/ Solar eclipse is clear evidence of God's existence. Apparently.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189553/a-solar-eclipse-is-awesome-mysterious-and-te...

I'm an astrophysics ignoramus and even I sense there may be something wrong with his argument.

Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

I do think that having people like this wafting around really doesn't help christians who want to be taken seriously.
Horatio on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

> I'm an astrophysics ignoramus and even I sense there may be something wrong with his argument.

What?
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

The great Labrador of Perception is on the case.

One more thing I find intriguing. The sun is huge and ninety-three million miles away and the small moon is in our backyard, a mere quarter of a million miles away. Yet in an eclipse their discs precisely cover each other

No Dougal, see - close.....far away....close....far away



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U
Scomuir on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

A few weeks ago I was standing at the viewpoint at Glacier Point above Yosemite, admiring the view. Behind me I heard an American voice say "Gee, it really confirms that God did this", to which her companion stated "Yeah, it just couldn't be created any other way".

The discussion continued along the lines of that God created Yosemite, and because it was spectacular, this was then evidence that God existed. People are free to believe what they want, but at the same time, I find it very difficult to take people with that kind of reasoning seriously.

I felt the need to discuss glaciology, and various other weathering processes with them, but I had a plane to catch and couldn't hang around, so bit my tongue as I departed. I suspect the conversation, had it taken place, would have had 2 definite outcomes: 1. We wouldn't agree with each other, and 2. I would have missed the plane (I only just made it as it was).
Wonko The Sane - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: I think it's you who is wrong. It is quite obvious to me that you need to have a hole drilled into your head to let the demons out.
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I think you're probably right about that.
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

I've had as run in with this tud before - I recall I told him his photo hasd some thing of the tangerine and kettle flex about it.

Isn't he the one who got "moved on" due to meddling with his lady parishioners?
mkean - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Is it amazing that the moon covers the sun in a solar eclipse, is it also amazing that all meteors that hit the ground are meteorites? Is it amazing that all Ford Mondeos are manufactured in Ford factories or that everyone who is alive today was born at some point?

The world must be a truely wonderous place to someone who is that easily suprised.
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to John Rushby:

Not quite - he had an affair with someone. He got cross when our alsatian growled at him whilst he (Mullen) was standing in a wheatfield, having a chat with God.

(n.b. for dog haters, the dog did no more than growl, then carried on its merry way. We chose not to have it put down.)
lummox - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: I wonder what this f*cktard has a doctorate in ? I think I can guess... very funny. Thanks for posting : )
Pursued by a bear - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Well he's written for many publications including the Wall Street Journal, so who are we to doubt the quality of the arse he speaks from?

T.
Philip on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to John Rushby:

I think you've missed his point; he understands perspective (unlike Dougal). The amazing coincidence is the fact that we get total and not just annular eclipses.

There is no reason the moon has to be at the correct distance to be able to cause an eclipse. If the moon were larger or closer it would also cause an eclipse.

The odds of a moon of (almost) the perfect size, around a habitable planet are low. It seems to me that the same argument for the existence of life elsewhere (huge number of stars x very small chance of life starting) could be used by religious people as evidence of divine intervention.

It happens everywhere, statistically unlikely events (on a per event basis) are often assumed to be the result of luck/god. Think of people winning the lottery - the odds are 13m to 1 but someone does nearly every week because 10m are trying.
Wonko The Sane - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: To be half fair to him, it is nothing more than chance that makes a lunar eclipse so 'perfect'

A few billion years ago it was possibly as close as 15,000 miles from earth. In another few billion, it will have receded so far that there will only be partial eclipses.

I love looking at the world this way. Wee so much as 'solid' when it isn't. We see mountains as timeless, but in the scheme of things, they are nothing more than a blip. Like dropping a stone into water slowed down a billion times.


We just happen to be alive at a time when eclispses happen. I'd say that's coincidence, but it really isn't.

If the moon were a lot closer, its orbit would be quicker. As would the effect of it's pull. So life would find it hard to gain a foothold on a world where the tide might come in and out hourly over a range far far greater than curently exists.
Horatio on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Oh sorry we aren't going to discuss it just slag off the religious nutjob for thinking the fact the moon exactly covers the sun was done on purpose by some other life form not because a ball of nothing exploded then magically created loads of stuff which apparently is also mostly nothing as well, then spread out to infinity. Yeah, what a retard.
Wonko The Sane - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip: You beat me to it.
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:

I got the point, I was taking the piss.

I think Feynman puts it nicely

You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing
johnj on 14 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Tall Clare:

Ok so the way i see it is we currently accept there was nothing absolutely nothing, then in quicker than it takes to say come ere ar Kes, there was stuff everywhere, which we very simply accept was the big bang, a rather dim name really for all the colossal cosmic expansion but that's a whole other subject.

And then if someone was too say there's some dudes out there or maybe even space bunnies who are way more advanced than us earthlings and they can ever create whole planets out of space dust the general contemporary conscious is to call those folk names like religious jetwads, don't you know nobody can be that cleverer, we is all that there is innit, now where's the remote control so i can watch some X factor karaoke proper stars like...
deepsoup - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Ha. You don't need a solar eclipse to prove God's existence, you can do that with a humble banana!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
Wonko The Sane - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: I saw something recently which suggested that there may be no such thing as a big bang.

Instead, they argue, outside of time, space has no meaning, so therefore neither does scale.

The universe is entropic. As it reaches perfect entropy, time and space disappear leaving the stage open for the existing universe to become the embryo for the next one.

To our mind, it would appear that this embryo universe is 'massive'

In fact, it's size has no meaning at all.


I can't claim I've got my head around this, but it did make a sort of sense at the time and had a nice symetry to it.
jonnie3430 - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

One of the comments under the article is interesting:

"This morning got off to a happy start. I switched on the gadget as usual to behold the carnage of old wars and the prospect of new ones"

> and did you hear anything about the atheists shelling the agnostics ?
jkarran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

One more thing I find intriguing. The sun is huge and ninety-three million miles away and the small moon is in our backyard, a mere quarter of a million miles away. Yet in an eclipse their discs precisely cover each other. Donít therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. Itís just a cosmic coincidence, isnít it, Professor Dawkins?

It is magical* and it is intriguing, an intriguing coincidence. If we'd evolved a couple of billion years later under a more distant moon we'd still be wondering about the meaning in some other galactic coincidence. What is more interesting is why our brains do this, seek meaning in the meaningless.

*obviously not meant literally
jk
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:

That was me quoting Doug Stanhope
Horatio on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Yeah can just imagine those scientists sitting around taking about what a fruitcake he is over lunch then one of them goes off to clone a cow and the other carries on splitting atoms in half in the hope of making a self-sustaining spaceship. The idea of a creator? What a f*cking joke!
mkean - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to deepsoup:
Ha. You don't need a solar eclipse to prove God's existence, you can do that with a humble banana!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A


The humble banana that was created by selective crossing of other plants by people?

;-)

pebbles - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Scomuir:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
>
> Behind me I heard an American voice say "Gee, it really confirms that God did this", to which her companion stated "Yeah, it just couldn't be created any other way".
>
> you never find them staring at a pile of dog poo and saying "what on earth was god thinking of when he came up with this idea?" , do you?
deepsoup - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:
> The amazing coincidence is the fact that we get total and not just annular eclipses.

True.

Leaving religion aside for a moment, its interesting what this says about UFO's, alien abductions and wotnot.

Fun as I'm sure it would be, I just can't believe that kidnapping rednecks from relatively remote bits of the USA and sticking things up their bottoms is much of a tourist attraction for aliens, be they grey, green or whatever.

But being able to stand on the surface of the planet at certain times, look up and see a perfect total solar eclipse, that really *is* special. If there are alien creatures capable of interstellar travel visiting the Earth as tourists, that's where they'll be. Even the weird pervy aliens would take time out from the probing to go and have a look at that wouldn't they? ;o)
Toby S - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

Burn the witch!
Robert Durran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

That transit of Venus earlier this year only covered a little bit of the sun. Therefore god does not exist.
dissonance - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to deepsoup:

> Fun as I'm sure it would be, I just can't believe that kidnapping rednecks from relatively remote bits of the USA and sticking things up their bottoms is much of a tourist attraction for aliens, be they grey, green or whatever.

could be a bunch of students on their gap year. Why mess with traffic cones when you have people.

whenever i see these sorts of arguments I always wonder if the person making them is convinced they are strong on the grounds that when used in person it leaves people speechless. Missing the fact as to why they are left speechless.

jonnie3430 - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
>
> That transit of Venus earlier this year only covered a little bit of the sun. Therefore god does not exist.

By an incredible coincidence I randomly met my best mate on an island off the coast of Belize once, so god does exist.
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: Everyone's ignoring your rantings so I feel I must 'ave a go.

I don't have a problem with some abstract concept of 'creator', if you want to give that name to the mass of coincidences, physical laws, unknowable phenomena and general weirdness that have resulted in us being here, pondering, then that's fine.

Where I have a problem is the idea that that same force has any consciousness, interest in human affairs, ability to influence human affairs (except at the fundamental level of Sod's law, aka 2nd law of thermodynamics) or any meaningful impact on us at all, really. Least of all when we die.
rallymania - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to jonnie3430:

if this was your best mate... how come you didn't already know they'd be there?

Wonko The Sane - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to rallymania: Easier than you think. Me and my partner were once in Mexico near the Guatamala border and received an email from another couple we were quite close to telling us about the holiday they were on in.......... Guatamala.
xplorer on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

If you don't follow gods rules he will sentence you to eternal hell.

BUT HE LOVES YOU!

How can anyone following any religion be taken seriously in any kind of way?

Watch Zeitgeist - Religion. Its obvious religion is made up and most religions are in someway connected with eachother, and the stars and sun.
deepsoup - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to xplorer:
> BUT HE LOVES YOU!

Are you quoting George Carlin?
jonnie3430 - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
>
> if this was your best mate... how come you didn't already know they'd be there?

??? God works in mysterious ways...
Chris the Tall - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Like the babel fish, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that it proves, and therefore disproves, the existence of God.

The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
cap'nChino - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: He's trolling. If a UKC user posted something like that we would call him out and give him a 2/10.
Arjen - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
I've been reading some post-modern arguments lately, and this sounds fairly rational compared to the stuff they get out of their pens...

Anyway, it is a pretty silly column, especially of something that is so incredibly well-documented. The exchange between prof. Lenski and some right-wing conservative was way funnier though...
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Arjen:

THe Lenski email exchange is great - it was with the wack job that runs Conservapedia.
davidbeynon - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to John Rushby:

It took me ages to be convinced Conservapaedia was genuine.
Horatio on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Horatio) Everyone's ignoring your rantings so I feel I must 'ave a go.

Why are they 'rantings'? Why must you 'ave a go'? Why is it clear that everyone's 'ignoring' them?

> Where I have a problem is the idea that that same force has any consciousness, interest in human affairs, ability to influence human affairs (except at the fundamental level of Sod's law, aka 2nd law of thermodynamics) or any meaningful impact on us at all, really. Least of all when we die.

Well fine believe what you like. I find both theories equally plausible. Can't you see that by ridiculing me you're just as bad as the people you ridicule? Can't you see the group mentality, the group solidarity, the blind faith in what your told, the longing to bring everyone else round to your way of thinking, the offence when they don't. The religion of anti-religion?

jonnie3430 - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to cap'nChino:

> (In reply to Tall Clare) He's trolling. If a UKC user posted something like that we would call him out and give him a 2/10.

There's laws against that: Under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, heó .
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false.
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or .
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Lock him up! If not for (a) then (c) if he's done it before!
John Rushby - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

Finished it for you - you missed the

"scientists are just so closed minded" bit.

Tiddles

J

btw - you need to look up the word "theory".
Toby S - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]

>
> Can't you see the group mentality, the group solidarity, the blind faith in what your told, the longing to bring everyone else round to your way of thinking, the offence when they don't....

Hmmm...
MG - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
Can't you see the group mentality, the group solidarity, the blind faith in what your told, the longing to bring everyone else round to your way of thinking, the offence when they don't. The religion of anti-religion?

If you look at threads on here, I think you will find the non-religious spend most of the time disagreeing with each other and are pretty happy to do so.

Robert Durran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> Well fine believe what you like.

Why would he do that? It is you who insists on doing that. He is only believing in things for which there is evidence (whether he likes them or not).

Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: I can't see that I'm ridiculing you at all, there's no attempt at humour in my post.

All I'm doing is expressing my genuine, deeply held but constantly reviewed position regarding some sort of meaningful, transcendental conscious being. I just don't get it.
xplorer on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to deepsoup:

I'm quoting exactly what the religous nuts think.

pebbles - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Horatio)

>
> If you look at threads on here, I think you will find the non-religious spend most of the time disagreeing with each other and are pretty happy to do so.

I dont....

Horatio on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I was just trying to get Clare to explain why she thought the guy was wrong and a discredits Christians so we could have a deeply philosophical theological debate that would be utterly futile and impossible to win then you just went right out their and accused me of ranting! I didn't feel like I was ranting, maybe I was. Guess you wouldn't know unless you were having a rant.
thin bob on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: disaster! someone accused you of ranting! so, like....forgive them
thin bob on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward) I was just trying to get Clare to explain why she thought the guy was wrong and a discredits Christians

just this morning, god fixed it for me that gravity didn't work backwards and water didn't go up my nose! Halleluyah!
Robert Durran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward) I was just trying to get Clare to explain why she thought the guy was wrong and a discredits Christians.

Well, he is clearly either ignorant (doesn't know it is a coincidence), stupid (knows it is a coincidence, but still draws ridiculous conclusions), or a dishonest peddler of lies (knows he is wrong but is trying to take advantage of other peoples' ignorance or stupidity to manipulate them).
thin bob on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
So...i 'guess' that being an archbish. of Cantb. takes up less time than being an oil exec, so you're a bit bored and reactivated a niggle account on the diocese mainframe? ;-)
Arjen - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
Ok, so instead of just complaining about them scientists, could you provide a rationale of how the opinions expressed in the column actually would actually have some merit?

I don't see any, we're just some rock turning around some dim star, and it is just a coincidence that eclipses happen. I think it is because there's so much stuff happening by chance, that some things 'just happen to work out perfect', where 99.9999999% of the things don't, but we'd rather ignore these.
toad - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:Why didn't God make all the other planet sizes and orbits so that they all line up perfectly for a multiple eclipse? That would have been impressive! Alternatively he could have made them line up in colour order. Why is the Blue planet next to the Red one? that just smacks of sloppiness with the pantone charts on about day 5
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: 'Oh sorry we aren't going to discuss it just slag off the religious nutjob ... Yeah, what a retard. '

Pretty much a definition of rant to me.
john arran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Arjen:

> some things 'just happen to work out perfect', where 99.9999999% of the things don't, but we'd rather ignore these.

Ah but you've got to agree that the other 0.0000001% of things are so spookily perfect they couldn't possibly have happened by chance ;-)

ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Arjen:

Your language is very peculiar. Why do you say:

a) we're just 'some rock'? We're not just 'some rock'. We're a living planet that has fine-tuned itself to near-perfection. How many rocks do that?

b) 'Dim star'. I've no idea what you mean by dim, given the importance of solar energy to life on Earth and its billions of years of reliable energy.

(((This modern, sneering lack of appreciation of just how lucky we are to be where we are really gets to me. Sorry.)))
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Gordon, you're a clever bloke and all that, and congrats on your recent award, but I'm not entirely convinced you've thought this one through.

It rather sucks the meaning out of a word like 'lucky' if you think it can be applied to everyone who has ever existed ... just because they did.

Actually, come to think of it, that's quite close to the RC position isn't it?
MG - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Some rock as in one of probably millions of similar planets. Dim star as in not very bright as stars go. Seems pretty clear to me.
Robert Durran - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> We're not just 'some rock'. We're a living planet that has fine-tuned itself to near-perfection. How many rocks do that?

Quite possibly very few, but we'd hardly be likely to be sitting marvelling at that fact on one of the billions and billions of cold, uninteresting, lifeless ones.

> This modern, sneering lack of appreciation of just how lucky we are to be where we are.....

You've got that completely wrong; appreciating just how much the odds are probably stacked against the emargence of complex life makes it's occurence magnificently more wondrous.

AdrianC - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: What is this "near perfection" thing of which you write?
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to AdrianC:

We got it into quite a habitable condition and then we mangled it. It's like that process whereby people buy a house, do it up, then have babies who draw all over the walls in wax crayon.
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to AdrianC: 'Perfection is a blasphemy in the eyes of God.'
AdrianC - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Hello! Umm - who got it into a habitable condition?
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: I don't supposed it seemed that perfect for the first 2 million years when everyone struggled to live beyond 40, and for the most part coped with near constant fear, pain and hunger.
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to AdrianC:

As a useful space for humans, well, humans did. The dinosaurs might have had less need for motorways and oil platforms.
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

And what's more, no internet...

thin bob on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> And what's more, no internet...

only cox their arms were too short to reach a keyboard.... ;-)
http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/t-rex-hunter-not-scavenger-26012011/
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I thought (although I mentioned the rather meaningless word 'luck') that my post was not about that at all.
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to AdrianC:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) What is this "near perfection" thing of which you write?

Have you got eyeballs?

MG - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to AdrianC)
> [...]
>
> Have you got eyeballs?

Have you got an appendix?
MG - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to MG: or did you have?!
toad - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to AdrianC)
> [...]
>
> Have you got eyeballs?

Yeah, but they're rubbish. Everything is upside down and I can't see that well in the dark. Bloomi'n brain has to work really hard to let me see at all...
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to MG: There's an interesting medical anecdote about appendices...
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: 'lack of appreciation of just how lucky we are '

My mistake.
AdrianC - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Yes. And they're telling me that you want an argument, not a debate. Your loss.
toad - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to MG) There's an interesting medical anecdote about appendices...

