Dedicated To Believers In Science! - Alternative View

Dedicated To Believers In Science! - Alternative View
Dedicated To Believers In Science! - Alternative View

Video: Dedicated To Believers In Science! - Alternative View

Video: Dedicated To Believers In Science! - Alternative View
Video: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth 2024, March
Anonim

Faced here in a dispute (for the second time in a week) with a person who sincerely believes that history is a science. By the way, I tried to find a picture of the "fanatic of science", but I could not. Only religious topics.

I will not focus on the dispute, but he believes that the Egyptians, 6,000 years ago, chopped them with wooden wedges, sawed them with copper saws, and so they just scored suitable limestone blocks for the construction of the Great Pyramid (Khufu's pyramid). Incidentally, the volume of the Great Pyramid is about 4 million tons. And all this for 20 years, for the sake of the beloved Pharaoh (there is a big reference to motivation. "We are building this for God! We really can't, guys!"). Well, they built it.

I'm not even talking about the number and mass of blocks. 4 million tons of stone! Well, or concrete. Somehow "concrete workers" are not bothered by the thought that it is even more difficult to prepare millions of tons of concrete than to stupidly cut a block and put it in place.

The Japanese somehow tried to build a REDUCED copy of the pyramid, like the ancients did. We planned to build a 10 times smaller copy in 2 months. They didn’t meet a year, and we also attracted dump trucks with a crane and a helicopter. And still they didn't. From the comments of one of the leaders - "Now we know exactly how they were NOT built."

Well, my final answer to this tovarischu-

“I am glad that you are proud of our ancient ancestors, and firmly believe that they COULD do this. You adhere to the official version of history, implying ONLY the linear development of society. This is also commendable.

Here are just numerous facts (not dozens, and not even hundreds of facts around the world) categorically disagree with either you or the official historians. Well, there are facts of stone carving, and not casting. There is? There is. How do you view them? No way. You don't accept them at all. Having found fault with the video in which Sklyarov, for some reason, pours some water on it not what you would like.

I repeat, all these geopolymer theories and hypotheses cannot dispute the facts. And the facts speak of sawing. And not with copper tools, otherwise in the valley of the pyramids it would be possible to extract copper by simple sifting of sand. Considering how much they had to grind off there.

Promotional video:

All these theories and versions are meant to do one thing. Explain how something that could not happen could have happened.

Couldn't the Egyptians build pyramids? Well, as if yes … Ah! So they cast them from concrete! Here!

Could the Mesoamericans have lifted hundreds of tons of stone along almost sheer cliffs? Of course not! They carried powder in their pockets up a high mountain, and they also cast everything from concrete!

Are you serious? Even the volume of concrete does not give you the idea of industrial production.

Traces of cutting tools both in Egypt and in Mesoamerica (and in fact there are many other places) you sweep away without even looking. On what grounds? And the Egyptians did not have such instruments! And the pyramids were built, which means they were not cut, but cast. All! The point of view is proven.

A slightly unfinished Aswan obelisk, Baalbek's trilithons, 1000 ton megaliths under the Wailing Wall on the Temple Mount so … The wind blew.

Stones from the sky cannot fall, because they are not there (they have nowhere to come from). That's your whole theory. Believe me, time and reason will put everything in its place. End of answer.

I do not mean that everyone who trusts historians is stupid and untrained. As well as not fighting for another camp, there are a lot of not quite adequate people among the "alternatives".

I mean there are FACTS. And these facts require their research, and not ignoring like- “Well, said the same! The Egyptians have built! Why muddy the waters? " There are a lot of facts. Very big. And all these facts require comprehensive research. And not stupidly referring any obscure artifact to "religious objects" or "objects of worship." Any of our bolts, when shown to a person unfamiliar with Archimedes' carvings, will look like a cult object. I won't say anything about nuts. Here historians would find a reference to the vagina itself (if the bolt was next to it)

I understand that academic science is based on authorities and their work. A person who has defended his doctoral degree on the topic "Processing granite in ancient Egypt with a copper tool", suddenly declare - "You know … It does not seem that it was done exactly as I proved on defense …" His career as a scientist will be over. Why doesn't anyone write a dissertation on the topic - "Traces of high-tech stone processing in the buildings of ancient Egypt"? The reason is the same, it cannot defend itself. And after all, he will bring facts, appeal to physical traces, geometry and accuracy of buildings. But the topic itself will look ridiculous from the point of view of opponents from "science". The topic will certainly be attributed to fantasy and delirium, and overwhelmed. Let me emphasize, knowingly! For, if the author defends himself, too many other works on similar topics will remain, as it were, NOT protected. Mutual guarantee,adjusted for scientific character.

Quite a simple example of the duplicity of modern "science". Ask any astronomer if life is possible on other planets? (Not in the solar system) What will he answer? Of course, it is possible, given the multiplicity of inhabited worlds, as well as the results of modern observations of orbiting telescopes.

And then tell him that you have met aliens. The day before yesterday, for example. What will he say about this? All right, if the orderlies don't call. Do you see any contradiction? On the one hand, of course! On the other hand, never! Or not, and I'm wrong?

So you can argue for a long time and tedious. Is there life on Mars … Is there life on Mars … This is unknown to science. The task of science is to find out. And not to declare that this cannot be, because it cannot be.