Ancient Reality

[cladking]

Or would you like to try to learn what science is? How it is done.

You can't even understand that the better prediction almost always represents the better theory. And you want to lecture me about what science is!!!

When a theory makes nearly perfect predictions out of the clear blue you can be pretty sure it is correct.

The problem with homo omnisciencis and Peers composed of homo omnisciencis is that we all can see only evidence that supports what we believe. Everything else isn't evidence at all. Egyptologists believe hundreds of thousands of men lived and died on ramps but when I point out the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age they say it's not evidence. When I point out that it's known that the pyramid builders were men, women, and children in roughly similar numbers and all the adults displayed lots of wear on their skeletons then... ...well... ...that isn't evidence either. Even the nobles had wear on their skeletons but no evidence here.

Virtually everything known about the pyramids and the culture is not evidence to current theory!!!!!!!! That the pyramids are stepped is not evidence. That theory has made no accurate predictions in many decades is not evidence.

Meanwhile my theory not only incorporates most of what's know about the culture and pyramids but it makes one prediction after another.

Meanwhile I am left to argue with those who think Peers are the final say in what is real as the Peers Themselves refuse to methodically apply modern knowledge and science to proving my theory OR learning how the pyramids were built!!! And now the "search engines" don't return relevancies or facts and just advertisements and doctrine.


So why don't you tell me why science works. I'm sure it will be good for a chuckle though I might not respond.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think it is a good time to describe peer review here, since scientific peers and the peer review process has been mischaracterized as some sort of straw man.

In the scientific reporting process, peers are other scientists familiar with specific fields of research. They are not some faceless committee that decides the fate of scientific reports based on spurious personal opinions and irrelevant considerations. They do not pretend to know all and be the final arbiter of truth.

Peers are scientists versed in the relevant areas of research that review articles submitted for publication to ensure that articles are meaningful, accurate and that sound experimental procedures were followed in acquiring the data that the article is based on. The peer review process assists journal editors in determining whether to publish an article or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can't even understand that the better prediction almost always represents the better theory. And you want to lecture me about what science is!!!

When a theory makes nearly perfect predictions out of the clear blue you can be pretty sure it is correct.

The problem with homo omnisciencis and Peers composed of homo omnisciencis is that we all can see only evidence that supports what we believe. Everything else isn't evidence at all. Egyptologists believe hundreds of thousands of men lived and died on ramps but when I point out the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age they say it's not evidence. When I point out that it's known that the pyramid builders were men, women, and children in roughly similar numbers and all the adults displayed lots of wear on their skeletons then... ...well... ...that isn't evidence either. Even the nobles had wear on their skeletons but no evidence here.

Virtually everything known about the pyramids and the culture is not evidence to current theory!!!!!!!! That the pyramids are stepped is not evidence. That theory has made no accurate predictions in many decades is not evidence.

Meanwhile my theory not only incorporates most of what's know about the culture and pyramids but it makes one prediction after another.

Meanwhile I am left to argue with those who think Peers are the final say in what is real as the Peers Themselves refuse to methodically apply modern knowledge and science to proving my theory OR learning how the pyramids were built!!! And now the "search engines" don't return relevancies or facts and just advertisements and doctrine.


So why don't you tell me why science works. I'm sure it will be good for a chuckle though I might not respond.

You do not know science. That is clear. You make up something and call it science. It is just pretend.

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciencis. That is made up.

You do not have theories. You have beliefs.

I would say that you have come up with a belief system about the pyramids. Anyone that you have presented this belief system to recognizes it as fantastical and rejects it on its face. Because you have developed this world of confusion that you cannot separate from reality, you persist in your confusion. Anyone that points out your confusion is just reinforcing your confusion. Perhaps more so than someone that would blindly accept your nonsense claims. But I do not see that it helps to ignore the claims you make and let them go unchallenged.

No one is chuckling when we explain science and the evidence to you. Personally, I am beyond laughing this off.

 

[cladking]

They do not pretend to know all and be the final arbiter of truth.

No, you're right for once. They don't.

But you believe They are right, don't you? You believe anything that can't be Peer reviewed is nonsense, don't you?

YOU believe They are the Arbiters of truth whether you admit it or not. You can't judge truth without Guidance.

...scientists versed in the relevant areas of research that review articles...