It's not worth mentioning in the main text though, Stick it in at the end


sorry, temptation was too great
Tall Clare - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to toad:

<applauds>
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to the thread:

ok, i suspect i might regret this, but here goes anyway...

i don't think its as trivial a coincidence as some on this thread would have it. we only have one moon, and its a rather large one in proportion to the earth. its massively the most impressive object in the night sky, and while its difficult to appreciate the significance to early humans from our electric-lit cities, it must have inspired real awe and wonder.

i'm not sure what the window of time is that the moon is exactly the right distance from the earth to eclipse the sun so perfectly that the corona is visible, but it is a small window in the overall time life has been around on earth. it is quite a coincidence that by far the two most significant objects in the sky produce this spectacle at exactly the time in the earth's history when there are beings who will be aware of it; and the effect it must have had on our ancestors who didnt have the advantage of planetary science to explain it is almost impossible to fully understand

its not that there are thousands of moons, or thousands of similarly impressive astronomical spectacles so that it is inevitable that something of similar impact is bound to happen. the odds are pretty long

and yet, coincidence is all it is, of course

but.... if there was a god, and if we were looking for some sign that he had left to say he existed, without having something as obvious as a big sign in fiery letters hanging in the sky saying "i'm heeee-eeere..!!", then i wonder if this isn't exactly the sort of thing that we should be looking for...

cheers

gregor
Coel Hellier - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> ... the effect it must have had on our ancestors who didnt have the advantage of planetary science to
> explain it is almost impossible to fully understand

One trouble with this is that, before we could predict eclipses and thus travel to be in their path, the chances of a random human seeing a total solar eclipse in their lifetime would have been very small, less than 1 in a 1000. Thus the effect on the vast majority of our ancestors would have been zero.

Yes it would have been spectacular for the few who saw one, but the impact would have been comparable to other low-probability, high-impact events, such as a nearby volcano, earthquake or tsunami.
Shani - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment has shown that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about two centimeters a year. If you perform a regression you find that 65 million years ago, the moon must have been orbiting the earth at a height of about 20ft, which, if you think about it, explains why the dinosaurs died out (well, the tall ones anyway).
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

thought you'd be here sooner or later...!

;-)

hmmm. yes, i see what you mean.

but there are hundreds of volcanoes, and earthquakes are pretty common

but only one moon, and at this point in the earth's history its a perfect match for size and distance, to within tolerance of fractions of a per cent

the odds on that are pretty long, and are not offset, as far as i can see, by lots of other similar phenomena. im also not aware of any reason explaining why it should be so from a scientific perspective, unlike, say, the observation that the fundamental properties of the universe seem perfectly tuned to allow matter to form- if there is indeed a multiverse, or an inflationary universe where all other possible combinations of constants exist a long, long way away, then this is a trivial problem

its like god put his stamp on the universe in a way that allowed plausible deniability

well, except that he probably doesnt exist...

cheers
gregor
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Have you got an appendix?

You have now gone on record comparing an eyeball with an appendix. Thank history for the internet, in that I've now been able to archive your comment. Thanks, I'm confident that it will be much appreciated by future historians.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

ok, a bit of googling and it appear that while the moon's recession means that total eclipses will eventually cease, it will be a while before this happens.

1.4 billion years, apparently

so the odds are much shorter than i was claiming, and not such a stretch on credibility

proof of god's existence will have to wait i guess....

;-)

gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> but there are hundreds of volcanoes, and earthquakes are pretty common
>
> but only one moon, and at this point in the earth's history its a perfect match for size and distance, to within tolerance of fractions of a per cent

there is no god as he would have made every earth orbit moon able to creat a perfect solar eclipse.

http://news.discovery.com/space/how-many-moons-does-earth-have-120406.html
Coel Hellier - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> but only one moon, and at this point in the earth's history its a perfect match for size and distance,
> to within tolerance of fractions of a per cent

The tolerance is much greater than that, for example the variation in the distance of the moon (given the elliptical orbit, and hence annular eclipses) is greater than that. Indeed, wouldn't solar eclipses be similarly impressive (perhaps more so?) if the moon was twice as big (apparent size) as it currently is? And they'd then be seen by most of mankind, unlike now.

> ... im also not aware of any reason explaining why it should be so from a scientific perspective, ...

One suggestion is the for stable conditions allowing evolution of intelligent life one needs a `binary planet' to stabilize the rotation axis -- without the moon Earth's axis would wander around a lot more and hence climate changes would be more severe. If you have a moon massive enough and close enough to do that, the chances of eclipses are pretty good.

By the way, from memory a couple of Jovian moons are also pretty good matches to the sun (as seen from Jupiter), so the whole thing is not as remarkable as it might appear.


no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

thanks, coel- very interesting, i've learned a few things this evening

and, on a similar theme, just been watching the horizon programme about the voyager probes which i'd recorded some weeks back- remarkable story, i hadn't fully appreciated how difficult the logistics actually were...

i finally read the link in the OP too- deary me, that drivel got published in a supposed quality newspaper...?!

cheers
gregor
Tom Last - on 14 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

Incredible!

I'm always looking for an excuse to promote Asimov's Nightfall, one of the best sci-fi short stories ever. Would you believe, it's about eclipses and religion.

And lo! A thread about eclipses and religion. It must be a sign...

http://ebookbrowse.com/nightfall-asimov-pdf-d177646383
Sebastian Fontleroy - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> ok, i suspect i might regret this, but here goes anyway...
>
> i don't think its as trivial a coincidence as some on this thread would have it. we only have one moon, and its a rather large one in proportion to the earth. its massively the most impressive object in the night sky, and while its difficult to appreciate the significance to early humans from our electric-lit cities, it must have inspired real awe and wonder.
>
> i'm not sure what the window of time is that the moon is exactly the right distance from the earth to eclipse the sun so perfectly that the corona is visible, but it is a small window in the overall time life has been around on earth. it is quite a coincidence that by far the two most significant objects in the sky produce this spectacle at exactly the time in the earth's history when there are beings who will be aware of it; and the effect it must have had on our ancestors who didnt have the advantage of planetary science to explain it is almost impossible to fully understand
>
> its not that there are thousands of moons, or thousands of similarly impressive astronomical spectacles so that it is inevitable that something of similar impact is bound to happen. the odds are pretty long
>
> and yet, coincidence is all it is, of course
>
> but.... if there was a god, and if we were looking for some sign that he had left to say he existed, without having something as obvious as a big sign in fiery letters hanging in the sky saying "i'm heeee-eeere..!!", then i wonder if this isn't exactly the sort of thing that we should be looking for...
>
> cheers
>
> gregor


I imagined Morgan Freeman's voice reading that post (particularly the last paragraph) with string-heavy orchestration in the background.

Horatio on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Arjen:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> Ok, so instead of just complaining about them scientists, could you provide a rationale of how the opinions expressed in the column actually would actually have some merit?

As pointed out earlier in the thread the moon has only been in it's current cycle of total lunar eclipse for some hundreds of millions of years. This could have been around the time animals came into existence. There are several theories as to what caused the moon to form but all agree that the moon was once part of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Ancient Humans built objects that were in some way connected to the sun and stars, think the various pyramids around the world, Stonehenge and other monuments. We could assume that this is a trait of intelligent life.

There is tenuous evidence of ancient structures on the moon.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=structures+on+the+moon&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tb...

The following page details what would happen if humans were wiped from earth tomorrow, most theories I've read seem to think that it would take 25000 years for all traces of humanity to disappear from earth. So if an advanced civilisation had existed on earth for a short time around the time the moon was formed and created it it's likely that they'd be no traces left of their existence, other than the moon and everything on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath:_Population_Zero#500_years_A.H.

I think it's feasible that the human race in the next couple of thousand years could travel to a distant solar system and remove part of a planet in order to create an orbital body that could accidently or purposefully allow complex life to form. I think if we could do this and set it up to produce an eclipse we probably would, just for the beauty of it.


Also at no point in the article does Dr Mullen state that 'a solar eclipse is clear evidence of God's existence', the closest he comes to it is 'Donít therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. Itís just a cosmic coincidence, isnít it, Professor Dawkins?'. Even the headline of the article is quoted out of context.

Tony Naylor on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
So a cosmic calamity big enough to rip a moon sized object out of a planet will still leave evidence of your house? Bless....

(BTW, if you're trolling, I think you're ace).
birdie num num - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
I was lounging idly in the garden last weekend when I was supposed to be raking up leaves. I was dreaming of a win at Kempton and my eyes had barely shut when Mrs Num Num loomed over me with her rolling pin, creating a kind of solar eclipse, the air went cold and what followed was clear evidence of the existence of the devil.
MG - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I didn't in fact. The more you post on here the more I think you are in fact a 'closet creationist'.
Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to MG:

That's tricky, since I don't believe in God. Closet scientist perhaps.
MG - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: So you say but then describe the world as near perfect and get prickly when it is pointed out it isn't. You also tend to read things very literally and miss analogy.
Trangia - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

Interesting comment that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth and it is just co-incidence that it exactly co-incides with the perceived size of the sun. In the future it will appear in an eclipse as a dot over the sun.

I recall being disappointed that during a topal eclipse I was not plunged into total darkness, but just a strange half light lacking colour definition. When I used to read stories of explorers in the pot being saved from canabals due to accurate predictions that they could turn day into night, I imagined total darkness and presumably because in the past the moon was closer to earth, the loss of light was noticeably more significant?

In reply to John Rushby:
Magic!
Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to AdrianC:

Yes, I agree that it was careless of me to talk about 'perfection' as there is no standard to measure it by. What I was referring to was its ability to fine-tune itself in order to persist through millennia.

To work now.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
>
> I do think that having people like this wafting around really doesn't help christians who want to be taken seriously.

I think the fact that someone admit to being Christian at all makes me struggle to take them seriously.

<replace Christian with religion of choice, especially Scientology, snigger>

Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Quite possibly very few, but we'd hardly be likely to be sitting marvelling at that fact on one of the billions and billions of cold, uninteresting, lifeless ones.
>
> [...]
>
> You've got that completely wrong; appreciating just how much the odds are probably stacked against the emargence of complex life makes it's occurence magnificently more wondrous.

You seem to be saying roughly what I am. I happen to one of those who believes that (statistically) there must be millions, perhaps billions, of earthlike planets in the universe that support life.

jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Your language is very peculiar. Why do you say:
> a) we're just 'some rock'? We're not just 'some rock'. We're a living planet that has fine-tuned itself to near-perfection. How many rocks do that?

'Near perfection' by what measure? It's only in the last 10 years or so we've even been able to prove there are other chunks of rock out there beyond our own back yard, probably more than we can comprehend. The living earth is rich, fascinating and unfathomably complex but to call it perfect seems odd to me.

> b) 'Dim star'. I've no idea what you mean by dim, given the importance of solar energy to life on Earth and its billions of years of reliable energy.
> (((This modern, sneering lack of appreciation of just how lucky we are to be where we are really gets to me. Sorry.)))

The sun is a dim star in the grand scheme of things. Not the dimmest by any stretch but just because it looks bright to us doesn't mean it is!

Who's sneering? Our world is amazing and our responsibility, I don't need a creator myth to understand or appreciate that, in fact quite the contrary.

jk
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:

I'm sure coel will provide more reliable information, but I thought that the sun was relatively bright as stars go, on the basis that there are far far more small dim red dwarf stars than blue giants

And is Gordon referring to the goldilocks effect, that the earth is 'just right' in many ways, and seems to have feedback loops to keep it that way

None of which is proof of any divine hand at work, but given the number of ways the planet could have been rendered uninhabitable, perfect isnt an entirely inappropriate word

Cheers
Gregor
Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:

We seem to be at cross purposes. See my post of 8:12
I don't need a creator myth either.
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> As pointed out earlier in the thread the moon has only been in it's current cycle of total lunar eclipse for some hundreds of millions of years. This could have been around the time animals came into existence.

Could have been... but isn't.

> Ancient Humans built objects that were in some way connected to the sun and stars, think the various pyramids around the world, Stonehenge and other monuments. We could assume that this is a trait of intelligent life.

So do bower birds.

> There is tenuous evidence of ancient structures on the moon.

No there isn't.

> I think it's feasible that the human race in the next couple of thousand years could travel to a distant solar system and remove part of a planet in order to create an orbital body that could accidently or purposefully allow complex life to form. I think if we could do this and set it up to produce an eclipse we probably would, just for the beauty of it.

Erm... I'm lost for words!

> Also at no point in the article does Dr Mullen state that 'a solar eclipse is clear evidence of God's existence', the closest he comes to it is 'Donít therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. Itís just a cosmic coincidence, isnít it, Professor Dawkins?'. Even the headline of the article is quoted out of context.

It's a statement of belief in the form of a rhetorical question. It's pretty clear.

jk
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

If god wanted to show his presence by a display of eclipses and such like he'd probably have put his chosen species on a planet like Saturn with rings, a moon bigger than Mercury and 60 smaller ones. And maybe in a system with two suns.

Also, he probably wouldn't have waited 14 billion years between creating the universe and sending his son to tell his chosen species what it was all about.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Horatio:

Eyup dude, what you've got to remember on this forum is most folk haven't read much of the authors of what is called conspiracy theory, they just read the alternative media tabloid translations of it which is easy to pick holes in and get to the whole tinfoil meme.

So what we still have is current non believers trying to disprove a pre scientific representational of a Roman translation from a Hebrew translation from ancient Sumerian and Sanskrit text.

So when those Vikings of the counter scene movement like Hoagland, Maxwell, Sitchin, Daniken, etc, etc et el.... start to translate the early writings to modern text they find there where all kinds of accents which were lost through translation, so Our Ancient God or gods maybe was never this impression of religion... Because one thing is for sure whatever happened back there can't have all simply been made up because the history of it is just faaaaar too robust.

For example, it probably never said God Created Adam and Eve, they say it reads more like The Gods created the Adams and Eves, which brings it closer to the legends of the Anunnaki, which needed to create a hybrid slave race who among other things may have built the pyramids with high technology.

One thing is for sure, the history of this planet has large periods of forgotten times.

jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I'm sure coel will provide more reliable information, but I thought that the sun was relatively bright as stars go, on the basis that there are far far more small dim red dwarf stars than blue giants

Fair point, we may be outnumbered by dimmer stars but we're certainly not orbiting one of the brightest.

> And is Gordon referring to the goldilocks effect, that the earth is 'just right' in many ways, and seems to have feedback loops to keep it that way

I appreciate that but in just our own galaxy there could be 2x10^9 loosely earth-like planets. What are the odds we're on the only 'perfect' one.

> None of which is proof of any divine hand at work, but given the number of ways the planet could have been rendered uninhabitable, perfect isnt an entirely inappropriate word

Granted we're very well suited to each other (life and earth) but even on earth there are lots of 'imperfect' habitats in which life thrives. Maybe our idea of what's required for life is still too narrow.

jk
Postmanpat on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
> [...]
>
> I think the fact that someone admit to being Christian at all makes me struggle to take them seriously.
>
> <replace Christian with religion of choice, especially Scientology, snigger>

Which is a much more interesting reflection on your intellect then theirs.

Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Where did the "high technology" go after the pyramids were built?
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes an interesting question one which I've often thought of, obviously this hi tech was so far out that they'd fight wars over part Seas, maybe even give dudes the powers to raise people from the dead, matrix kind of stuff really. I believe religious myth refers to such tech as Arc of the covenant, it's probably now in a deep underground base somewhere out west.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Perhaps the lizards are looking after it.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> Which shows theirs to be a lower intellect than yours.

There, fixed that for you. No need to thank me, you're welcome.

Postmanpat on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> Yes an interesting question one which I've often thought of, obviously this hi tech was so far out that they'd fight wars over part Seas, maybe even give dudes the powers to raise people from the dead, matrix kind of stuff really. I believe religious myth refers to such tech as Arc of the covenant, it's probably now in a deep underground base somewhere out west.

Did they bury the art of punctuation "out west" as well?

johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Perhaps the Greys had a battle with the Lizards over who owned it and when they weren't looking a black ops team of special ops trained ex circus performing Monkeys Leopard crawled in Ninja styleee and nicked it?
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

No they speak in da code catch up at the rear hooah
The Pylon King on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189553/a-solar-eclipse-is-awesome-mysterious-and-te...
>
> I'm an astrophysics ignoramus and even I sense there may be something wrong with his argument.

disturbing - sums up religion really.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I'm sure coel will provide more reliable information, but I thought that the sun was relatively bright
> as stars go, on the basis that there are far far more small dim red dwarf stars than blue giants

Yes, the sun is pretty "military medium" as stars go, type G2 is in the middle of the spectral sequence. But, as you say, there are vastly more dim stars, so our sun is brighter than the median (though much fainter than the big, flashy stars that are 10^5 times brighter).
Horatio on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran: You're not really giving any counter argument, you're just stating my facts are wrong. I provide a link which estimates the moon came into existence hundreds of millions of years ago and another that estimates simple animals formed 600 million years ago. Coel gives us a good hypothesis as to why the moons current orbit allows life to form on earth, and I suggest that the solar eclipse we see today is the same one (more or less) that all life on earth has seen. And get, Could have been...but isn't. ??

If you type 'structures on the moon' into google images you get 5 million results yet you dismiss what I describe as 'tenacious evidence' with no explanation.

Around 400BC the idea of atoms was first thought up with no evidence at all. A mere flight of the imagination. Now from that time until the 19th century there wasn't any evidence to support this theory but the theory was proven scientifically and is now accepted knowledge. I'm not saying that my theory is true, I'd say a cosmic coincident is probably more likely. I'm simply imagining how that could have come to be, and how we might not have realised it. Why not (for want of a better cliche) open our minds and think about and discuss what he's saying, something inspiring might come out of it. Instead we think of the most witty ways to ridicule him because he disagrees with our deeply held beliefs. I don't get it.

All his statement said to me was Donít therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way Imagine someone designed it that way Itís just a cosmic coincidence, isnít it, Professor Dawkins? is it a coincidence Professor Dawkins? I've read The God Delusion and I respect Dawkin's view, but it doesn't wholly convince me that life on earth wasn't designed. I agree with everything he has to say about religion but find his writing too biased. Yet I completely agree with The Selfish Gene, it's one of my favorite books.
Horatio on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> Eyup dude, what you've got to remember on this forum is most folk haven't read much of the authors of what is called conspiracy theory, they just read the alternative media tabloid translations of it which is easy to pick holes in and get to the whole tinfoil meme.
>

It seems so... Oh well, might as well try talking to people and standing up for the Rev. Good for the Karma, cherish me soul ect. I'll probably get burned at a stake. Lol. Oh no wait, I'm a Pagan, I'll be fine:)
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> You're not really giving any counter argument, you're just stating my facts are wrong.

