Reply to Re: The Alienic connection
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Just a couple of comments to the things people have been saying:
Because 20+ modern day cranes, couldn't lift a single one of them. And it is said they would need a LOT more.
The problem is what is a modern day crane? The Dutch company Mammoet (who specialize in heavy lifting) state on their website that they have cranes up to 4400 tons capacity. Now the heaviest stones in the great pyramids are made from granite which has a density of about 2691 kg per cubic metre, so the maximum volume of solid granite such a crane could lift would be 4400/2.691 = 1635 cubic metre. For comparison: An olympic size swimming pool is about 2500 cubic metre. So this would imply that 20 of these cranes could lift a block of granite the size of 13 olympic size swimming pools.
While the blocks of granite in Egyptian pyramids are very impressive (up to about 80 tonnes) this is something that many mobile cranes today could lift. (For example, check out the maximul load capacities from this manufacturer.)
Clearly the argument that modern day cranes couldn't lift the heaviest of stones used in the pyramids is nonsense.
You might not know this, but high end science as performed by larger teams and provided a budget by wealthy companies or governments is very often driven by a need to get published and acknowledged by their peers. There is a gigantic pressure to be accepted within the community and to stand out by contributing something extra, but not necessarily new, to their field of expertise. There are plenty of examples of this in medicine, quantum physics and yes, history.
The saying within sience is 'publish or perish'. Getting published, and in particular getting published and cited by others is incredibly important within science. But to get attention and get published in prestigious scientific journals you need to find something new. Just publishing something that hardly raises any eyebrows in some obscure journal won't get you much recognition. Creating something extra that isn't new isn't going to get your name out there.
I can only speak for physics, because I'm not familiar with other fields. However, while it is true that publishing (and thus being acknowledged) is important, this doesn't usually lead to lies.
Scientists value the procedure more than anything. If the research is properly done, then no matter what the results are, they will be accepted. That's the whole point of scientific articles: presenting you research in a way which convinces to the reader that your results are correct.
Just having done your research done properly is by no means the sole reason for getting published. If the results are just plain uninteresting and already well established by other studies you'll have a hard time publishing your results anywhere. The real reason that lies are discouraged is that you'll usually lie to make results prettier than they are so you get appreciation. But if you find really interesting results people will want to find the same things and try to repeat your experiments. When they fail you'll get debunked.
I don't want to go as far as Skull did in trying to debunk history as made up or twisted facts, but I will say that there is a very strong drive within the scientific community to stay FAR away from things that they can not explain. The reason is not because they're not curious, but because there are soooo many precedents of scientists giving a shot at explaining things from a different corner and then being out of a job and never taken seriously again.
This isn't really true. Very often the work of the people 'giving a shot at explaining things from a different corner' is just not of very high quality. When they subsequently get ignored they start complaining that the reason they get ignored is some sort of evil conspiracy.
In reality scientists really want to explain the unexplained, and working in fields were a lot is still unknown is really popular as you can get results that are new and interesting (thus gaining the respect from your peers). Working in a well established field is much less interesting for this very same reason.
The problem is that so many people (I won't even call them scientists) want to explain unknown phenomena with some explaination that lacks substantial proof and still be appreciated as if they had actually proven something new.
In practice big changes in established theories need big proof. This is consistent with Bayesian probability theory. (Wikipedia has a lot on this if you're interested.)
Because 20+ modern day cranes, couldn't lift a single one of them. And it is said they would need a LOT more.
The problem is what is a modern day crane? The Dutch company Mammoet (who specialize in heavy lifting) state on their website that they have cranes up to 4400 tons capacity. Now the heaviest stones in the great pyramids are made from granite which has a density of about 2691 kg per cubic metre, so the maximum volume of solid granite such a crane could lift would be 4400/2.691 = 1635 cubic metre. For comparison: An olympic size swimming pool is about 2500 cubic metre. So this would imply that 20 of these cranes could lift a block of granite the size of 13 olympic size swimming pools.
While the blocks of granite in Egyptian pyramids are very impressive (up to about 80 tonnes) this is something that many mobile cranes today could lift. (For example, check out the maximul load capacities from this manufacturer.)
Clearly the argument that modern day cranes couldn't lift the heaviest of stones used in the pyramids is nonsense.
You might not know this, but high end science as performed by larger teams and provided a budget by wealthy companies or governments is very often driven by a need to get published and acknowledged by their peers. There is a gigantic pressure to be accepted within the community and to stand out by contributing something extra, but not necessarily new, to their field of expertise. There are plenty of examples of this in medicine, quantum physics and yes, history.
The saying within sience is 'publish or perish'. Getting published, and in particular getting published and cited by others is incredibly important within science. But to get attention and get published in prestigious scientific journals you need to find something new. Just publishing something that hardly raises any eyebrows in some obscure journal won't get you much recognition. Creating something extra that isn't new isn't going to get your name out there.
I can only speak for physics, because I'm not familiar with other fields. However, while it is true that publishing (and thus being acknowledged) is important, this doesn't usually lead to lies.
Scientists value the procedure more than anything. If the research is properly done, then no matter what the results are, they will be accepted. That's the whole point of scientific articles: presenting you research in a way which convinces to the reader that your results are correct.
Just having done your research done properly is by no means the sole reason for getting published. If the results are just plain uninteresting and already well established by other studies you'll have a hard time publishing your results anywhere. The real reason that lies are discouraged is that you'll usually lie to make results prettier than they are so you get appreciation. But if you find really interesting results people will want to find the same things and try to repeat your experiments. When they fail you'll get debunked.
I don't want to go as far as Skull did in trying to debunk history as made up or twisted facts, but I will say that there is a very strong drive within the scientific community to stay FAR away from things that they can not explain. The reason is not because they're not curious, but because there are soooo many precedents of scientists giving a shot at explaining things from a different corner and then being out of a job and never taken seriously again.
This isn't really true. Very often the work of the people 'giving a shot at explaining things from a different corner' is just not of very high quality. When they subsequently get ignored they start complaining that the reason they get ignored is some sort of evil conspiracy.
In reality scientists really want to explain the unexplained, and working in fields were a lot is still unknown is really popular as you can get results that are new and interesting (thus gaining the respect from your peers). Working in a well established field is much less interesting for this very same reason.
The problem is that so many people (I won't even call them scientists) want to explain unknown phenomena with some explaination that lacks substantial proof and still be appreciated as if they had actually proven something new.
In practice big changes in established theories need big proof. This is consistent with Bayesian probability theory. (Wikipedia has a lot on this if you're interested.)