This is the flaw in reductionistic science. ALL areas of research and even areas that are yet to be defined are relevant to all things. You can take reality apart in the lab ONLY by using experiment but it is impossible to put it back together again. You can reduce reality but not build it. You will never understand this concept because you don't know what science is or why it works and it's too late for you to learn.

Because you have developed this world of confusion that you cannot separate from reality, you persist in your confusion.

I can be wrong but apparently I'm the only one who might be wrong about anything. Even a Peer will tell you He might be wrong.

No one is chuckling when we explain science and the evidence to you.

Then by all means go ahead and tell me why it works as I ALREADY REQUESTED.

 

[cladking]

You will never understand this concept because you don't know what science is or why it works and it's too late for you to learn.

And you don't understand how or why you think or the nature of thought and consciousness. You don't understand the fundamental building blocks of life and it is not even a branch of science. Virtually nothing is known about how anything "thinks". So you can't understand the the only way to reconstruct reality is by building mental models. This means the concept of Ancient Reality is do far beyond your ken that even after Peers tell you I'm right you still won't believe it. You still won't be able to model a world where ancient reality was wholly different than yours because ancient man didn't think like you or Egyptologists. You still won't be able to see all the evidence showing I'm right.

 

[cladking]

You could think of my theory as putting the ancient world and reductionistic science back together again.

There will be a lot of splinters caused by pounding this round peg into a square hole.

Reality is far more complex than even most Peers can imagine. Every effect has a cause. And every cause has an unpredictable effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't even understand that the better prediction almost always represents the better theory. And you want to lecture me about what science is!!!

When a theory makes nearly perfect predictions out of the clear blue you can be pretty sure it is correct.

The problem with homo omnisciencis and Peers composed of homo omnisciencis is that we all can see only evidence that supports what we believe. Everything else isn't evidence at all. Egyptologists believe hundreds of thousands of men lived and died on ramps but when I point out the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age they say it's not evidence. When I point out that it's known that the pyramid builders were men, women, and children in roughly similar numbers and all the adults displayed lots of wear on their skeletons then... ...well... ...that isn't evidence either. Even the nobles had wear on their skeletons but no evidence here.

Virtually everything known about the pyramids and the culture is not evidence to current theory!!!!!!!! That the pyramids are stepped is not evidence. That theory has made no accurate predictions in many decades is not evidence.

Meanwhile my theory not only incorporates most of what's know about the culture and pyramids but it makes one prediction after another.

Meanwhile I am left to argue with those who think Peers are the final say in what is real as the Peers Themselves refuse to methodically apply modern knowledge and science to proving my theory OR learning how the pyramids were built!!! And now the "search engines" don't return relevancies or facts and just advertisements and doctrine.


So why don't you tell me why science works. I'm sure it will be good for a chuckle though I might not respond.

Uh huh. More BS. You claim "predictions" but cannot provide any. Here is what you need to do to provide a prediction. First find one that you made. It must be published at some source so that others can see it too. You cannot claim to have made a prediction if you cannot find a source where you claim is published. You need a source that you could not have edited after your posted it. This site would work since there is a limit on how long a person has to edit a post and it is on the order of a day or so. Second the prediction needs to be clear. One that is dependent on interpretation is automatically disqualified.

So lay some predictions on us baby!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you're right for once. They don't.

But you believe They are right, don't you? You believe anything that can't be Peer reviewed is nonsense, don't you?

YOU believe They are the Arbiters of truth whether you admit it or not. You can't judge truth without Guidance.



This is the flaw in reductionistic science. ALL areas of research and even areas that are yet to be defined are relevant to all things. You can take reality apart in the lab ONLY by using experiment but it is impossible to put it back together again. You can reduce reality but not build it. You will never understand this concept because you don't know what science is or why it works and it's too late for you to learn.



I can be wrong but apparently I'm the only one who might be wrong about anything. Even a Peer will tell you He might be wrong.



Then by all means go ahead and tell me why it works as I ALREADY REQUESTED.

I do not see anything that you have said on here would survive peer review since it is assertion without support, based on what you believe and not on any evidence. You don't bother with evidence and consider your assertions to be valid on the face. Often your assertions are irrational and don't even follow logic or they contradict what you asserted previously. For instance, you have a theory, but you don't have a theory. Development through the industrial revolution was incremental and took time, while you maintain the irrational belief that all change in biology is instaneous. Science is experiments and experiments are pointless. You seem to do all this unaware that you do it. It is part of your confusion.