Perhaps that's because your ideas are too bonkers to take seriously.

> I provide a link which estimates the moon came into existence hundreds of millions of years ago and
> another that estimates simple animals formed 600 million years ago.

Nope, the moon is vastly older than simple animals. The moon formed only about 30 million years after the formation of earth, so both the earth and moon are 4.5 billion years old (any difference is in the next figure 4.54 billion v 4.53 billion or so).

> So if an advanced civilisation had existed on earth for a short time around the time the moon was
> formed and created it it's likely that they'd be no traces left of their existence, other than the
> moon and everything on it.

The idea of an "advanced civilisation" at the time that the moon was formed is bonkers, and the idea of civilisation-made objects on the moon (before last century) is bonkers.

> If you type 'structures on the moon' into google images you get 5 million results yet you
> dismiss what I describe as 'tenacious evidence' with no explanation.

Bonkers ideas don't need refuting, it's up to you to find some evidence for them if you have any.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Coel Hellier:


Given that the universe is lets say pretty old or 14 and a half billion and us Earth humans are pretty young lets say 1 million from when we were tiny lickle fish floating in a Sea of meth


So do the math prof, and work out how many civilizations could have evolved and died in that time. Then we have a rich habitable planet with a fine smaller brother with a big cow on it. Then to say "and the idea of civilisation-made objects on the moon (before last century) is bonkers....."

Isn't bonkers its just very childish.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Can you point to some evidence of previous civilisations with the capability of reaching the moon?
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well lets start with the basic big clue bang smack in the center of the landmass on Earth.
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

As I said, bonkers ideas don't need refuting. It's up to those advocating such ideas to produce evidence for them. So far they haven't. Thus they remain in the "bonkers" category.
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You might also like to point out that while "structures on the moon" gets 5 million images results "moon made of cheese" gets 6.8 million.

Also "I am god" get 1.7 billion results! So that proves it.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Sorry, you need to explain that a bit more.
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to johnj) Can you point to some evidence of previous civilisations with the capability of reaching the moon?

Do you need more proof?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0o6u1VmGE
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No explanations required from my end, I'll have adult conversations with those on here when people want to.
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

I'm up for an adult conversation, but I can't work out what you mean by landmass in the centre. You obviously don't mean centre of the volume as that's the core, so centre of the surface of a sphere is a bit confusing?
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> No explanations required from my end,...

Ah right, so when you're asked for evidence you make a cryptic remark that no-one knows what it refers to, and then when asked for an explanation you evade again.

johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Maybe you need to do some reading then.
owlart - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier: Who is the arbiter to decide which ideas are 'bonkers' and which ideas aren't?

Not that I agree about structures on the moon, or the eclipse being proof of God etc., just interested who decides which ideas are bonkers and which aren't.
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Who is the arbiter to decide which ideas are 'bonkers' and which ideas aren't?
>

Anyone with a doctorate. They whisper it to you when they bash you on the head with the book. You're allowed to call people loonies and declare their ideas bonkers. You might have to have your robes on at the time (I'm not sure).
tony on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> Well lets start with the basic big clue bang smack in the center of the landmass on Earth.

What did you mean by that? I'm not sure what you mean by the centre of the landmass on Earth - do you mean the centre of the Earth, or something else?
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to owlart:

> just interested who decides which ideas are bonkers and which aren't.

It's easy, non-bonkers ideas are those for which, when asked, advocates present you with evidence for them.

Bonkers ideas are those for which the advocates are crackpots who just evade and weasel when you ask them about evidence.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Read what? Do you have any titles or links?
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: I'm really enjoying this thread, please don't back out now - there are people who are genuinely interested in what your 'centre of the mass' comment meant.
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> You're not really giving any counter argument, you're just stating my facts are wrong.

Because they are. The moon is an order of magnitude older than animal life on earth. Yes, we've developed to live on a world who's rhythms are regulated by its large close moon but the moon didn't trigger the development of animals.

> I provide a link which estimates the moon came into existence hundreds of millions of years ago and another that estimates simple animals formed 600 million years ago.

I provide a link which estimates the moon came into existence thousands of millions of years ago...

Corrected that for you.

> If you type 'structures on the moon' into google images you get 5 million results yet you dismiss what I describe as 'tenacious evidence' with no explanation.

I like the idea of tenacious evidence :) Smartphone type or a strange definition of evidence?

I get over 8 million results if I type 'lizard people' into Google, what does that prove? Delusional people are prolific typists?

> Around 400BC the idea of atoms was first thought up with no evidence at all. A mere flight of the imagination.

What point are you making here, that people without evidence occasionally guess close enough to right we can later fit our discoveries to their predictions? Nostradamus would be another good example. We love to do this, it says far more about the human mind than it does about ancient wisdom or mystical powers.

> Why not (for want of a better cliche) open our minds and think about and discuss what he's saying, something inspiring might come out of it. Instead we think of the most witty ways to ridicule him because he disagrees with our deeply held beliefs. I don't get it.

I'm not mocking him and I'm not mocking you. He's entitled to his views, as entitled to them as you are to yours and I am to mine. That doesn't mean I have to agree with either of you and it certainly doesn't mean we're all equally right.

jk
gramee on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Horatio)

If you type 'moon made of cheese' into Google you get 25,600,000 results

Who'd have thunk it?
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> Well lets start with the basic big clue bang smack in the center of the landmass on Earth.

I've read this three times and each time I'm left scratching my head. What on earth are you alluding to?

jk
In reply to jkarran: he's trying to be clever in referring to the pyramids.
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to gramee:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> If you type 'moon made of cheese' into Google you get 25,600,000 results
>
> Who'd have thunk it?

That's useless evidence. See further up. You have to put the search into Google Images then you get photographic proof!
In reply to jkarran: His point of reference is what looks like pyramids on the moon and the great pyramid on earth.

What he doesn't explain is Kailash

http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/tibet/images/mt-kailash-500.jpg
Philip on 15 Nov 2012
Can African elephants speak to Indian elephants?
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip: Yes, but it's a trunk call.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to ripper:

Ok this is my last post cos i have a job to do and this would just take up to much time.

so if i type into the great library called the internet with

what's at the center of the landmass of earth

i get pages of stuff about the pyramids

bearing in mind i started reading about this stuff in 2006 as it fascinates me

so when reading on the blocks in the kings chamber are around 70 tonne and machined to modern engineered tolerances and been a design engineer i'd really like to know how they did this, the current theory states with ropes and pulleys, excuse me while i cough BULLSHIT....

Have a nice day ya'll ;+)
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Troll, 6/10. Drew people in, but points deducted because you keep returning and nobody has got upset.
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: The reason why the pryamids are so amazing, and its so hard to comprehend from a modern view how they were done is because the civilisation that built them wasnt busy fighting wars and had a surplus of food so they were able to throw lots of people at the construction and get it done, like China with the three gorges dam, no crazy explainations just a big workforce.
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: genuine question - which Ithink someone has already asked - given that the earth is a globe, how can any one point on it's surface be more 'central' than any other? I guess Egypt is probably the centre of most 2d world map projections, but that hardly makes it the actual centre of the landmass of the earth. does it?
please don't make it your last post this is such fun ;-)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>

>
> I appreciate that but in just our own galaxy there could be 2x10^9 loosely earth-like planets. What are the odds we're on the only 'perfect' one.
>

Is that right? I'd have thought that the number of earth size planets discovered so far was too small to allow accurate extrapolation, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that

How many of them are in the correct zone to allow water to exist in liquid phase and have a large satellite like the moon? plus being big enough to retain an atmosphere and tectonic activity? Plus a large gas giant like Jupiter protecting the inner solar system from bombardment? Could be that we are more unusual than we think.

And it's 'perfection' appears to be a product of life itself, changing the atmosphere to be oxygen rich, but not too rich

Again none of this needs a creators hand, and is all the more marvellous for that, but looking at our neighbours, there are many more ways for a planet to develop that will not sustain life than ways that do....

> Granted we're very well suited to each other (life and earth) but even on earth there are lots of 'imperfect' habitats in which life thrives. Maybe our idea of what's required for life is still too narrow.

I think this turns on how we are using the word perfect.... I ssuspect we are actually saying something very similar to each other....

Cheers

Gregor

Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:


> so if i type into the great library called the internet with
> what's at the center of the landmass of earth
> i get pages of stuff about the pyramids

Just because some cranks claim the pyramids are at the "center of the landmass of earth" (whatever that means) doesn't mean they are.

> so when reading on the blocks in the kings chamber are around 70 tonne and machined to modern engineered tolerances

Just because some cranks claim they are "machined to modern engineered tolerances" doesn't mean they are.

Hint: Don't believe everything you read on the internet, or in crank books.
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Red Rover:

> the civilisation that built them wasnt busy fighting wars and had a surplus of food so they
> were able to throw lots of people at the construction

Also, their agriculture was not only able to generate food surpluses but it was highly seasonal (based on the flooding of the Nile), so for some months of the year the large workforce had little to do.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> Ok this is my last post cos i have a job to do and this would just take up to much time.
>
> so if i type into the great library called the internet with
>
> what's at the center of the landmass of earth
>
> i get pages of stuff about the pyramids
>
> bearing in mind i started reading about this stuff in 2006 as it fascinates me
>
> so when reading on the blocks in the kings chamber are around 70 tonne and machined to modern engineered tolerances and been a design engineer i'd really like to know how they did this, the current theory states with ropes and pulleys, excuse me while i cough BULLSHIT....
>
> Have a nice day ya'll ;+)

Ok, i'll take this one.

People go on about pyramids, the accuracy, the difficulty etc.

Let's take accuracy.

First, setting out.

A modern construction job is set out using very modern equipment usually to an accuracy or around +- 10mm for the steel frame.
Much higher accuracy can be achieved, but it would be pointless because steel from a rolling mill also has inaccuracies. So we use the cladding (in whatever material) to lessen these discrepancies.
This is a purely commercial decision.
To make steel totally accurate and set out to better tolerances would take a lot more time and money than simply building in some tolerance in the cladding.

A pyramid can be set out with nothing more than a few sticks and some string. To a VERY high accuracy. Given time.
To orient the pyramid, over the course of a year you wait for whatever it is you want to align it with to come up over the horizon, or, if it's the sun at midday, for it to reach zenith, and you plant a stick. Do that for a year and you've got a record of your object.

To set out the pyramid you need a 345 triangle. The egyptians knew about these.
A bit of string will suffice.
You set out one side using three sticks. When they are perfectly aligned, you have a straight line.
do this a few times if you like. Then if there are any errors, take the average (much like a cocked hat in navigation)

Now set out a right angle. Do the same error checks.
Set out the rest of the square.
check the diagonals.

Put up some offsets.



Now you need a load of blocks.
At the quarry, cut your block to a chosen accuracy. Bring it to site (and there have been quite literally hundreds of experiments to show that you can very easily move 10 ton blocks with a 20 man team)
On site, get it roughly into place. Use another stick and run it along the block already in place and draw a line on say, a plank of wood which corresponds to the surface of the existing block.
Transfer this line to your new block and cut to shape.
Bear in mind that whilst SOME blocks are very heavy, you'll note MOSt of the pyramid is actually made of very manageble sized blocks for speed of work.
As your pyramid grows, build an effing great big ramp.

We still do quite amazing things like this in construction now.
I built a 3000 ton cantelevered steel roof structure which was entirely built outward from a hub some 150 feet in the air. As each piece of steel was placed, it already had access gantries bolted to it. Once in place, a man goes up, removes the guard rail on the first piece of steel and he now has access to the new piece. At the end of the job, it's all dismantled and taken away.


There is no aspect of building a pyramid which presents ANY real problem to me.
Give me enough money and I will build you one.


though........... why would you want to? They're shite.
They take millions of tons of rock, millions of man hours and a project time measured in decades to produce a structure so badly designed, it can only hold a few rooms, and some of them collapsed under their own weight.
Others had to be re designed mid build in order to stop them collapsing.

The pyramids are a great social engineering accomplishment. They are not really great engineering achievements.


All of the questions you raised over the building of pyramids has been answered by experimentation, not just by me here.
dissonance - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Just because some cranks claim they are "machined to modern engineered tolerances" doesn't mean they are.

and even if true (which i doubt in this case) there are some superb craftsmen even today who can craft to exacting standards, examples being gunsmiths. Its just that talent is comparatively rare and their work also takes a lot of time.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to ripper:

Hello ripper, ok this is defiantly my last post, no you are correct any point could be deemed center of land mass, but as applies to many scientific procedures the role of the observer becomes a part of the experiment and in the 2D world any fool such as me can see where the center is no doubt its just a coincidence and them slaves had no one wanting to kill them so they put down over a million 1 tonne or above rocks in around 20 years (yeah do the math on that one prof!), just cos some wacked out king wanted a giant castle for his dead body, yeah that one is proper bonkers on a scale of bonkersness its just become a whole new game changer.... go back to sleep dude x
Philip on 15 Nov 2012

> though........... why would you want to? They're shite.

Because then I can dock my space craft on to it. Obviously. D'uh.
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Is that right? I'd have thought that the number of earth size planets discovered so far was too small to allow accurate extrapolation, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that

I'm not sure. I thought it was xkcd ran a blog post quite crudely estimating the number two different ways (based on two recent papers) and coming to two similar figures but I can't for the life of me find it again. Maybe it wasn't xkcd, I suspect it was a link I followed out of one of the 'what if' pages.

> How many of them are in the correct zone to allow water to exist in liquid phase and have a large satellite like the moon? plus being big enough to retain an atmosphere and tectonic activity? Plus a large gas giant like Jupiter protecting the inner solar system from bombardment? Could be that we are more unusual than we think.

We thought we were totally unique until we recently built telescopes able to suggest otherwise.

I don't know how many are genuinely earth like, it was just an estimate. Quite a few would seem to be a pretty safe bet if 2Bn loosely Earth-like size/orbit-radius/star-type planets per galaxy is anywhere near reality.

> And it's 'perfection' appears to be a product of life itself, changing the atmosphere to be oxygen rich, but not too rich
> Again none of this needs a creators hand, and is all the more marvellous for that, but looking at our neighbours, there are many more ways for a planet to develop that will not sustain life than ways that do....

Seems true but we don't have a very big sample size yet though do we.

> I think this turns on how we are using the word perfect.... I ssuspect we are actually saying something very similar to each other....

I imagine so :)
jk
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:
>
> [...]
>
> Because then I can dock my space craft on to it. Obviously. D'uh.

Makes you despair for the future of humans though, doesn't it!
Horatio on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> Because they are. The moon is an order of magnitude older than animal life on earth. Yes, we've developed to live on a world who's rhythms are regulated by its large close moon but the moon didn't trigger the development of animals.

Apologies, I've missed a link out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse#Final_totality

I was referring to the sentence 'Hundreds of millions of years in the past, the Moon was too close to the Earth to precisely occlude the Sun as it does during eclipses today; and over a billion years in the future, it will be too far away to do so'. So the moons eclipse orbit could have coincided with the development of simple then complex life on this planet which the link early stated happened 600 million years ago, backed up by Coel's statement that the moons current orbit stabilises the climate on earth. That and the total eclipse is a big enough coincident for me to explore the possibility that it was designed.

Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> That and the total eclipse is a big enough coincident for me to explore the possibility that it was designed.

So now we're talking civilisations with the capability of constructing a moon?
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to jkarran)
> [...]
>
> Apologies, I've missed a link out there
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse#Final_totality
>
> I was referring to the sentence 'Hundreds of millions of years in the past, the Moon was too close to the Earth to precisely occlude the Sun as it does during eclipses today; and over a billion years in the future, it will be too far away to do so'. So the moons eclipse orbit could have coincided with the development of simple then complex life on this planet which the link early stated happened 600 million years ago, backed up by Coel's statement that the moons current orbit stabilises the climate on earth. That and the total eclipse is a big enough coincident for me to explore the possibility that it was designed.

You are becomming confused.
Mobile animal life did not arrise BECAUSE the moon eclipses the sun almost perfectly.

It's the other way around. Land based mobile animal life was not possible when the moon was too close because of tidal influence.
however, two other things to consider is that:
(a) The moon was a lot closer and the eclipse NOT perfect when mobile animal life formed.
(b) The moon is not the only factor. Other factors include a toxic atmosphere (changed by stromatolites) and the fact that the Earth was vastly more geolicially active, which did not allow for a stable ecosystem to develope.
In fact, it's speculated that some of the great extinctions were due to volcanic activity.
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Everyone has a pyramids theory, and mine is that they were mainly to keep people busy during the quiet season when the farms didnt need any work. Having a big chunk of the population wandering around with nothing to do would probably lead to trouble, so the people in power probably thought 'we need something to keep them busy so they don't have time to challange our leadership, might as well make a big pile of stones'.

Or something like that
gramee on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:

damnit!! *Presents clever stool to Phillip*

My bad, I missed yours, I bow before you :)
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Red Rover:

Pyramid hypothesis or conjecture, rather than theory, would be more accurate for the stuff like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz4Alt1S9vI
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Found it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/29/how-many-habitable-planets-are-there-in-th...
Linked from: http://what-if.xkcd.com/4/

My memory was out by a bit and it could still be very wrong but it is interesting.
MJH - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> what's at the center of the landmass of earth
>
> i get pages of stuff about the pyramids

Surely a) that is entirely arbitrary depending on how you orient the map and b) subject to plate tectonics ie it will change?
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> Surely a) that is entirely arbitrary depending on how you orient the map and b) subject to plate tectonics ie it will change?

I don't get this either.
So far as I'm aware, there is no absolute 'centre of the landmass of Earth'

If by this they mean 'centre of the landmass as calculated by Mercator projection'
then it's totally meaningless. For a start, Mercator projection has only been around a few hundred years, and second, if you slice the map on a different meridian you'd get a different 'centre'?
John_Hat - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

It's rather well documented that lots and lots of people spent hundreds of years, vast sums of money and employed thousands of people to build large buildings for no other purpose than the glory of their god. There's one in most cities. In fact its still going on in Barcelona - Segrada Familia won't be finished for another 20-odd years.

