

...until i embarked on a journey that still continues on to this day...

There are different branches of science. Some are more reliable than others at applying the scientific method, and some branches have flaws. Digging up relics from the past is an inherently somewhat inexact science due to the serendipity involved in which relics happen to be preserved whether they be fossils showing various phases of evolution or tools or machines used by stonecutters.

There can certainly be gaps in our knowledge of the history of life or technology as a result, but I don't think this is exactly a fair comparison to CERN which can perform experiments on demand designed how they want.

Feynman also thought the science of sociology wasn't very "scientific", and personally I see a lot of bias in the medical industry driven by big pharma to put people on expensive drugs when maybe there's a far better treatment available that doesn't financially benefit the drug companies.

My point is I don't accept mainstream everything and look at every claim on a case by case basis. I don't think I'm the exception in the field of science and engineering.

But mainstream physics is more "pure" than medical science with big pharma trying to get everybody on their drugs, so I see a lot less opportunities for bias in physics.

I'm not afraid to say I don't know how some of the ancient Egyptian stonecutting was done. Could they have had camels pushing a turnstile connected by a belt to rotary machines like drills and lathes? It would be cool if we could find evidence of that but I can understand why such machines wouldn't have lasted as long as the stone.

In any case, the standard model doesn't really depend on how the Egyptian stones were cut. Even if some archaeologists are wrong about their assumptions or guesses of how they were cut, and I admit that's entirely possible, I don't see how that invalidates the standard model or casts doubt on "countless experiments verifying the model". Maybe I'm misreading your post but if your intent was infer that the countless experiments on the standard model might be wrong because some archaeologists can't find ancient tools and made some wrong guesses as a result, then I must say I see those as completely different issues.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I never heard any rule that all their mass had to be in quarks so to me it seems like they have the amount of mass they should.

Your holy physics model accounts it all to particles...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur Everything in the universe is as it should be, including proton and neutron mass, though our understanding of the universe is still evolving and while we've got some models that make some good predictions they are surely imperfect.

It is as it should ge indeed, only that the standard model cant explain the observed masses. how imperfect is that?

originally posted by: ArbitrageurThere are different branches of science. Some are more reliable than others at applying the scientific method, and some branches have flaws. Digging up relics from the past is an inherently somewhat inexact science due to the serendipity involved in which relics happen to be preserved whether they be fossils showing various phases of evolution or tools or machines used by stonecutters.

*cough* i think you missed something.
After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense.
Werner Heisenberg, "Great Minds on India", Page No. 117.
maybe heisenbergs suggestion appeals more valid to you than mine...
think about it: heisenberg couldnt get his head around quantum physics, but some old swami could explain it to him.
coincidence?

originally posted by: ArbitrageurThere can certainly be gaps in our knowledge of the history of life or technology as a result, but I don't think this is exactly a fair comparison to CERN which can perform experiments on demand designed how they want.

since you apparently only listen to giants of science:
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Werner Heisenberg
There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality.
As quoted in Physics from Wholeness : Dynamical Totality as a Conceptual Foundation for Physical Theories (2005) by Barbara Piechocinska
we know that we cannot treat ANYTHING as independant entity, yet we try to SMASH particles and turn the remains into... well, independant enities...
CERN will surely bring up really interesting stuff, our commonly accepted, fundamental knowledge of the wheelwork of nature DICTATES it to be a dead and tho.

originally posted by: ArbitrageurFeynman also thought the science of sociology wasn't very "scientific", and personally I see a lot of bias in the medical industry driven by big pharma to put people on expensive drugs when maybe there's a far better treatment available that doesn't financially benefit the drug companies.

what is really scientific?
i tell you whats(per definition) is not: drawing conlusions based on believe instead of data, and conclusively ruling out stuff before investigation.
your pov is highly dependant on what your believe system accepts to be scientific, and whats nonsense.
see above, hindu swamis "coincidentially" teaching heisenberg metaphysics.
see my last post: so many giants of science recognised the value of the ancient leftovers. all snaped or got alzheimer?

originally posted by: ArbitrageurMy point is I don't accept mainstream everything and look at every claim on a case by case basis. I don't think I'm the exception in the field of science and engineering.

i suggest you read your own writings again and then reflect over that statement...

originally posted by: ArbitrageurBut mainstream physics is more "pure" than medical science with big pharma trying to get everybody on their drugs, so I see a lot less opportunities for bias in physics.

spent a weekend searching for guys whos career got destroyed bc they brought up controverse theories.
ofc im talking about those whose theories haven prooven right, or at least couldnt ever be falsified.
maybe then you realize how the scientific "industry" is a bunch of "heretic hunting paradigm obeyers" somewhat awkwardly reminding one of the churchs inquisition.
ok ppl dont get burnt alife anymore(yay progress), but have their careers destroyed and are put to silence.

originally posted by: ArbitrageurI'm not afraid to say I don't know how some of the ancient Egyptian stonecutting was done. Could they have had camels pushing a turnstile connected by a belt to rotary machines like drills and lathes? It would be cool if we could find evidence of that but I can understand why such machines wouldn't have lasted as long as the stone.

im sorry i didnt really specify this. the toolmarks point to something with great force applied and a constant feed.
you cant really achieve this without the tool being conducted by screw threads(the egyptians didnt even have wheels at that point), and the ammount of material removed, at this pretty high feedrate indicate a very sturdy tool(far far beyond anything thats not past 1900ish), and a maschiene that would easily challange nowadays affordable milling cutter models.
this is far off what you can achieve with improvized tools and camels, even if you had steel tools.

but thats pretty much why i told you to drag an engineer buddy in front of your computer.

originally posted by: ArbitrageurIn any case, the standard model doesn't really depend on how the Egyptian stones were cut.

ofc your right, this statement would be a totally different one, had you taken my advice tho.
even little effort in terms of research would have revealed a "ring" of ancient structures, wich are "likely" to share the same origin, judging from contructional features, spanning the globe.
it appears to my simple mind, that this "ring" resembles the former equator(noone wouldnt bother to line up cities in an arbitrary ring around the globe for any reason i could think of), and sites like the one at giza were built ontop of the ruins of "pre flood" settlements, by the survivors of an earth crust shift.
allmost shock-fozen animals in sibiria, as well as trees under the antarctic ice shelf are an indicator for such an event.
wich is allso cosistent with WHY the heck those guys bilt everything out of huge blocks with varying size.
they were obsessed with making it earthquake proof, bc theyve just survived the mother of all earthquakes.

at any rate, were not talking about some afterlife-cultist bronze-age guys, but a world spanning civilization, with wewonteverfindout what technological level.
a point definetly looking into, is where pretty much all world religions tell us about a huge desaster allmost eliminating mankind.
that beforehand we all were unitied, shared the same language, and whatnot.
if several stories, from cultures that according to our knowledge should never ever have had contact with each other, all tell you the same stuff, its time to stop talking about coincidence or religious mumbo jumbo.