You not only can be wrong, you are wrong.

It works by you supporting your assertions and provide logically consistent framework. It does not work with your concurrent and persistent efforts to shift away your burden of proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could think of my theory as putting the ancient world and reductionistic science back together again.

There will be a lot of splinters caused by pounding this round peg into a square hole.

Reality is far more complex than even most Peers can imagine. Every effect has a cause. And every cause has an unpredictable effect.

No. I can think of it as your belief system with no objective support and logical framework. As a system that discovers knowledge, it is nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you don't understand how or why you think or the nature of thought and consciousness. You don't understand the fundamental building blocks of life and it is not even a branch of science. Virtually nothing is known about how anything "thinks". So you can't understand the the only way to reconstruct reality is by building mental models. This means the concept of Ancient Reality is do far beyond your ken that even after Peers tell you I'm right you still won't believe it. You still won't be able to model a world where ancient reality was wholly different than yours because ancient man didn't think like you or Egyptologists. You still won't be able to see all the evidence showing I'm right.

You have the habit of responding to your own posts. I find that curious. What does that tell us? I wonder if you do this more frequently when you encounter strong resistance to your claims that your belief system is a model of reality. I'll have to look if I care to take the time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could think of my theory as putting the ancient world and reductionistic science back together again.

There will be a lot of splinters caused by pounding this round peg into a square hole.

Reality is far more complex than even most Peers can imagine. Every effect has a cause. And every cause has an unpredictable effect.

I have come to realize that you mean "peers" to be anyone that points out the failure of your model of reality to actually have any basis in reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Uh huh. More BS. You claim "predictions" but cannot provide any. Here is what you need to do to provide a prediction. First find one that you made. It must be published at some source so that others can see it too. You cannot claim to have made a prediction if you cannot find a source where you claim is published. You need a source that you could not have edited after your posted it. This site would work since there is a limit on how long a person has to edit a post and it is on the order of a day or so. Second the prediction needs to be clear. One that is dependent on interpretation is automatically disqualified.

So lay some predictions on us baby!

I predict that he will not show us anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I predict that he will not show us anything.

Wow! You may know more of the ancient sciences than @cladking . How long is a reasonable time for him to provide a prediction? Oh wait. I just thought of an answer. Since he posts here regularly his next post should be examples of his predictions. That'll show ya! Muah Ha ha!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! You may know more of the ancient sciences than @cladking . How long is a reasonable time for him to provide a prediction? Oh wait. I just thought of an answer. Since he posts here regularly his next post should be examples of his predictions. That'll show ya! Muah Ha ha!!

It sure will. I can't wait.

 

[cladking]

You have the habit of responding to your own posts. I find that curious.

No!

I never do this.

I elaborate on points already made or provide evidence and logic to support them. You may not believe this if you don't bother to read my posts but in fact my posts have several million views. I don't know who is viewing them or why but I imagine there are people interested in my posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No!

I never do this.

I elaborate on points already made or provide evidence and logic to support them. You may not believe this if you don't bother to read my posts but in fact my posts have several million views. I don't know who is viewing them or why but I imagine there are people interested in my posts.

You do respond to your own posts.

You do not provide evidence. You are known for not providing evidence. Your schtick is to make claims and leave them hanging there as if they are some sort of revealed truth. Pretend is not truth.

I do read your posts. I have not seen evidence that your posts have several million views. Once again, a claim without benefit of facts to back it up.

 

[cladking]

Uh huh. More BS. You claim "predictions" but cannot provide any.

I've made countless predictions that have been borne out and not one that has been disproven yet. Meanwhile Egyptology won't release results of testing I've clamored for for over a decade.

The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan.

The above is from a post written BEFORE they even announced they were going to finally use century old infrared technology to study the Great Pyramid!!!

It is from post #342 here;

how the Great Pyramid in Egypt was built

This post was exceedingly difficult to find because google returns only ads and doctrine now days. I wrote many such things long before this post but they can't be found. It is my policy to avoid linking to any other site so I rarely do. I do not endorse any site but quality is a measure of the level of discourse and this site we're on (generally) is one of the finest.

You'll notice the post also suggests hot spots at 162' 3". This just happens to be it's distance from the NE corner. I also suggested other hot spots would be on the CL's as well they are.