Given the leaders in Egypt were seen as gods, why is it so implausible that exactly the same occurred thousands of years ago as was clearly, obviously and certainly done hundreds of years ago? (and is still going on now).
Arjen - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
Small correction (I'm a biologist, not an astrophysics guy), the first animals came on land about 600m years ago, and we as primates have evolved for some ~7m years, so your numbers are a bit off.
And yes, an idea requires to have evidence, you can't just stipulate something and don't back it up.
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> and in the 2D world any fool such as me can see where the center is ...

Sorry, wrong. The centre of the world on 2-D maps is of course Jerusalem, as the medieval map-makers put it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_Mappa_Mundi ). The Nile Delta is way off-centre (location 16 on the map). Any fool knows that!
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> Hello ripper, ok this is defiantly my last post, no you are correct any point could be deemed center of land mass, but as applies to many scientific procedures the role of the observer becomes a part of the experiment and in the 2D world any fool such as me can see where the center is no doubt its just a coincidence and them slaves had no one wanting to kill them so they put down over a million 1 tonne or above rocks in around 20 years (yeah do the math on that one prof!), just cos some wacked out king wanted a giant castle for his dead body, yeah that one is proper bonkers on a scale of bonkersness its just become a whole new game changer.... go back to sleep dude x

Oh, johnj, please come back - I'm 'defiantly' missing your posts on this subject. The rest of day will be so boring without them...

johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes prof well done, what's a few clicks between star systems, but well spotted, 4/10 for pointing out the obvious.
tony on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry, wrong. The centre of the world on 2-D maps is of course Jerusalem, as the medieval map-makers put it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_Mappa_Mundi ). The Nile Delta is way off-centre (location 16 on the map). Any fool knows that!

Well that's wrong! According to Eratosthanes, in about 220BC, the centre of the world was somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf (but certainly not in Egypt).

Alternatively, the Orbis Terrarum of 20AD put the centre of the world somewhere in the Mediterranean, between Greece and Cyprus (also not in Egypt).

Mappa Mundi indeed - bunch of Johnny-come-latelys!
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to ripper:

It's ok I only went away for a little while back to have fun with these programmed er I mean edjucatedered cats
dissonance - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to tony:

> Mappa Mundi indeed - bunch of Johnny-come-latelys!

all wrong.
The centre of the world is me.
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: what the f*ck are you on about?
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> It's ok I only went away for a little while back to have fun with these programmed er I mean edjucatedered cats

You're kind of missing the point here.

There have been many different map systems through the ages.

Each one would give you a different 'centre'

Even based on the maps we use today, all you have to do is choose a different meridian and you will have a different centre of landmass.

It's completely meaningless.
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: obviously to most relatively non-bonkers people it is indeed completely meaningless as you say. But even if one was to insist that there is such a thing, surely the centre of the earth's surface would have to be either one of the poles, or maybe the confluence of the equator and Greenwich Meridian? Again, none of these are in Egypt.
I do hope he's not finished yet, I love this thread...
Postmanpat on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> It's ok I only went away for a little while back to have fun with these programmed er I mean edjucatedered cats

You missed out the word "sheeple"....

Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to ripper:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) obviously to most relatively non-bonkers people it is indeed completely meaningless as you say. But even if one was to insist that there is such a thing, surely the centre of the earth's surface would have to be either one of the poles, or maybe the confluence of the equator and Greenwich Meridian? Again, none of these are in Egypt.
> I do hope he's not finished yet, I love this thread...

I sometimes wish I were bonkers too!!

It does seem a much easier way of being. you come out with some idiotic tripe which is either plain wrong, an outright lie or a pic n mix of truth and speculation, and when someone half rational picks holes in it, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and go off smiling spouting the same rubbish to the next person, leaving the rational person scratching their head thinking 'what the fcuk???'
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: yeah - a bit like being religious I spose ;-)
toad - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier: big shout out for al Idrisi. From 1154, and with Jerusalem at the centre, and south at the top!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Idrisi%27s_world_map.JPG

And he had the coolest boss in history - King Roger the second!
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to toad: That maps pretty accurate for 900 years ago.
toad - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Red Rover: and mostly from secondary data - he drew it mostly from interviews with other travellers. It's an outstanding piece of work, though It would be quite tricky to upload a 2m disk of solid silver into your sat nav.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to ripper:

The bonkers thing is center of landmass is such an obvious straw man to which the cats tripped over their whiskers trying to disprove that take us away from the deeper relevance of the construction. Center of landmass could be anywhere, its recorded perspective just happens to be very close to those so so accurately built shapes that they knocked up for fun back then as they didn't have council telly to watch the world go by on.
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: He has a go at science in another of his blog posts

'The idea that the world is a closed materialistic and deterministic system is only a supposition. It ainít necessarily so. The dogma of cause and effect will take you a long way, but enter the world of quantum mechanics and the concept of causes and effects is meaningless. Materialism died with the coming of Planck, Bohr and Heisenberg.'

From this one
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100184489/whether-or-not-near-death-experiences-are-re...
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Eh??

Then why bring it up?

Let's assume for a moment that the pyramids are somewhere near the centre of the landmass.......... as described in whichever map.

does it not occur that generally, those making the maps put themselves (or something they consider important) at the centre of those maps?

Is it coincidence that the prime meridian runs through the Royal Observatory?

Or was the meridian put where the observatory is?

No idea why you brought the subject up!
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

why bring it up, for shit and giggles really, you've got to remember this is just a discussion forum, nobody weather they think they are are proving or disproving owt on these forums really. Folk read contribute or twitch from behind their keyboards some even use punctuation and the world keeps spinning dude x
tony on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> The bonkers thing is center of landmass is such an obvious straw man to which the cats tripped over their whiskers trying to disprove that take us away from the deeper relevance of the construction. Center of landmass could be anywhere,

So how come when you type it into Google you gets loads of pages about pyramids? Isn't that like kinda weird and spooky and all that new-age hippy dipshit bollocks?
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> and them slaves

Wasn't it proven recently that it wasn't down trodden slaves (a la hollywood films) but employed craftsmen that built the pyramids. I'm sure slaves were included but, again, not in the same way films have portrayed them.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> why bring it up, for shit and giggles really, you've got to remember this is just a discussion forum, nobody weather they think they are are proving or disproving owt on these forums really. Folk read contribute or twitch from behind their keyboards some even use punctuation and the world keeps spinning dude x

I suppose some of us prefer our discussion to be relevent and rational, unless it's playful banter of course. But didn't see the map stuff as either!

People do sometimes prove things on this (and I'm sure other) forum........... quite a few times I've learned something new or realised my thinking may be wrong on a subject.
Tony Naylor on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to ripper)
> [...]
> It does seem a much easier way of being. you come out with some idiotic tripe which is either plain wrong, an outright lie or a pic n mix of truth and speculation, and when someone half rational picks holes in it, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and go off smiling spouting the same rubbish to the next person, leaving the rational person scratching their head thinking 'what the fcuk???'

A shorter way of saying this is, "You can't educate pork".

johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

It is rational, my claim is any of the theories which currently describe how they built the pyramids are woefully woefully out of date.
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> > People do sometimes prove things on this (and I'm sure other) forum........... quite a few times I've learned something new or realised my thinking may be wrong on a subject.

I'm starting to change my thinking too - I can't help but wonder if the existence of a thread as insanely entertaining as this one is proof that we're being controlled by some benevolent higher power...
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> It is rational, my claim is any of the theories which currently describe how they built the pyramids are woefully woefully out of date.

Yet I've just told you that I am able to reproduce all of those tehcniques with simple tools.

Nowhere have you said how or why the theories are out of date.

A pyramid is very easy to set out with the same accuracy as the originals using some sticks and string.
It's actualy been tested.
As has moving the blocks........ I've watched it being done.

Just saying 'it's out of date' is meaningless.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to ripper:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> I'm starting to change my thinking too - I can't help but wonder if the existence of a thread as insanely entertaining as this one is proof that we're being controlled by some benevolent higher power...

Or perhaps, trolls.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tony Naylor:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> A shorter way of saying this is, "You can't educate pork".

Ha!
Well i've learned that recently the hard way!
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> It is rational, my claim is any of the theories which currently describe how they built the pyramids are woefully woefully out of date.

I'll bite. On what basis are they 'out of date'?
jk
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

if it was so meaninglessness why did you respond to it Sherlock.

<note that no question mark illustrates this is a rhetorical question>
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> if it was so meaninglessness why did you respond to it Sherlock.
>
> <note that no question mark illustrates this is a rhetorical question>

Curiosity.

even though I am 46 years old and have managed to learn many things...... I still have no handle on how some people's minds can dismiss fact in favour of irrationality and flights of fancy.

Blows me away, 'dude'
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to jkarran:

If i was to tell you why you wouldn't learn anything, first you need to become a pyramid geek read all that so called conspiracy shiz and look at the evidence and then when enough people have studied the evidence we can formulate some questions and derive some possible scenarios of build technique
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> If i was to tell you why you wouldn't learn anything, first you need to become a pyramid geek read all that so called conspiracy shiz and look at the evidence and then when enough people have studied the evidence we can formulate some questions and derive some possible scenarios of build technique

Ah. that old chestnut again.

I am not sure if you are simply trolling or just lack the skills to back up the nonsense you come out with.
I fond both a bit dull so leave you to it.
jkarran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

It's called conspiracy shit for good reason. Because it's shit.
jk
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

splendid
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Ok you pseudo-scientific sherlocks - you might not believe there's anything unusual about the building of the pyramids but you can't deny that this pyramid power thing is some pretty wack shit (if you doubt the exisitence of pyramid power, search google and get over 5 million hits, pretty conclusive eh?).
Wikipedia says this: "With this power, model pyramids are said to preserve foods, sharpen or maintain the sharpneses of razor blades, improve health (some people 'were so energized that they could not cope with the dynamo effects they experienced'), function 'as a thought-form incubator', trigger sexual urges, and cause other dramatic effects."
of course it said more too but this was the good bit.

ads.ukclimbing.com
MJH - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: So just consider that we don't all have time to do that and point us to the summary version or even better tell us what you really think without trying to hide behind a lack of anything to support your claims.
MG - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to ripper:

> of course it said more too but this was the good bit.


As ever, RationalWiki is helpful on this matter.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Giza_pyramids#Power_station_theory
ripper - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to ripper)
>
> [...]
>
>
> As ever, RationalWiki is helpful on this matter.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Giza_pyramids#Power_station_theory

fine if you want to limit yourself to believing only in the rational ;-)
Tony Naylor on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Sounds like you know your stuff about buildings, so a serious question - are the tunnels/channels that run through some of the pyramids at 45 degrees easy to do? I'm thinking of those half metre square thingies.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MJH:

There is no summary version just a lot of varied theories, one been that the pyramids were built by technology not currently believed to exist, the evidence which is the structures themselves. And all those crazy biblical stories, for those stories to become so robust they have to have some basis in actual historical events.

I'm not a crazy nutjob just an engineer who looks at evidence and has a lot of unanswered questions, and when I ask these questions I get ridiculed hence this piss taking stand I'll continue to take.
MG - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> I'm not a crazy nutjob just an engineer who looks at evidence and has a lot of unanswered questions, and when I ask these questions I get ridiculed hence this piss taking stand I'll continue to take.

I think people are taking the piss not primarily because you present strange ideas but because when asked about why you believe they are credible, rather than pointing at the evidence in a helpful way, or arguing a case, you are just evasive.
Mr Powly - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

But when people point out that there might be answers to your questions you're not very interested.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MG: well thats the give and take of forum life for you
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Mr Powly: because nobodies answered the questions as i haven't asked any
MJH - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: So there are lots of competing theories and you personally have unanswered questions. Not a problem - why not ask those questions rather than adopt a "piss taking stand" with people that engage you in fair debate?

As Wonko says it is just plain not true that the pyramids could not be recreated, albeit the exact technology may no longer be the same (in the same way that any number of technologies with the same end result will have changed in 5000 years).
MG - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Well, if you enjoy being ridiculed, carry on.
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> There is no summary version just a lot of varied theories, one been that the pyramids were built by technology not currently believed to exist, the evidence which is the structures themselves.

Problem with this is it has been proven without the need for "technology not currently believed to exist". This hypothesis (as a theory is proven) has been debunked by modern day engineers.

> And all those crazy biblical stories, for those stories to become so robust they have to have some basis in actual historical events.

Quite possibly - for example, the floods - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907150931.htm


> I'm not a crazy nutjob just an engineer who looks at evidence and has a lot of unanswered questions, and when I ask these questions I get ridiculed hence this piss taking stand I'll continue to take.

But you haven't looked at the evidence - you have looked at the conspiracy - UKC people are asking for the evidence you cite but you have not offered any as such.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MJH:

thats just one mans rather simple sound bite, and i never said the pyramids could not be recreated, this breakdown of points till we reach null changes nothing
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MG: cool
Horatio on 15 Nov 2012
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

And you've just made assumptions
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> thats just one mans rather simple sound bite,

But it isn't - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328104302.htm


In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
>
> And you've just made assumptions

as have you.
MJH - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: No, it was a genuine attempt to once again engage you in something interesting rather than descending into name calling.
dissonance - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> There is no summary version just a lot of varied theories, one been that the pyramids were built by technology not currently believed to exist,

Which is a claim not really supported by the evidence and hence we can knock off one of those theories. Whats next?

> And all those crazy biblical stories, for those stories to become so robust they have to have some basis in actual historical events.

not necessarily. Some may be based on some fact others so corrupt as to be unrecognisable.
For example we can be fairly sure the dead saints didnt walk the streets of Jerusalem during an earthquake. Unless you can think of some reason that wouldnt have been recorded apart from in one of the gospels?
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:


nothing new in that one
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MJH: Name calling started way back, we can speak about this properly in the future maybe
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to dissonance:

I don't know I wasn't there
Coel Hellier - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> And all those crazy biblical stories, for those stories to become so robust they have to have
> some basis in actual historical events.

So which "crazy biblical stories" are "robust" enough that they imply historical events that are not just the usual run-of-the-mill stuff?

Robert Durran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> You seem to be saying roughly what I am. I happen to one of those who believes that (statistically) there must be millions, perhaps billions, of earthlike planets in the universe that support life.

I thought the jury was still out on that one - I don't think anyone can realistically put a figure on the odds of life emerging on any given planet. It might be astronomically(!) small. Then again it might not.

Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> I thought the jury was still out on that one - I don't think anyone can realistically put a figure on the odds of life emerging on any given planet. It might be astronomically(!) small. Then again it might not.

Yes, indeed the jury is still out. That's why I said it was a belief of mine. Given approx number of stars in universe (I think v roughly 300 billion stars in our galaxy and 400 billion galaxies in the known universe - IIRC, not not have), even if the chances of life on in a solar system were only 1 in 400 billion that would leave 300 billion planets with life on them.
birdie num num - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Earlier today I was sitting with my feet up at the garden table enjoying a box of Mrs Num Num's Ferro Rochers that I had snaffled when I was supposed to be scrubbing the wheelie bin. Suddenly, she loomed over me with her rolling pin causing a kind of solar eclipse and all the birds stopped tweeting and the air went chill. What followed was clear evidence of the existence of Beelzebub.
Shani - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> I thought the jury was still out on that one - I don't think anyone can realistically put a figure on the odds of life emerging on any given planet. It might be astronomically(!) small. Then again it might not.

Not just life on planets but on moons too.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.28.81.45.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well if we take the context of what part of the discussion I was dealing with it would be the stuff about Egypt and the removal of gods word in the arc of the covenant as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Now the box which contained the so called ten commandments when you read a bit more into it turns out its very much like a big capacitor and anyone who got too close to it got fried, then they needed to construct a special area around it to stop it killing people, sounds a bit radioactive to me....

.....skip forward a few thousand years and the rich men from western Europe were all over the parish searching the holy land for gods word and generally having a good old battle....

skip forward a thousand years or so and when ''Napoleon on his visit to the great pyramid. He asked to be left alone in the Kingís chamber. When he emerged, it was reported that he looked visibly shaken. When an aide asked him if he had witnessed anything mysterious, he replied that he had no comment, and that he never wanted the incident mentioned again. Years later, when he was on his deathbed, a close friend asked him what really happened in the Kingís chamber. He was about to tell him and stopped. Then he shook his head and said, "No, what's the use. You'd never believe me." As far as we know, he never told anyone and took the secret to his grave. (It is interesting to note that there is an unsubstantiated story that Napoleon had hinted that he was given some vision of his destiny during his stay in the King's Chamber).''(1)

.... skip forwards a 100 years and the Nazi's were all over the parish looking for ancient holy artifacts.....

......skip forward half a century and Saddam was digging up a load of ancient Mesopotamia, to get some marsh Arabs of his land, and us the west went and blew the shit out of the place then filled all the swamps in and handed it back to Iraq

Then as I said before some of the stories are so robust that the book still sells well and well over a billion people believe it Verbatim to this day, so it brings me to the conclusion either that the whole world is insane, or there is so much more knowledge held by certain parties and the rest of us are kept in the dark and broadcast a daily soap opera called the news, and if we question certain theories which are held as fact it properly trips folk out and all you get is ridicule. So if that is the case I may as well keep on reading about it

I always loved that story about Galileo trying to make a dog look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter because he said something like if another creature had seen the moons and the bright light was a planet like ours the whole world wouldn't think he was so crazy....


apologies for the obvious mis-quotes got to keep you pedants in new fun discussion topics after all, making bits up about the Nazis, I stole that bit from Indy don't you know Hollywood never tell us the truth by hiding it right in plain sight so someone can call our bluff saying doood you've just watched too much Stargate spark up another doob and listen to some more electric wizard or whatever other doom bands get yer high, and generally thinking the world is a giant egg.

x


(1)http://www.gizapyramid.com/history.htm
Jamming Dodger on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> Curiosity.
>
> even though I am 46 years old and have managed to learn many things...... I still have no handle on how some people's minds can dismiss fact in favour of irrationality and flights of fancy.
>
> Blows me away, 'dude'

You're 47.
Postmanpat on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> You're 47.

Are you American or just a Brit with an irony bypass?

Jamming Dodger on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: ....Eh? I think it was you who missed the irony there ;)
Im still waiting to hear about how the inside of the pyramids was constructed. Pointless structures it has to be said, but theyre too big and have been there too long to not be curious.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Jamming Dodger:

That's funny.

sorry wonko for laughing a little but then it's ok cos no doubt I'm off on a flight of fancy once more.
Talius Brute - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:


The slagging off of Fraser and the Golden Bough is valid though, it is the most fvcking patronising book ever written.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: I'm agog! What do you think happened to Napoleon in the pyramid?
Postmanpat on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) ....Eh? I think it was you who missed the irony there ;)
>
Sorry, yes, misidentified the poster :-(
mrchewy - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger: Just reminded me - so am I! Best change my profile...
Jamming Dodger on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: <tut>
:)
Jamming Dodger on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to mrchewy: You forgetful old fart. That'll be the dementia kicking in.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I dunno maybe he met Ra!?
JimboWizbo - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: How about a 250 reply thread summary post?
Jamming Dodger on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to JimboWizbo: Ok. God doesnt exist. There. I said it.
Solar eclipses are pretty cool though.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to JimboWizbo: Johnj is busy trolling that the Egyptians built pyramids on the moon.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: No, she's English. Pretty, very intelligent. Gets irony and has a good sense of humour when she's not scowling or making unreasonable demands.

She just has not the first clue how not to be a complete pain in the arse.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Come on it's not the moon there was stuff laying about up there way before the Egyptians got there, the Egyptians built Pyramids on Mars, I though everyone knew this basic stuff.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: The insides of the pyramids were probably modelled to scale.

The pyramids were infilled with crushed rock, much like 6F2 or Type 1 DOT, compacted.

When they reached formation level, they probably laid some rocks down as a foundation, filled up to this level, built the room as per the scale model and backfilled the outside as they went for stability and to facilitate loading the blocks for the next level.

Hardly difficult. Just labour intensive.

We still use the same techniques with formwork and retaining walls.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

it almost sounds like a cartoon version of what wiki says

History and description

It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu and was constructed over a 20 year period. Khufu's vizier, Hemon, or Hemiunu, is believed by some to be the architect of the Great Pyramid.[2] It is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft) but with erosion and absence of its pyramidion, its present height is 138.8 metres (455.4 ft). Each base side was 440 cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.[3] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night. The first precision measurements of the pyramid were made by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880Ė82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[4] Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetres wide (1/50th of an inch).[5]



The pyramid remained the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years,[6] unsurpassed until the 160-metre-tall spire of Lincoln Cathedral was completed c. 1300. The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[7] The base is horizontal and flat to within Ī15 mm.[8] The sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of arc)[9] based on true north, not magnetic north,[10] and the finished base was squared to a mean corner error of only 12 seconds of arc.[11] The completed design dimensions, as suggested by Petrie's survey and subsequent studies, are estimated to have originally been 280 cubits high by 440 cubits long at each of the four sides of its base. The ratio of the perimeter to height of 1760/280 cubits equates to 2Pi to an accuracy of better than 0.05% (corresponding to the well-known approximation of Pi as 22/7). Some Egyptologists consider this to have been the result of deliberate design proportion. Verner wrote, "We can conclude that although the ancient Egyptians could not precisely define the value of Pi, in practice they used it".[12] Petrie, author of Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh concluded: "but these relations of areas and of circular ratio are so systematic that we should grant that they were in the builder's design".[13] Others have argued that the Ancient Egyptians had no concept of pi and would not have thought to encode it in their monuments. They believe that the observed pyramid slope may be based on a simple seked slope choice alone, with no regard to the overall size and proportions of the finished building.[14]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: And John, No idea what you're on. You're about the only engineer I've heard of who gives credence to this trollop. My guess is you're either 0% engineer, or 100% troll.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Well there you go.

It just goes to show that Henry Ford was probably not the first person to use mass production techniques with specialists at each stage.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Others have argued that the Ancient Egyptians had no concept of pi and would not have thought to encode it in their monuments. They believe that the observed pyramid slope may be based on a simple seked slope choice alone, with no regard to the overall size and proportions of the finished building.[14]
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza




OR, it may have been based on the fact that they f*cked a few up before they got it right, learned from their experience, and just like the golden ratio in architecture, which was discovered before the maths was discovered, it turns out to be the most cost effective shape for a pyramid if you would like it not to fall over.

Just saying, like.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Here you go then a little more light reading

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Can't see anything about the missing technology you've referred to.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: I got bored at the bollocks about the lack of tools in the archeological record.


The reason for this is that the metals they did have were highly reactive ones, not to mention expensive. You'd not expect to find copper, rope or timber tools.

Note that very little granite was used. For the most part, it's soft stone. Easy to work.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: I LOVE the bit where he dismisses lasers as a cutting tool because they are not a good cutting tool for rock.

Leaving out that to PRODUCE lasers, you'd need a manufacturing base which you'd not be able to hide.

But they probably had a small, neat, magic laser making machine. Doh.
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No me neither just post industrial revolution type of tech really, the high tech stuff no doubt was on the secret moon base by then, maybe the Nazis had developed time travel and erased it from the record then used it to build their secret bases on Saturn?
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.30.188.170.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Wonko The Sane: ok as you're the brains round here knock up a little pyramid in you garden tonight and you can show everyone how easy it is to carve soft stone, maybe you could use some grit thats pretty soft innit.. lol
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: From my favourite play in the world. ever.

ďTHOMASINA: ....the enemy who burned the great library of Alexandria without so much as a fine for all that is overdue. Oh, Septimus! -- can you bear it? All the lost plays of the Athenians! Two hundred at least by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides -- thousands of poems -- Aristotle's own library!....How can we sleep for grief?

SEPTIMUS: By counting our stock. Seven plays from Aeschylus, seven from Sophocles, nineteen from Euripides, my lady! You should no more grieve for the rest than for a buckle lost from your first shoe, or for your lesson book which will be lost when you are old. We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?Ē






Have you any reason to think the technology for a crude, man operated lathe could not have been discovered, used and lost
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: As I said. Pay me and i'll build you a real one.
Red Rover - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> No me neither just post industrial revolution type of tech really, the high tech stuff no doubt was on the secret moon base by then, maybe the Nazis had developed time travel and erased it from the record then used it to build their secret bases on Saturn?

Troll (or nutter)
Robert Durran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> skip forward a thousand years or so and when ''Napoleon on his visit to the great pyramid. He asked to be left alone in the Kingís chamber. When he emerged, it was reported that he looked visibly shaken....

I spent about 20 minutes alone in the King's burial chamber of the Great Pyramid*. I can assure you that, although a pretty cool experience, nothing untoward happened (apart from a booming voice saying "one day you WILL onsight E6", but I get that all the time anyway, so nothing unusual there. Napolen was undoubtedly spouting bollocks and so are you.

*Hint: arrive early and buy one of the limited number of tickets, then wait until late in the day when everyone else has already been in.
ads.ukclimbing.com
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.28.28.163.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Red Rover:

come on name calling was so this afternoon you need a bit more game than that this evening, where's yer imagination.
Robert Durran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> Yes, indeed the jury is still out. That's why I said it was a belief of mine. Given approx number of stars in universe (I think v roughly 300 billion stars in our galaxy and 400 billion galaxies in the known universe - IIRC, not not have), even if the chances of life on in a solar system were only 1 in 400 billion that would leave 300 billion planets with life on them.

But if the chances are one in 120 thousand billion billion then its odds on we are alone!

johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.28.28.163.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Robert Durran:

I never got to the Kings chamber just spent some time getting hassled by the Arabs wondering what all the fuss was over the big piles of choss.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran: Go look up the Drake equation.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> I never got to the Kings chamber just spent some time getting hassled by the Arabs wondering what all the fuss was over the big piles of choss.

Mexico has some much finer pyramids. Particularly Palenque
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Though for sheer scale, you can't beat Monte Alban.

also home to a game which I think should be reintroduced, along with the 'prize'
stroppygob - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: It was a good eclipse. We're were due to see 64% of the it in Canberra at 8.04 am, but ten minutes before that time we had total cloud cover, so we thought we'd see sod all. We got lucky though and saw it!! The cloud thinned just enough, as I was driving my missus into work, for us to see the partial eclipse. Not only that, but due to the thin cloud we were able to look directly at it, it was a breathtaking sight!

Robert Durran - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Go look up the Drake equation.

Yes, there are a lot of unknowns it it which was exactly my point.

Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Yes, there are a lot of unknowns it it which was exactly my point.

True.

But when I wake up in the morning, shit, shower and shave........ I don't feel very 'special', do you?

I would guess (and it is simply a guess) that the chances are a little better that there is/was some life, somewhere.
Sir Chasm - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I guess that there isn't/wasn't. And I bet I won't be proved wrong.
Wonko The Sane - on 15 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: I REALLY hope aliens land tomorrow ;)
johnj on 15 Nov 2012 - 188.29.102.209.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I wouldn't wager either way, i'll keep an open mind and as they say hedge my bets.
Robert Durran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> But when I wake up in the morning, shit, shower and shave........ I don't feel very 'special', do you?

Actually, I do feel pretty special (though no more special than anyone else - well maybe just a little bit...)

> I would guess (and it is simply a guess) that the chances are a little better that there is/was some life, somewhere.

A guess is all it can be on the current evidence. Rather than profess any belief on the subject, I prefer to remain properly open minded.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Actually, I do feel pretty special (though no more special than anyone else - well maybe just a little bit...)
>
> [...]
>
> A guess is all it can be on the current evidence. Rather than profess any belief on the subject, I prefer to remain properly open minded.

Hence the word 'guess'

A guess doesn't imply a closed mind. It implies a guess.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189553/a-solar-eclipse-is-awesome-mysterious-and-te...
>
> I'm an astrophysics ignoramus and even I sense there may be something wrong with his argument.

And before you ask, I 'guess' that way because the geolicical processes which formed our earth are not magical and can have happened many times over.

Life forming?
I don't see that as magical either.

Given the very long periods of time it's thought to have happened over....... whilst I am not stating it HAS happened anywhere else, I can see no reason why not.
Sebastian Fontleroy - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

You are by far the most interesting person on this forum. You are as funny as f£ck. Consider me a fan.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - 92.41.225.61.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Sebastian Fontleroy:

Hello Sebasitian, thanks for the kind words :+) No doubt there'll be a bit of incoming today or tommorow or until the usual suspects get bored. On the other hand they could always ignore my musings and swiftly progress along to the next topic, nothing to see here move on ya'll.
Philip on 16 Nov 2012
How come up until around 2000 years ago, gods used to show off and do things like appear as a horse and shag all the women in a village or make fire come out of things. Now suddenly we're to believe that they reduced themselves to carefully aligning stellar objects.

It's as unlikely as my wife doing the washing, drying and ironing then putting it away in my cupboard and leaving me to guess. Instead it is scattered around the lounge in piles and on hanger so it's bloody obvious of her omnipotent control of the laundry cycle.
Duncan Bourne - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Talius Brute:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
>
>
> The slagging off of Fraser and the Golden Bough is valid though, it is the most fvcking patronising book ever written.

Eh? How so? I agree it is mostly a made up mishmash of various mythologies cobbled together to create a pseudo-druidical religion that full filled the fantasies of the Victorian Celtic revival lot and anyone one with sense would skip to the back to learn that the answer was mistletoe. But patronising? I don't really see it.
Jamming Dodger on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:
> How come up until around 2000 years ago, gods used to show off and do things like appear as a horse and shag all the women in a village or make fire come out of things. Now suddenly we're to believe that they reduced themselves to carefully aligning stellar objects.

I think thats an excellent point. What have the Gods done in recent times that is worthy of a mention in a book about 1500 pages long containing spurious heresay? Something that you wouldnt find in any edition of The Sun (a la "my wife turned into a cabbage overnight" (dont we all))

> It's as unlikely as my wife doing the washing, drying and ironing then putting it away in my cupboard and leaving me to guess. Instead it is scattered around the lounge in piles and on hanger so it's bloody obvious of her omnipotent control of the laundry cycle.

Theres a solution for that controlling behaviour, you know... ;)
Robert Durran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
> [...]
>
> And before you ask, I 'guess' that way because the geolicical processes which formed our earth are not magical and can have happened many times over.

"Non-magical" is not the same as "likely" (If I bought a lottery ticket, I might win the jackpot - not magical but very unlikely).

I would no more presume to guess whether or not life has emerged elsewhere in the universe than I would presume to guess the outcome of tossing a coin.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> "Non-magical" is not the same as "likely" (If I bought a lottery ticket, I might win the jackpot - not magical but very unlikely).
>
> I would no more presume to guess whether or not life has emerged elsewhere in the universe than I would presume to guess the outcome of tossing a coin.

You miss the point.

Nor would I guess at the toss of a single coin.

But over the course of a few hundred millions of years, it's quite probable that you're not geussing at the outcome of a single coin toss.
You're guessing at billions of coin tosses.


That's WHY many scientists, far more informed than me, beleive life not only could form if conditions prevailed.......... but in all probability, would form.
Robert Durran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> You miss the point.
>
> Nor would I guess at the toss of a single coin.

No, your missing the point.....
>
> But over the course of a few hundred millions of years, it's quite probable that you're not geussing at the outcome of a single coin toss.
> You're guessing at billions of coin tosses.

......each with an unknown, but possibly ridiculously low chance of coming up heads. Same difference.
>
>
> That's WHY many scientists, far more informed than me, beleive life not only could form if conditions prevailed.......... but in all probability, would form.

If....

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> No, your missing the point.....
> [...]
>
> ......each with an unknown, but possibly ridiculously low chance of coming up heads. Same difference.
> [...]
>
>


And yet, I've read a fair amount from people who, as I've said have a far superior knowledge to me, and I suspect you too........ who think this may well be the case.

Nowhere have I suggested it's proven.

And a small point, most scientific hypothesis start with a guess, which they go on to prove or disprove.

If we all had your aversion to making any kind of guess, we'd know nothing at all.
Robert Durran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> Nowhere have I suggested it's proven.
>
> And a small point, most scientific hypothesis start with a guess, which they go on to prove or disprove.
>
> If we all had your aversion to making any kind of guess, we'd know nothing at all.

I take your point.
But supposing we have no clear evidence either way, it is still interesting to try to answer the question "are we alone" by looking for extra terrestrial life. I don't see any need to guess an answer to make that a worthwhile thing to do.
On the other hand, spending billions building the LHC might have been considered folly if theory hadn't strongly suggested what to look for (eg Higgs, Supersymmetry) and how to look for it - so here an educated guess is probably a good idea.

Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> And a small point, most scientific hypothesis start with a guess, which they go on to prove or disprove.
>
> If we all had your aversion to making any kind of guess, we'd know nothing at all.

Why can't you guess that we were created by another life form, on the basis that humans now create other life forms, could have the engineering skills to travel to distant solar systems and carryout huge engineering projects in the not so distant future (if we don't destroy ourselves first). Engineering projects like adjusting the path of a satellite in order to create habitual living conditions, like we do now so we can watch football. Provide a reason as to why these mysterious life forms might not have left any evidence of their existence, and how photographs of the moons surface showing images that bear a resemblance to ancient human architectural sites on earth would prove there existence. Photographs that could be hidden from the public based on the fact that our government constantly lies to us (Iraq war, WTC 7 collapse).

I'm not going to pretend I understand any of this but have we not just invented a machine (Hadron Collider) that might teach us the process of how matter is formed? How long did it take us to go from discovering the atom to splitting it?

Yet the response I get is that I'm bonkers or a troll. Is it just a flight of fancy to far? Is there some blindingly obvious scientific reason that what I'm suggesting could not happen, that's so blindingly obvious no one's pointed it out to me? Not winging or having a go, just generally don't see why people find the idea so crazy.
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> Photographs that could be hidden from the public based on the fact that our government constantly lies to us (Iraq war, WTC 7 collapse).
>

You were doing well until here - the lies about WTC-7 were spread by the conspiracy theorists rather than the government.

ALC
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Why can't you guess that we were created by another life form, on the basis that humans now create other life forms, could have the engineering skills to travel to distant solar systems and carryout huge engineering projects in the not so distant future (if we don't destroy ourselves first). Engineering projects like adjusting the path of a satellite in order to create habitual living conditions, like we do now so we can watch football. Provide a reason as to why these mysterious life forms might not have left any evidence of their existence, and how photographs of the moons surface showing images that bear a resemblance to ancient human architectural sites on earth would prove there existence. Photographs that could be hidden from the public based on the fact that our government constantly lies to us (Iraq war, WTC 7 collapse).
>

A scientist doesn't usually guess for no reason at all. It's usually because of some indicator. They THEN go on to try to prove or disprove the theory.

There is no reason to postulate a god. No evidence for it other than early writings, and few of those historical writings. Also, there is much evidence to show that humans try to answer the unknown and given the lack of tools the ancients had, it's hardly surprising that superstition featured heavily.
I'd look up cargo cults.



> I'm not going to pretend I understand any of this but have we not just invented a machine (Hadron Collider) that might teach us the process of how matter is formed? How long did it take us to go from discovering the atom to splitting it?
>

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Though technological advance is not linear in our society.

> Yet the response I get is that I'm bonkers or a troll. Is it just a flight of fancy to far? Is there some blindingly obvious scientific reason that what I'm suggesting could not happen, that's so blindingly obvious no one's pointed it out to me? Not winging or having a go, just generally don't see why people find the idea so crazy.

No reason why it CAN'T be right. But no more than any other fanciful idea.
And even if I shared your view that there was a god....... it would answer precisely nothing for me.