Believe it or not I can predict this not because I'm smart (there's no such thing) but because the builders said so in plain English that others don't understand.

Good theory makes good prediction like that a universal language exists that dates all the way back to Adam and Eve. This is why you find the evidence in caves that has recently been found. Good theory means I know there will be copper hydroxide in trace amounts all over the north side of the pyramid in well protected areas. I know a great deal more than I've posted here because the builders told me.

 

[cladking]

I do not see anything that you have said on here would survive peer review since it is assertion without support, based on what you believe and not on any evidence.

Peers can not by definition consider any hypothesis that lies outside of their assumptions.

How many times have I pointed this out and you continue to ignore it. Peers would never even consider any part of my theory because it lies outside their knowledge and expertise. The facts still remain even though Peers can't see them. What words are hanging you up? This is a simple concept. What you're doing is equivalent to asking the pope if God is capable of making himself to never have existed and what would happen to creation.

It is impossible for any homo omnisciencis to logically comment or prove anything that lies outside his assumptions.

Egyptologists ALL assume the great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins. I am saying they were not tombs, there were no ramps, the builders were not bumpkins, and they were scientists and metaphysicians each more capable than most Peers. Do you really think they are going to consider my theory? The closest they came to considering this theory was when Dr Hawass referred to it as "other unscientific theories on the net".

Why can't you understand the opinion of Peers for or against this theory have no bearing on its accuracy? How can anybody be so unfamiliar with how science works and Peer review works? Why will you ignore this post and provide some meaningless soundbite in lieu of a real response to any part of it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've made countless predictions that have been borne out and not one that has been disproven yet. Meanwhile Egyptology won't release results of testing I've clamored for for over a decade.



The above is from a post written BEFORE they even announced they were going to finally use century old infrared technology to study the Great Pyramid!!!

It is from post #342 here;

how the Great Pyramid in Egypt was built

This post was exceedingly difficult to find because google returns only ads and doctrine now days. I wrote many such things long before this post but they can't be found. It is my policy to avoid linking to any other site so I rarely do. I do not endorse any site but quality is a measure of the level of discourse and this site we're on (generally) is one of the finest.

You'll notice the post also suggests hot spots at 162' 3". This just happens to be it's distance from the NE corner. I also suggested other hot spots would be on the CL's as well they are.

Believe it or not I can predict this not because I'm smart (there's no such thing) but because the builders said so in plain English that others don't understand.

Good theory makes good prediction like that a universal language exists that dates all the way back to Adam and Eve. This is why you find the evidence in caves that has recently been found. Good theory means I know there will be copper hydroxide in trace amounts all over the north side of the pyramid in well protected areas. I know a great deal more than I've posted here because the builders told me.

Of course. You talk to the builders of the pyramids. That makes perfect sense. I think everybody does that.

Sure. Sure. Countless predictions. Probably beyond countless I would imagine.

No one that speaks and reads English understands English. That goes without saying.

I am astonished. No wonder you have millions of views. And that is just from this planet and this time period. The views from Ancient People living in Ancient Reality must number into the trillions.

You have a great day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Peers can not by definition consider any hypothesis that lies outside of their assumptions.

How many times have I pointed this out and you continue to ignore it. Peers would never even consider any part of my theory because it lies outside their knowledge and expertise. The facts still remain even though Peers can't see them. What words are hanging you up? This is a simple concept. What you're doing is equivalent to asking the pope if God is capable of making himself to never have existed and what would happen to creation.

It is impossible for any homo omnisciencis to logically comment or prove anything that lies outside his assumptions.

Egyptologists ALL assume the great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins. I am saying they were not tombs, there were no ramps, the builders were not bumpkins, and they were scientists and metaphysicians each more capable than most Peers. Do you really think they are going to consider my theory? The closest they came to considering this theory was when Dr Hawass referred to it as "other unscientific theories on the net".

Why can't you understand the opinion of Peers for or against this theory have no bearing on its accuracy? How can anybody be so unfamiliar with how science works and Peer review works? Why will you ignore this post and provide some meaningless soundbite in lieu of a real response to any part of it?

I cannot imagine what it must be like for you to pretend reality and have people dismiss your pretend. It is certainly impossible for a fictional species that exists only in your fantasies to do anything I would imagine. Homo omnisciencis is made up. No such species exists. It is a bogeyman that you created to explain why your claims are recognized as nonsense.