Because if your take is that the universe cannot simply have come into being by itself, but an all powerful creator CAN.......... you lack curiosity.
I see no difference between a god suddenly turning up, or having existed forever than saying the same of the universe.


all in all, there IS evidence to show that humans make stuff up, and no valid reason to suggest the origin of everything is 'god'

It appears to me something we just made up to explain forces we could not understand.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> I take your point.
> But supposing we have no clear evidence either way, it is still interesting to try to answer the question "are we alone" by looking for extra terrestrial life. I don't see any need to guess an answer to make that a worthwhile thing to do.
> On the other hand, spending billions building the LHC might have been considered folly if theory hadn't strongly suggested what to look for (eg Higgs, Supersymmetry) and how to look for it - so here an educated guess is probably a good idea.

I completely agree. Though I'd say that in the case of the formation of life..... which is not really understood, questions were asked, 'what if' etc, and from that, people have fallen into different camps based on which unknowns they have focused on. So the evidence is there...... just very inconclusive.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I've never once mentioned God. Nor did the article. All I, and the article is suggesting is that it was designed, and I'm suggesting it was designed by intelligent lifeforms.
ads.ukclimbing.com
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to a lakeland climber:


I thought the lie was outed by the British Broadcasting Corporation who broadcast it had fallen down for all the world to see when the reporter was stood right in front of it, it then fell down a short while later.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: What are the lies about WTC 7?
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) I've never once mentioned God. Nor did the article. All I, and the article is suggesting is that it was designed, and I'm suggesting it was designed by intelligent lifeforms.

Why.
There is no reason to think so and every reason not to.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
>
> I thought the lie was outed by the British Broadcasting Corporation who broadcast it had fallen down for all the world to see when the reporter was stood right in front of it, it then fell down a short while later.

Agggghhhhh, please, no!!!

There should be an alternative to Godwin's law (to be know as the "WTC7 law")which would state that:

"Sooner or later any intellectually lazy conspiracy theorist will bring up the subject of WTC7 and think it proves something. He/she has therefore lost both the plot and the argument"

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

Back to name calling, how quaint.
mkean - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:
How come up until around 2000 years ago, gods used to show off and do things like appear as a horse(1) and shag all the women in a village or make fire come out of things(2). Now suddenly we're to believe that they reduced themselves to carefully aligning stellar objects.(3)

(1) Does Mr. Hands count?

(2) I can see the HSE taking a very dim view of this sort of thing.

(3) Maybe modern profits (sic) of God are more self serving and take credit for stuff themselves: "And lo the profit came down from Mount Sinai bearing the commandments on a tablet of brushed aluminium alloy and a plasticy substance and the people were greatly a'feared. They did flock unto the stores named after the forbidden fruit and purchase replicas of the tablet while uttering the name of the profit. I mean "Jobs" is a dead bible giveaway innit!

Rob Exile Ward on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: You're cobbling together bits of popular science misunderstood from lurid newspaper articles together with out and out fantasy.

If you don't understand that 'travelling to distant solar systems' is rather more than an engineering problem, or that GM is rather less than 'creating other life forms' in any meaningful sense, then you perhaps need to do a bit more reading.

Which isn't to say that technology hasn't progressed incredibly in the last 200 years; but it is highly likely that the pace of genuine, game changing advances is likely to plummet. (In fact, it already has. Cars are recognisably the same basic design as they were 100 years ago; we're still about as far away from speech recognition, artifical intelligence and the like as we were 20 years ago.)
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Why, there is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other at the moment. I'm suggesting an extension of Darwinism where by life not only moves around the planet but also moves around the universe in various forms (such as bacteria or spacemen), colonising habitual planets when it can and evolving into whatever it evolves into. I'm proposing that life started with the big bang and is as much the fabric of our universe as matter. And you're suggesting that given the right conditions, life will randomly spawn. Why is one so believable and the other so insane?
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Back to name calling, how quaint.

Nah, just casual observation. As others have pointed out, your reluctance or inability to back up your ideas with any reasoned evidence doesn't really
make it worthwhile others engaging seriously with them.

Maybe if you treated others seriously they would reciprocate?

a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

That it was demolished by controlled explosions and that there was no damage to the building prior to its collapse.

7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm.[2] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm (From Wikipedia)

As for the BBC report - I'm not sure what local time it was broadcast but given the confusing situation at the time and lots of conflicting reports it's hardly surprising that someone who wasn't familiar with the outlines of other parts of WTC might repeat or conflate things that later turn out to be wrong. If you were about to go on air and among the things that you are being told are "WTC-7 is on fire" (true) and "A building has collapsed" (assume this is true for the moment) then these will stick in your mind and could easily become "WTC-7 has collapsed". I'm not say that is what happened but it is a plausible theory.

Anyway, little green aliens teleported in to the planes and did it, teleporting out again just before impact.

ALC
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: So why did WTC 7 collapse?
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "Sooner or later any intellectually lazy conspiracy theorist will bring up the subject of WTC7 and think it proves something. He/she has therefore lost both the plot and the argument"

Double prize if "freefall speed" is mentioned.
Speaking of prizes I think Tall Clare wins this years troll thread prize.
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) So why did WTC 7 collapse?

There was a big fire. Also it had been structurally altered in a way that made it rather susceptible to collapse when a particular column was heated.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: Ok. Last try. Read this.


Russell's original proposition

In an unpublished article entitled "Is There a God?" commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine,[1] Russell suggested the following thought experiment to illustrate the burden of proof and falsifiability:




ďĒIf I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The existence of this teapot cannot be disproved. We can look and scan the skies almost for eternity, and it may always just be the case that it wasn't in the place we looked - there may be another spot we've overlooked. However, given the absurd nature of the specific example, the teapot, we would rightly infer that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Russell's audacity in the thought experiment was to question why people don't like to apply the same, sound, logic to the existence of any particular deity; there is no difference in the evidence base provided, therefore there is no reason to assume a God and not a celestial teapot.
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:

Update -

BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks.[68] Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.



ALC
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

Read (and preferably understand) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC-7

ALC
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) So why did WTC 7 collapse?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm ??

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

you haven't read the thread then and paid close attention to the links and references then, just repeated what others have said, very poor troll

0000000000000000000000000000000.1/10
Coel Hellier - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> Yet the response I get is that I'm bonkers or a troll. Is it just a flight of fancy to far? Is
> there some blindingly obvious scientific reason that what I'm suggesting could not happen, that's
> so blindingly obvious no one's pointed it out to me?

It's very easy to come up with flight-of-fancy ideas (for example, you could be an alien from the Planet Zog, sent here to do your undergraduate sociology project by observing humans). But, it's "bonkers" to pursue ideas that are only flights-of-fancy and have no evidence at all for them. People are calling you bonkers because you aren't abiding by the basic principle that ideas are only worth discussing and considering on the basis of the evidence for them.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

I read that link pretty much word for word about 5 years ago, I've just had a quick skim and they've plugged a few of the holes with a bit more noise and images, I'll have a good read again as soon as possible, it's just such a creaky plot that Hollywood wouldn't dare touch it
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: And this form the same article

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. The report did not reach conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation.[18]

So a skyscraper in New York city collapsed because debris hit it and it was on fire. A skyscraper designed for a city that is regularly hit by hurricanes and earthquakes.

These two videos highlight the amount of fire damage a skyscraper can sustain without collapsing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76AkcimaZjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM

And this is WTC 7 collapsing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> you haven't read the thread then and paid close attention to the links and references then, just repeated what others have said, very poor troll
>
> 0000000000000000000000000000000.1/10

I have. The links and references are generally very poor.

If I said "St.Pauls cathedral looks like it could have been constructed using mechanised diggers, mechanised stone cutters, and tower cranes so that shows that these were available in 18th Century Britain" would I be correct? No, because the mass of other evidence contradicts this assertion.
Similarly with the pyramids "evidence"

It is incumbent on the theorist to weigh up the evidence critically.

The "conspiracists" defend their positions on the basis that there are numerous examples of contrarian or "out of the box" theorists ultimately being proved correct.
They conveniently neglect to note that the bulk of them were simply wrong and that those who were correct were shown to be correct by the weight of evidence and rational thought (cf.Einstein, Darwin, Wegener) not by the passion or repetition of their claims.



MJH - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Why, there is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other at the moment. <snip> I'm proposing that life started with the big bang and is as much the fabric of our universe as matter. And you're suggesting that given the right conditions, life will randomly spawn. Why is one so believable and the other so insane?

Because you are postulating that a designer is necessary, whereas it has been shown how evolutionary mechanisms build from simple building blocks into complex molecules and ultimately into life (as we know it). No designer necessary - you just need the right ingredients in the primordial soup.
birdie num num - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
I was supposed to be hoovering out Mrs Num Num's car this morning but instead I was sitting with the seat reclined relaxing to classic fm. I was just dropping off to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik when the air became cold and I was aware of the umbra of a shadow falling upon me, the light source of the sun being completely blocked by the occluding body of Mrs Num Num brandishing a rolling pin, like a solar eclipse. The brutal scene that followed was clear evidence of the existence of satan.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber) And this form the same article
>

>
> So a skyscraper in New York city collapsed because debris hit it and it was on fire. A skyscraper designed for a city that is regularly hit by hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
When did New York last have a significant earthquake??

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> Because you are postulating that a designer is necessary, whereas it has been shown how evolutionary mechanisms build from simple building blocks into complex molecules and ultimately into life (as we know it). No designer necessary - you just need the right ingredients in the primordial soup.

Where and how has that been shown?
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber) And this form the same article
>
>
>
> So a skyscraper in New York city collapsed because debris hit it and it was on fire. A skyscraper designed for a city that is regularly hit by hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
>

Again, sorry Horation, but while anything is possible, the reason people can't take your things seriously is that;
(1) you say 'this is what a skyscrepaer can take before falling down' (or something like.
All designs are slightly different. You'll even find that sometimes, one side of a building is stronger than the other because of prevailing winds.
(2) You display no understanding of forces. The force from the wind in a hurricane is a relatively evenly spread force. The force from one thing falling against another is a POINT LOAD, a point load has a much higher impulse.
Because you do not understand these things, wild 'explanations' made by people who either have little knowledge themselves, or, a mentality which prefers to beleive in conspiracies, their ideas make more sense to you.


That said........ there's little I'd put past some of the security services in certain circumstances. Look at Hoover.
I doubt however they'd really kill 3000 of their own people to make a point.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

well done so you found something you thought you disprove, but all you did was carry on with your same tired out lines


History and description

It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu and was constructed over a 20 year period. Khufu's vizier, Hemon, or Hemiunu, is believed by some to be the architect of the Great Pyramid.[2] It is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft) but with erosion and absence of its pyramidion, its present height is 138.8 metres (455.4 ft). Each base side was 440 cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.[3] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night. The first precision measurements of the pyramid were made by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880Ė82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[4] Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetres wide (1/50th of an inch).[5]



The pyramid remained the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years,[6] unsurpassed until the 160-metre-tall spire of Lincoln Cathedral was completed c. 1300. The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[7] The base is horizontal and flat to within Ī15 mm.[8] The sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of arc)[9] based on true north, not magnetic north,[10] and the finished base was squared to a mean corner error of only 12 seconds of arc.[11] The completed design dimensions, as suggested by Petrie's survey and subsequent studies, are estimated to have originally been 280 cubits high by 440 cubits long at each of the four sides of its base. The ratio of the perimeter to height of 1760/280 cubits equates to 2Pi to an accuracy of better than 0.05% (corresponding to the well-known approximation of Pi as 22/7). Some Egyptologists consider this to have been the result of deliberate design proportion. Verner wrote, "We can conclude that although the ancient Egyptians could not precisely define the value of Pi, in practice they used it".[12] Petrie, author of Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh concluded: "but these relations of areas and of circular ratio are so systematic that we should grant that they were in the builder's design".[13] Others have argued that the Ancient Egyptians had no concept of pi and would not have thought to encode it in their monuments. They believe that the observed pyramid slope may be based on a simple seked slope choice alone, with no regard to the overall size and proportions of the finished building.[14]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza


Current theory and the evidence does not add up, and until somebody presents a work which probably will be in the tens of thousands of words to break this down into ways of reconstruction, I'll keep an open mind
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> So a skyscraper in New York city collapsed because debris hit it and it was on fire. A skyscraper designed for a city that is regularly hit by hurricanes and earthquakes.

Why would a building designed to resist high winds and earthquakes (in NY?) be good at resisting fire?

>
> These two videos highlight the amount of fire damage a skyscraper can sustain without collapsing.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76AkcimaZjA


This was largely a concrete framed structure with some steel elements. The concrete frame survived(ish), while the steel parts largely failed. WTC7 was a also a steel frame and also collapsed. However, the structures and fire were so different it makes little sense to make direct comparisons.


There is little information available about this fire but the building appears to be very severally damaged.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: Fair enough, but it would surely have been designed with earthquakes in mind. When did New York last have a significant hurricane? ;)
ads.ukclimbing.com
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

I'll continue to humour you ...

The NIST report concluded that:

In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled Ė pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

So the mechanism for the collapse of WTC-7 along with the initiation events are known and understood. The report also explicitly dismisses the controlled demolition idea.

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

ALC
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Fair enough, but it would surely have been designed with earthquakes in mind. When did New York last have a significant hurricane? ;)

As pointed about above. It is irrelevant. The forces exerted by a hurricane are completely different to those cause by massive amounts of falling debris and a sustained fire.

Can you not see immediately grasp this??



Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Fair enough, but it would surely have been designed with earthquakes in mind. When did New York last have a significant hurricane? ;)

The question is, WHY do you think earthquakes, winds and impacts all impart the same forces?

They don't.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> Why would a building designed to resist high winds and earthquakes (in NY?) be good at resisting fire?
>

It would be designed to resist debris impact. All skyscrapers are designed to resist fire and this is why as far as I'm aware a skyscraper has never collapsed because it was on fire.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Horation. Go look up things like Tacoma Narrows. Or the Hyatt Regency hotel walkway collapse.

They are good, basic introductions into unforseen failure modes.
One through design, the second through incorrect implementation of the design.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> As pointed about above. It is irrelevant. The forces exerted by a hurricane are completely different to those cause by massive amounts of falling debris and a sustained fire.
>

Can you provide some evidence of this. Such as a video of the building on fire? The second report from that wikipedia article concludes falling debris had nothing to do with the collapse by the way.
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> It would be designed to resist debris impact.

Possibly

All skyscrapers are designed to resist fire

True, but the features than ensure this are not the same as those that ensure they withstand earthquakes or wind loading. Fire design normally assumes a fire on one floor for only a limited period. Assuming a more onerous fire is not economical or rational, as demonstrated by the relatively few failures in fire. However, they have occurred - several floors of the Windsor tower you linked to above collapsed for example. The WTC fires were exceptional and far more onerous than the assumptions that would have been made in design, hence it is not surprising that collapses occurred.

Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> well done so you found something you thought you disprove, but all you did was carry on with your same tired out lines
>
>
What is it you think I think I can disprove? I was questioning the rationale of your your link of Egyptian construction methods.
>
>
> Current theory and the evidence does not add up, and until somebody presents a work which probably will be in the tens of thousands of words to break this down into ways of reconstruction, I'll keep an open mind
>
Same here, and in the absence of conclusive proof I'll weigh up the available evidence and regard the idea that the pyramids were built by "modern" construction machinery despite the weakness or absence of any corroborating evidence as vanishingly unlikely.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> It would be designed to resist debris impact. All skyscrapers are designed to resist fire and this is why as far as I'm aware a skyscraper has never collapsed because it was on fire.

Oh ffs.
Buildings are not usually built to withstand multiple failure modes.

Fire resistance is higher in a skyscraper, but they MORE rely on fire suppression. If that suppression is overcome, it is just a matter of asking the question 'how much fuel is around' because the steel WILL fail at some point.
Cladding and intumescent paints are used to keep the steel from heating up to a temperature where they will deform, but these only last a certain, rated time. This time is enough to evaccuate the building.

You're coming to conclusions based on ignorance.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> I doubt however they'd really kill 3000 of their own people to make a point.

I didn't for one second suggest that they did. I said WTC 7 (the one that did not get hit by a plane) did not fall down because it was on fire and the government lied about it. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Show me some evidence of the fire damage and debris impact that caused the failure model. This is one of the most photographed and filmed events in modern history.
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Can you provide some evidence of this.

Wind forces are large horizontal and act on the external faces on a skyscraper. Structural members will be sized to carry these forces.

Fire will heat the structure, mainly internally. This will have two effects - it will reduce the strength and stiffness of the structure, and, due to thermal expansion, increase forces in structural members that are heated but restrained by other cooler parts of the structure f rom expanding. These effects are normally countered by various forms of insulation (fire protection), or sometimes by ensuring the structure is strong enough to be heated without fire protection.

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

same here throw away link was just interest, it's the bible stuff which I'm more interested in, solid best seller and all.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Can you provide some evidence of this. Such as a video of the building on fire?

You want evidence that the forces created by a hurricane are different to those created by a fire? Or you want evidence that there was a fire in WTC7?
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

Then why quote this:

FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting

??

My emphasis.

We are not putting words in your mouth - you are and you are unable to maintain the lie when each of your assertions are shown to be false.


ALC
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Show me some evidence of the fire damage and debris impact that caused the failure model. This is one of the most photographed and filmed events in modern history.

Tell you what, I'll decline to spend my time trying to debunk wild claims and let you get on with believing whatever you like to believe. Far easier.

I suggest you go and watch that documentary which came out a while ago, it was very informative about how we came to be.
It was called Prometheus or something like that.
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: 'solid best seller and all.' Funnily enough there's a copy in each hotel room I stay in, do those count as sales?
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

From the link I posted above - "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to the south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. An ABC News helicopter captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories."

Now you might want to believe that there are "few photos and video clips" because "The men in Black" kept camera crews away but at the time there was a lot going on and WTC-7 was hardly the main event.

I've already indicated that the debris had nothing to do with the collapse other than being the initiator for the fires that did cause the collapse.

ALC
MJH - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> Where and how has that been shown?

In multiple experiments and observations.

I don't have time to find links to every step but here is a starter: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

Also google abiogenesis and/or Miller-Urey.

A good intro was in Dawkins's last book on evolution - Greatest Show on Earth - IIRC.

Which bits are you disputing? Once you accept that more complex chemicals (eg amino acids) can be created from simpler constituents then you are part way there. Then you have specific combinations that eventually give you a replicable cell.

There are still lots of theories of how some of the exact mechanisms work, but the overarching idea seems sound.
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> Can you please stop putting words in my mouth.

okay, so please explain what you think happened and also why the US gov (since i am assuming thats who you think are responsible for WTC7 if not please say who) decided to knock it down.
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MJH:

And a lot sounder than having an imaginary friend do some terraforming :-)

ALC
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> same here throw away link was just interest, it's the bible stuff which I'm more interested in, solid best seller and all.

It's perfectly possible and rational to believe that "events" in the old testament were based on half remembered and misunderstood real events (the flood, the parting of the Red sea etc) without believing in aliens building the pyramids with laser cutters or other such theories which are supported by very little evidence.

MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> It's perfectly possible and rational to believe that "events" in the old testament were based on half remembered and misunderstood real events (the flood, the parting of the Red sea etc) without believing in aliens building the pyramids with laser cutters or other such theories which are supported by very little evidence.

Don't be absurd. Have you ever seen the Red Sea part without laser cutters? Well have you!?

Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> Now you might want to believe that there are "few photos and video clips" because "The men in Black" kept camera crews away but at the time there was a lot going on and WTC-7 was hardly the main event.
>

I am saying that the videos don't exist because the building wasn't burning strongly. I'm saying despite watching several videos I haven't seen conclusive evidence of debris impact. I'm saying that the primary official report attributed the collapse to fire and debris damage, the follow up report to fire damage and that both are lies.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
> I am saying that the videos don't exist because the building wasn't burning strongly. I'm saying despite watching several videos I haven't seen conclusive evidence of debris impact. I'm saying that the primary official report attributed the collapse to fire and debris damage, the follow up report to fire damage and that both are lies.

So having not found evidence of debris impact yourself, you use your compltel lack of knowledge of engineering and construction to come to a conclusion that you've been lied to.

Ok.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ok you seem to be lost somewhere inbetween the hyberbole, spin and general chit chat with your crazy talk of alien shiiatt

so here is just one tiny little bit of evidence that you cant seem to see for all the smoke and mirrors


The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[7] The base is horizontal and flat to within Ī15 mm.[8]

Bearing in mind the age of the thing, its been earth-quaked and worn but when we take scale into account the accuracy of the thing is on the same page as the space telescopes, all done with hemp rope, sighted by eye, and the rest of the whole shooting match.
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
> I am saying that the videos don't exist because the building wasn't burning strongly. I'm saying despite watching several videos I haven't seen conclusive evidence of debris impact. I'm saying that the primary official report attributed the collapse to fire and debris damage, the follow up report to fire damage and that both are lies.

so what did cause it?

oh and here is a picture of pretty extensive damage.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Ok you seem to be lost somewhere inbetween the hyberbole, spin and general chit chat with your crazy talk of alien shiiatt
>
> so here is just one tiny little bit of evidence that you cant seem to see for all the smoke and mirrors
>
>
> The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[7] The base is horizontal and flat to within Ī15 mm.[8]
>
> Bearing in mind the age of the thing, its been earth-quaked and worn but when we take scale into account the accuracy of the thing is on the same page as the space telescopes, all done with hemp rope, sighted by eye, and the rest of the whole shooting match.

And I've already explained that I can very easily reach this level of accuracy with a few sticks, some string and a few other home made bits and bobs.

It just takes time, patience and the willingness to check your errors.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>

> Which bits are you disputing? Once you accept that more complex chemicals (eg amino acids) can be created from simpler constituents then you are part way there. Then you have specific combinations that eventually give you a replicable cell.
>
> There are still lots of theories of how some of the exact mechanisms work, but the overarching idea seems sound.

Thanks, I'm not disputing any of it. I was just curious if it was a hypothesis or had been proven. Which would you say?

Could dormant bacteria floating through space (think this has been proven) land in this soup, reactivate and evolve into a biosystem?

a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

Photo of WTC-7 showing debris damage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg

A fire doesn't have to melt the steel, it just has to weaken it to the point where it is unable to support the load or that lesser structural members are compromised which lead to the main structures being either too weak or not rigid enough to support the load, at which point collapse is initiated.

What's your next fantasy?

ALC
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to MJH)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks, I'm not disputing any of it. I was just curious if it was a hypothesis or had been proven. Which would you say?
>
> Could dormant bacteria floating through space (think this has been proven) land in this soup, reactivate and evolve into a biosystem?

Possibly. What's your point?
And how does this link into more intelligent beings?
And how does it in any way answer the question of how life arose?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane: If you say so. It looked like what you really did was type a few words what made a sentence or two
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) If you say so. It looked like what you really did was type a few words what made a sentence or two

Better than typing hundreds of words which had even less meaning.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> so what did cause it?

I don't know.

> oh and here is a picture of pretty extensive damage.
>
> http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

That shows me a photo that gives no indication of the debris damage because of its perspective and a photo of some very minor damage to the cladding of the building. And the follow up to the official report which I am assuming you are defending states that debris damage did not cause the collapse of the building.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
> you use your compltel lack of knowledge of engineering and construction to come to a conclusion that you've been lied to.

This is speculation. Would the impact forces be bigger than those that hit the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?
MJH - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> Thanks, I'm not disputing any of it. I was just curious if it was a hypothesis or had been proven. Which would you say?

I would say that the vast majority of it has been proven in chunks. The problem is that multiple pathways could lead to the same end result and we don't necessarily know which happened!

> Could dormant bacteria floating through space (think this has been proven) land in this soup, reactivate and evolve into a biosystem?

I can't remember if they were bacteria or some other organic material, but yes that is certainly possible. One of the theories is that is exactly what happened.

Having done some work on a meteorite which had signs of possible organic matter my (uneducated) guess would be it is pretty unlikely. When we were looking at a certain material in the meteorite organic life was one of many possible mechanisms and on probability alone was pretty unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely. This was 15 years ago and the research may have moved on a lot since then.

My point was really that none of this requires any sort of designer. Just lots of interactions.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> This is speculation. Would the impact forces be bigger than those that hit the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?

Pointless question. Are they of the same design??
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

You wrote (note I didn't put these words in your mouth): "I haven't seen conclusive evidence of debris impact". The photo I linked to and the 911myths page both show extensive debris damage to WTC-7. The interviews with the fire department personel (I am assuming under oath) clearly show that they felt that the debris damage and subsequent fires would be enough to cause the building to collapse.

Your call.

ALC
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> Photo of WTC-7 showing debris damage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg


> A fire doesn't have to melt the steel, it just has to weaken it to the point where it is unable to support the load or that lesser structural members are compromised which lead to the main structures being either too weak or not rigid enough to support the load, at which point collapse is initiated.

What temperature needs to be achieved to sufficiently weaken the steal enough to cause the collapse of the building?

> ALC

zebidee - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> Thanks, I'm not disputing any of it. I was just curious if it was a hypothesis or had been proven. Which would you say?

A key aspect of science is not proof - it's actually disproof. That's what happens - scientists come up with a theory and then they attempt to disprove it.

Richard Feynman summed this up nicely with:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

The more times they attempt (and fail) to disprove the theory the stronger the likelihood that they've got it right. This is why evolution is generally accepted as *FACT* because it so far has never been disproved.

> Could dormant bacteria floating through space (think this has been proven) land in this soup, reactivate and evolve into a biosystem?

Panspermia as you're talking about is ultimately difficult to test which means that it carries less support than other theories about the origin of life. At which point it becomes a case of weighing probabilities.

So on one side you've got various abiogenesis theories which have had different degrees of experimentation done on them with different levels of results and on the other you've got "well we've got a bunch of reasons that some of the abiogenesis theories might not be right so it must have come from space."
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
> What temperature needs to be achieved to sufficiently weaken the steal enough to cause the collapse of the building?
>
> [...]

There is no 'set' temperature. It completely depends on the structural loading of the steel in question. a ballpark figure though is around 60% of it's melting point.So around 900 deg C
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MJH: Thanks, my point was that if life spreads through the universe as it does on earth in a very simple form, it could also travel in a very complex form.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to zebidee: Thanks, this is the sort of stuff I was hoping to learn.
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to MJH) Thanks, my point was that if life spreads through the universe as it does on earth in a very simple form, it could also travel in a very complex form.

not without a shedload more effort and most likely technology to protect it.
There is a reason why bacteria lives a lot places than mammals for example.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> There is no 'set' temperature. It completely depends on the structural loading of the steel in question. a ballpark figure though is around 60% of it's melting point.So around 900 deg C

So why don't the other buildings I showed burning much more ferociously not collapse? Was the building a 'bad' design?
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> not without a shedload more effort and most likely technology to protect it.

But we do it now, we just can't go very far. What will stop us going further?
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> So why don't the other buildings I showed burning much more ferociously not collapse? Was the building a 'bad' design?

To an extent yes, in that the failure on one column was catastrophic. As above, different structures will respond very differently to fire depending on the design and materials. The steel bit of the Windsor tower did collapse. Note also that what you see as "ferocious" may not be a very hot fire. This will depend on the ventilation, fire compartment size and fuel available.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: I've no idea. I've not studied them all.

But as I said, fire supression plays the LARGEST part because an uncontrolled fire WILL bring any building down eventually.

For instance, if the building is compartmentalised with concrete walls which contain a fire long enough for it to be fought, it can possibly be saved or partially saved.

There are too many variables to apply an across the board statement that if one building does not fall, none should. Again, this is just a lack of knowledge on your part, which is fine.......... but there's no reason to draw wild conclusions just because you don't understand something.
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length.[7] The base is horizontal and flat to within Ī15 mm.[8]

> Bearing in mind the age of the thing, its been earth-quaked and worn but when we take scale into account the accuracy of the thing is on the same page as the space telescopes, all done with hemp rope, sighted by eye, and the rest of the whole shooting match.

Taking the numbers totally at face value:

58mm error in 230m per side doesn't seem that difficult to achieve on clear flat bedrock even assuming that's +-29mm not +-58mm. Since these tombs appear to predate the wheel in Egypt we're left with geometry, string and a hardwood or copper measuring stick. Not easy but not impossible.

Creating a flat surface on rock, where would you start? Pound it flat as you can forming a shallow trench by eye and string then flood it to find the high/low points as it evaporates. 15mm total error seems eminently achievable, sloppy even given time and manpower let alone twice that!

So they were skilled surveyors. It's very impressive but hardly mind blowing evidence of 'advanced technology'.

jk
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: So was the building brought down by fire or debris?
ajsteele - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> But we do it now, we just can't go very far. What will stop us going further?

Mainly the distances involved, to get anywhere in a human lifetime you would need to be travelling at light speed and as you approach light speed you become infinitly more massive meaning it takes an infinite amount of energy to move you and as this obviously can't happen light speed travel is impossible.
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) So was the building brought down by fire or debris?

Primarily it was the fire that caused the collapse.

Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to ajsteele: The human race could reproduce as they travel? Would it be impossible to suspend our bodies in hibernation while we cover these distances?
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) So was the building brought down by fire or debris?

Not a clue. I have not bothered to even look. I don't care.
You are missing the point, other people, far more expert than me have made assessments and their assessments make sense.
Yours don't

so why waste my time trying to second guess every bit of work done in the world in case someone is lying to me?
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

Steel in buildings is (or should be) coated in fire retardant - basically a foam that sets and provides a thermal barrier should a fire break out. Usually the coating is rated to a time and temperature so 120 mins at 1000C for example. The rating depends on the coating being complete in the vicinity of the fire. If the coating wasn't applied correctly or has been knocked off in places, due for example to debris damage, then there is no protection at that point.

The fires in WTC-7 burnt for several hours before the collapse so had plenty of time to "work on" weakening the steel regardless of the fire retardent being in place or not. The fires could have been in an area that wasn't critical but as luck would have it they were.

In general in engineering you try and build in redundancy, that is if one part fails then there is a backup. However redundancy has a cost so it becomes a balance between making something "bomb proof" and being able to afford to build it.

ALC
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio: If you are genuinely interested in the effect of fire on structures, start here

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to MG: So there's been a building standing in New York all this time that collapses when it catches fire? I much smaller fire than those I've highlighted?
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> Not a clue. I have not bothered to even look. I don't care.

I have and I do.

> You are missing the point, other people, far more expert than me have made assessments and their assessments make sense.

To me their assessments make no sense, that is why I question them.

> so why waste my time trying to second guess every bit of work done in the world in case someone is lying to me?

In the hope they might stop doing it.

mkean - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
The human race could reproduce as they travel?

As a rough ballpark figure you need 1 ton of rocket fuel to lift 1kg into a high earth orbit. A person weighs about 70kg and you are going to need a lot of people to have a viable population, I'm not a genetics expert but I think you'd want to start with at least 12 people to make sure things weren't going a bit funny by generation 10 (~300 years). You'd be talking about one utterly massive rocket before you start factoring in supplies and living space.
MG - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to MG) So there's been a building standing in New York all this time that collapses when it catches fire?

Yes.

I much smaller fire than those I've highlighted?

Depends what you mean by smaller.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: You repeatedly accuse me of being completely ignorant of construction and engineering for questioning something you haven't even looked into.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) You repeatedly accuse me of being completely ignorant of construction and engineering for questioning something you haven't even looked into.

Please please stop. I can't stand it.

Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> I have and I do.
>
You've seen a few videos and read a few conspiracy therories. This is not looking at the real world.



> [...]
>
> To me their assessments make no sense, that is why I question them.
>
Because you have no knowledge of construction or engineering and have accepted the stories told by others who also do not understand either.

> [...]
>
> In the hope they might stop doing it.

Doing what?
There is no reason to suspect anyone 'did' anything.

so far you've had structures explained to you by many people. You have had fire suppression and the role it plays expalained. you've had variation in design explained.
Yet you cling to your 'ideas'

Buildings cannot be made to withstand everything unless you accept a massive cost uplift on EVERY construction project.
This will directly affect the price of bread in a supermarket.

So if you're campaigning to make the world entirely safe against absolutely everything............ be prepared to pay a lot for it and to expect far less of everything else.
ajsteele - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to ajsteele) The human race could reproduce as they travel? Would it be impossible to suspend our bodies in hibernation while we cover these distances?

Anybody living for long enough in space would experience huge muscle atrophy and a severly weakend skeletal structure, so essentially when you get to where you want to go you wouldn't have the muscle strength to move and you would be suffering badly with osteoperosis. Also you would most likely have some form of cancer or leukemia either through space radiation or the loss of red blood cell production in the body. Also recently it has been discovered that spending time in space increases cranial pressure crushing the optic nerves which would be disasterous for long term space flight.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) You repeatedly accuse me of being completely ignorant of construction and engineering for questioning something you haven't even looked into.

Horatio, you're right.

A degree in engineering and a life time in construction, actually BUILDING BUILDINGS.......... isn't looking into it at all, is it?

I am not looking at your specific case because there simply is NO reason to........ except you and a few people like you say it doesn't add up.


It doesn't add up to you because you don;t know how to use the calculator.

I am bloody bored of going over the same ground so will leave it to others now.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to jkarran:

So a couple of inches out of true over a base of 13 acres or 568,500 square feet on such an old building is sloppy, I've ridden bikes with less true wheels than that on 27 inch.

Ok what ever you say but please excuse me while i piss my self laughing at this don't worry tho' next wonko the troll will be along to back you and say something like they only needed one tolerance.... cock on kid!
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: Though I confess, all I've built for 6 years is bloody Aldi supermarkets.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to Horatio)
You'd be talking about one utterly massive rocket before you start factoring in supplies and living space.

Yes like a building that isn't stuck to the ground ;) You'd only need lots of small rockets if you built it in space, and it wouldn't need the huge forces required for it to escape the atmosphere as one body.
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: No, John, I explained how it is done. And how you go about reducing the errors further.

It realy is very simple to do, and indeed, has been tested too.

I also explained that in modenr construction, we only manufacture to a given tolerance because it's cost effective to do so.

I actualy have to DO these calcs quite often to see what's the cheapest way to build a thing.

we call it 'value engineering'
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> So a couple of inches out of true over a base of 13 acres or 568,500 square feet on such an old building is sloppy, I've ridden bikes with less true wheels than that on 27 inch.
>
> Ok what ever you say but please excuse me while i piss my self laughing at this

That's clinched it then......
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> Steel in buildings is (or should be) coated in fire retardant - basically a foam that sets and provides a thermal barrier should a fire break out. Usually the coating is rated to a time and temperature so 120 mins at 1000C for example. The rating depends on the coating being complete in the vicinity of the fire. If the coating wasn't applied correctly or has been knocked off in places, due for example to debris damage, then there is no protection at that point.

Do you have any proof of this? The FEMA report states

that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. The report did not reach conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation

Does that not contradict what you've written?
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> Anybody living for long enough in space would experience huge muscle atrophy and a severly weakend skeletal structure, so essentially when you get to where you want to go you wouldn't have the muscle strength to move and you would be suffering badly with osteoperosis. Also you would most likely have some form of cancer or leukemia either through space radiation or the loss of red blood cell production in the body. Also recently it has been discovered that spending time in space increases cranial pressure crushing the optic nerves which would be disasterous for long term space flight.

And there's absolutely nothing we could do to prevent this?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:

Nice pun by the way rim, clinched, but it's proved nothing it's just one anomalous piece of evidence, loads more.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
>
> Does that not contradict what you've written?

I'm genuinely intriuged. What do you see as the contradiction?
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> So a couple of inches out of true over a base of 13 acres or 568,500 square feet on such an old building is sloppy, I've ridden bikes with less true wheels than that on 27 inch.

What's area and age got to do with it? You're asking about lengths and specifically how to lay out four that are equal in a square on flat ground. Realistically actually 4 that are equal and a further two are different but equal to each other. It's not exactly mind bending stuff. It's impressive and must have required great care but that's all it is, impressive.

> Ok what ever you say but please excuse me while i piss my self laughing at this don't worry tho' next wonko the troll will be along to back you and say something like they only needed one tolerance.... cock on kid!

I'm really not sure what you're laughing at to be honest. You want to lay out a flat stone surface next to a river using manpower and basic quarrying tools... Yeah, it's obvious really when you think about it, it must be fu**ing lasers, it couldn't be something simple using available technology and resources.

Grow up, you're like a credulous child.
jk
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Nice pun by the way rim, clinched, but it's proved nothing it's just one anomalous piece of evidence, loads more.

Oh, I've no doubt.....

Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> [...]
It's impressive and must have required great care but that's all it is, impressive.
>
Yere, but they only had tens of thousand of spare people and several decades or even hundreds of years to do it in....
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
> Do you have any proof of this? The FEMA report states
>
> that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. The report did not reach conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation
>
> Does that not contradict what you've written?

FFS Horatio,
It's a simple enough chain of events.

Burning stuff hits building.
Building catches fire.
Steel buckles and building falls down.

Investigation bears this out and recommends further investingation.

the further investigation possibly being along the lines of:

What exactly caused the water failure?
What was the exact mode of collapse. I.E. was the fire protection compromised? Was the fire of such a heat and duration that the fire protection failed in a NORMAL failure mode (it isn't supposed to last forever, it is NOT absolute protection, as pointed out SEVERAL times, it has a rating for a set DURATION)

How is this at odds with what he said?
It supports it!
mkean - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
Yes like a building that isn't stuck to the ground ;) You'd only need lots of small rockets if you built it in space, and it wouldn't need the huge forces required for it to escape the atmosphere as one body.

Yes you'd need a lot more total energy though.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> [...]
>
> What's area and age got to do with it? You're asking about lengths and specifically how to lay out four that are equal in a square on flat ground. Realistically actually 4 that are equal and a further two are different but equal to each other. It's not exactly mind bending stuff. It's impressive and must have required great care but that's all it is, impressive.
>
> [...]
>
> I'm really not sure what you're laughing at to be honest. You want to lay out a flat stone surface next to a river using manpower and basic quarrying tools... Yeah, it's obvious really when you think about it, it must be fu**ing lasers, it couldn't be something simple using available technology and resources.
>
> Grow up, you're like a credulous child.
> jk

Aww didums, an expert and a mind reader too ;=)
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

No, it doesn't. You are undertaking the standard conspiracy tactic of quoting out of context.

At no point in your quote do I mention WTC-7, I am obviously talking generally about fire protection with regards to steel.

If the steel in WTC-7 did sustain impact damage and this removed the fire protection coating then this would be a contributary factor but wouldn't be necessary for fires to do sufficient damage to the steel structure given sufficient time. The lack (or otherwise) of fire retardent would have an effect on how long it took the fires to weaken the steel. So given that there were insufficient resources to control the fires in WTC-7 it was inevitable given their scale that the building would collapse. All that would change is the length of time between the fires starting and the collapse.

ALC
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jkarran)
> [...]
>
> Aww didums, an expert and a mind reader too ;=)

Why do you think he's a mind reader?
ripper - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: oh I'm loving this so much - it's the thread that keeps on giving. I've done approximately zero work so far this afternoon thanks to constantly updating to read the latest pearls o' wisdom! :-)
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat: That debris damage removed the asbestos fire covering from the steal girders that was designed to stay on during extreme periods of swaying caused by hurricanes, despite the FEMA statement 'that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC'. That the impact was not sufficient to damage the building enough to cause it to collapse, it unprecedentedly collapsed because of fire damage, but the impact was big enough to remove the asbestos.
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> And there's absolutely nothing we could do to prevent this?

possibly but it will be complex.
By the way, exactly where are you trying to go with this?
Is this some attempt to prove ancient civilisations with advanced technology, in which case your time would be better spent explaining why they left no clear trace.
Have you seen what can be identified by modern archaeological techniques?
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

ok, so whose alter ego is this?
Nice line in trolling but the buying into every theory going is pushing it surely.
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> Aww didums, an expert and a mind reader too ;=)

Ok. You're an engineer... How would you do it, how would you lay out a flat square comparably accurately with basic tools?

jk
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat: Good spot Posty apologies my mistake mis-read. I read it as it was obvious what i think rather than its obvious when you think about it
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

So, 'The report did not reach conclusions about the cause of the collapse and called for further investigation' means,

> Investigation bears this out and recommends further investingation.
>
> the further investigation possibly being along the lines of:
>
> What exactly caused the water failure?
> What was the exact mode of collapse. I.E. was the fire protection compromised? Was the fire of such a heat and duration that the fire protection failed in a NORMAL failure mode (it isn't supposed to last forever, it is NOT absolute protection, as pointed out SEVERAL times, it has a rating for a set DURATION)
>
> How is this at odds with what he said?
> It supports it!

Do you have any evidence of that?
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) That debris damage removed the asbestos fire covering from the steal girders that was designed to stay on during extreme periods of swaying caused by hurricanes, despite the FEMA statement 'that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC'. That the impact was not sufficient to damage the building enough to cause it to collapse, it unprecedentedly collapsed because of fire damage, but the impact was big enough to remove the asbestos.

Ah, so if you completely ignore the next sentence

"The fires in WTC-7 burnt for several hours before the collapse so had plenty of time to "work on" weakening the steel regardless of the fire retardent being in place or not. The fires could have been in an area that wasn't critical but as luck would have it they were."

or if you make the somewhat odd assumption that the forces created by swaying in a hurricane are the same as heavy debris landing on something (don't try this at home folks!) or if you believe the phrase "not primarily caused" is the same as "had no relevance"...

then there is a possible contradiction.

I'm beginning to understand why you have a problem understanding things.

ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

> or if you make the somewhat odd assumption that the forces created by swaying in a hurricane are the same as heavy debris landing on something (don't try this at home folks!)

but but but. I had just got out a powerful desktop fan and a couple of bricks plus an unwilling volunteer.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Good spot Posty apologies my mistake mis-read. I read it as it was obvious what i think rather than its obvious when you think about it

Well, sine I'm not a mind reader either, what do you think? Did they achieve that accuracy and if so how?

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to jkarran:

This is why i have so many questions. Without machines i really don't have a clue how you'd level such a base and understand how to keep that base level when loading up so much mass above it?
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

What they mean by impact damage not causing the collapse is this:

WTC-1 collapses
Debris flies around
Big lumps go through the outer shell of WTC-7 and damage/break the steel supporting structure
WTC-7 collapes

However debris impact may have been a contributory factor:

WTC-1 collapses
Debris flies around
Debris goes through outer shell of WTC-7 and damages fire protection around the steel supports.
Fire breaks out
Fire sprinklers fail to work
Fires spread and burn for several hours
Unprotected steel weakens
WTC-7 collapes

OR -

WTC-1 collapses
Debris flies around
Debris goes through outer shell of WTC-7 but doesn't do any significant damage to the steel superstructure.
Fire breaks out
Fire sprinklers fail to work
Fires spread and burn for several hours (but longer than in previous scenario)
Unprotected steel weakens
WTC-7 collapes

One of the above is likely to be what happened.

ALC
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Cut four channels and fill them with water. Water has a tendency to stay pretty level, so not a bad starting point.

BTW how DID we get here from the unlikelihood or otherwise of solar eclipses? And can't somebody bring in the 'H' word soon please?
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

Seriously? What type of engineer are you out of interest?
jk
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> possibly but it will be complex.
> By the way, exactly where are you trying to go with this?
> Is this some attempt to prove ancient civilisations with advanced technology, in which case your time would be better spent explaining why they left no clear trace.

I'm trying to prove that the idea of the solar eclipse being designed is a plausible idea, unlikely yes but plausible and worthy of discussion rather than ridicule.

I suggested that any traces would have disappeared on earth in around 25000 years and the only evidence of them would be of structures on the moon. There are various conspiracy theories around structures on the moon, I've looked at many of the photos highlighted and think that the theory although unproven and tenuous is plausible.

dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> BTW how DID we get here from the unlikelihood or otherwise of solar eclipses? And can't somebody bring in the 'H' word soon please?

If the pyramids arent part of an ancient civilisation how come hitler masterplan involved sending SS troops to storm the pyramids and break into the secret chambers. How come V2 when turned sideways becomes a hieroglyphic for "explosive arrow"?
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> I'm trying to prove that the idea of the solar eclipse being designed is a plausible idea, unlikely yes but plausible and worthy of discussion rather than ridicule.

But it's not plausible, it's quite literally ridiculous. Only marginally less so than your 'proof'!

jk
MJH - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: The mass of the building is trivial/irrelevant if you are building on bedrock.
a lakeland climber on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That gets the platform level.

Getting the pyramid square is also easy: simply turn a stick end over end a set number of times. Do for all four sides and you have a four sided base. To make it square simply measure the diagonals and adjust until these are equal.

To align N-S note the point on the horizon where the sun rises and sets then bisect the angle.

So with sticks and water and probably a long bit of string you can create a square, level base aligned N-S.

ALC
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to jkarran:


sorry for the short bio, but this subject really interests me, and i'd like to understand much more.

I was apprentice trained in Barnsley as a textiles machine mechanic
I then spent 8 years with the royal engineers 59 commando, combat engineering bridge building demolitions,, north iraq, us etc, etc, heavy amphibious plant
I then worked in a machine shop whilst degree in engineering manufacture and design
7 or 8 years of sub contact, construction consultancy, oil exploration, programming, welding, paint shops engine building.
I am now a design engineer and reverse engineer oem turbocharger parts, and really should be working as i have some drawings to send to china this aft.

I hope we can talk about this stuff more professionally in the future and sorry all for the trolling.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to MJH: bedrock has its limits like all materials.
Coel Hellier - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

> I'm trying to prove that the idea of the solar eclipse being designed is a plausible idea, unlikely
> yes but plausible and worthy of discussion rather than ridicule.

So you're *seriously* considering the idea of a civilisation capable enough to create a moon??????????? And they went to that trouble, not for any great purpose, but simply so that a small fraction of humanoids could think "ooh, that's quite amazing" every once in a long while?????????

And you really think this is "worthy of discussion", as opposed to guffaws and taunts of "crackpot"?????????????? And meanwhile the evidence you present for this idea is absolutely zilch??????
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> This is why i have so many questions. Without machines i really don't have a clue how you'd level such a base and understand how to keep that base level when loading up so much mass above it?

Trial and error.

If you look at other writings, not just conspiracy sites, and also at other sources for other technologies in other cultures, you'll see if features heavily. they learned by doing.
And they cocked a few up along the way. Some, visibly so.
You're focusing just on the ones they eventually got right.

The setting out is simple.
A REAL engineer would know this.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Eyup Prof problems with a sticky key?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Thanks for the tip x
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> So you're *seriously* considering the idea of a civilisation capable enough to create a moon??????????? And they went to that trouble, not for any great purpose, but simply so that a small fraction of humanoids could think "ooh, that's quite amazing" every once in a long while?????????
>
> And you really think this is "worthy of discussion", as opposed to guffaws and taunts of "crackpot"?????????????? And meanwhile the evidence you present for this idea is absolutely zilch??????

Seems reasonable enough to me.
I'm converted.
birdie num num - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Mrs Num Num's father has a head like a Spanish onion and when viewed from the correct hour angle and declination it exactly masks the disc of the sun, causing a corona of light around his ears and bald patch. Mrs Num Num's mother, many years ago mistook this for sainthood and promptly married him only to discover her error a week later finding him thrapping over 'Red Hot Convent Girls'
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:

You are EZ and I claim my £5

Cheers
Gregor
Coel Hellier - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:

> Eyup Prof problems with a sticky key?

Well I can see that it would be a great entry for the Turner Prize. "I know, I'll create a moon, and tune it to produce eclipses, and everyone will go "oooh", and I'll get a prize for the best performance art ever! Now, where will I get 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of rubble from? And I'm going to need a fair few rockets to launch it into the correct orbit ... Hmmm ...".
MJH - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Depends on bedrock and thickness I guess.
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> You are EZ and I claim my £5
>
> Cheers
> Gregor

Aaaagh. You've got it! I'd thinking of johnj as EZ but I've seen them on the same thread.

Good spot :-)

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Coel Hellier:

He is onto something but i don't think enough reading hasn't as yet been done, maybe we should point our dear friend Horatio to the wacked out theories that the moon is a hollowed out planetoid.
dissonance - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well I can see that it would be a great entry for the Turner Prize.

it would be seriously stylish. Time to put in a request for funding to the arts council.
How many nukes do you reckon i will need and which continent should provide the foundation for my art.
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> Aaaagh. You've got it! I'd thinking of johnj as EZ but I've seen them on the same thread.
>
> Good spot :-)


oh the bad old days with EZ trolling for 5 days about 9/11 it felt like a 1970's test match batting at Leeds for 3 days on a dodgy wicket in bad light.
graeme jackson - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to birdie num num:
> many years ago mistook this for sainthood and promptly married him only to discover her error a week later finding him thrapping over 'Red Hot Convent Girls'

Thrapping?
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: OK, we've sorted the Pyramides and that works for me, can we start talking about Nazca lines, now THERE'S a mystery... Why and How?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - fibre.melett.com
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Wonko told me the answer to this one, he said they all climbed on each other and made a movable human pyramid, then the capstone guy shouted orders at the ground workers. And why, because they thought the birds liked looking at pictures.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> So you're *seriously* considering the idea of a civilisation capable enough to create a moon???????????

well, it did happen in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy...


"The ultra-famous sciento-magician Effrafax of Wug once bet his life that,
given a year, he could render the great megamountain Magramal entirely
invisible.

Having spent most of the year jiggling around with immense
Lux-O-Valves and Refracto-Nullifiers and Spectrum-Bypass-O-Matics, he
realized, with nine hours to go, that he wasn't going to make it.

So, he and his friends, and his friends' friends, and his friends'
friends' friends, and his friends' friends' friends' friends, and some
rather less good friends of theirs who happened to own a major stellar
trucking company, put in what now is widely recognized as being the
hardest night's work in history, and, sure enough, on the following day,
Magramal was no longer visible. Effrafax lost his bet --- and therefore
his life --- simply because some pedantic adjudicating official noticed
(a) that when walking around the area that Magramal ought to be he didn't
trip over or break his nose on anything, and (b) a suspicious-looking
extra moon."

;-)

gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wonko The Sane - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj: Well, hate to bust your bubble.

Why? can't help with it.
But I DID see something on national geographic or similar where they took an a3 sketch and did a 'mini nasca line' with it.

All from ground level.

Why? who the f*ck knows.
Why did the Aztecs think ripping someone's heart out was a neat idea?
Why do some tribes have stonking great big lip rings?


Aliens not needed.
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: 'Why did the Aztecs think ripping someone's heart out was a neat idea?'

Ah well, funny you should mention that. Pinker has a very coherent explanantion about the nature of ancient teligions - how because the world was for the most part a pretty horrible place, any Gods that were in charge must necessarily have been cruel and enjoyed a bit of cruelty and violence. So best to inflict it on someone else to give the Gods their fill.

Culminating, of course, in human sacrifices pleasing the Gods who would then let the living of the hook. There was a particularly well publicised example of that sort of thinking - sacrifice an innocent punter so that a merciless god gives the rest of us a break - about 2,000 years ago, funnily enough.
Duncan Bourne - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Philip:
> How come up until around 2000 years ago, gods used to show off and do things like appear as a horse and shag all the women in a village or make fire come out of things. Now suddenly we're to believe that they reduced themselves to carefully aligning stellar objects.
>

I'm glad you asked. As I am actually Zeus and have been living under a pseudonym (various actually) for the past couple of thousand years all I can say is I got bored. Bolts of lightning? manifesting as this and that? Been there bought the t-shirt. These days I am more likely to manifest as a sofa and pour beer over myself (used to be Ambrosia but I got sick of the stuff). Still do the shagging but I keep a low profile so as not to alert the Child maintenance payments and bestiality laws.
Anyway aligning stellar objects is a great pastime and helps pass the odd millennium or so.
Tall Clare - on 16 Nov 2012

Oops.

<cackles wildly>
ripper - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: i hope you're happy with the way this thread panned out!
Duncan Bourne - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
Did you start all this Clare? You are very naughty ;o)
Tall Clare - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to ripper:

Only in my wildest dreams... I didn't think people would be arguing about tinfoil hats and pyramids, though!
Tall Clare - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

<looks at feet>
ripper - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: well you have my heartfelt thanks - it's given me hours of entertainment ;-)
TheDrunkenBakers - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to graeme jackson:
> (In reply to birdie num num)
> [...]
>
> Thrapping?

Do you really want to have that explained or are you really an eight year old masquerading as a person with a early to mid 40s name.
John_Hat - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Tall Clare) And John, No idea what you're on. You're about the only engineer I've heard of who gives credence to this trollop. My guess is you're either 0% engineer, or 100% troll.

or 100% Telephone Sanitation Engineer?
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Sorry for the break, was recording a song.
>
> Seems reasonable enough to me.
> I'm converted.

Ah fantastic! I knew I'd win you round.
Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to Horatio)
>
> [...]
>
> But it's not plausible, it's quite literally ridiculous. Only marginally less so than your 'proof'!
>
> jk

Why is it ridiculous?
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
> (In reply to jkarran)
> [...]
>
> Why is it ridiculous?

OK, come on, the game's over. We know you're EZ having a larf.

johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - 188.31.154.95.threembb.co.uk
In reply to John_Hat:

Well I know Trollco the wonk is a bit special but you have to keep the banter up with em stops em hassling old ladies or what ever gives em that warm fuzzy feeling. I thought you had a bit more spunk and spirit about you though, its a shame when those you look up to let you down but such is life onwards and upwards to the capstone. What is a 100% Telephone Sanitation Engineer anyway?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - 188.31.154.95.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Postmanpat:

No I'm EZ!
Postmanpat on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> No I'm EZ!

No you're not. You're just a very naughty boy.....

Horatio on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Horatio)
> [...]
>
> OK, come on, the game's over. We know you're EZ having a larf.

What game? I'm just standing up for my beliefs. I thought Niggle was EZ?
johnj on 16 Nov 2012 - 188.31.154.95.threembb.co.uk
In reply to Postmanpat:

They have been doing some work on that propaganda site, this page is genius.

http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm
Duncan Bourne - on 16 Nov 2012
In reply to johnj:
Brilliant!
Tony Naylor on 17 Nov 2012
In reply to Horatio:
Re the pyramid stuff, here's a chap moving immense weights on his own:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.