Humans close to finding answers to origin of universe: Hawking

[kyleb]

Huh, I took it as being directed at me as you post looks like one continues response starting from your quote from me. Regardless, my point remains that you are arguing a position that you have not properly acquainted yourself with; you are still just dismissing these ideas because they are against your beliefs, despite the fact that you claimed otherwise.

 

[KimB]

Well, no, I still claim that I dismissed them because they made no sense to me. Now, I clearly made assumptions about the author's positions which were wrong, but that does not equate to rejecting something based upon beliefs.

 

[fearsomepirate]

How could have Somarians discovered other planets let alone know what a star vs planet is by just looking at the sky?
Did they have special powers?

No. But not having TV, video games, or even well-lit cities, they spent a lot of time looking at the sky and charting it...which was doubly important since they didn't have GPS systems and also thought they could predict the future from the stars. It didn't take them long to notice that while the stars remain in the same positions relative to each other year after year, the planets wander around.

 

[kyleb]

Well, no, I still claim that I dismissed them because they made no sense to me. Now, I clearly made assumptions about the author's positions which were wrong, but that does not equate to rejecting something based upon beliefs.

It does, the "beliefs" in question being your blatant misunderstanding of the claims. How about I forget everything I learned from Special Relativity and started pulling out misconceptions to argue Enistein's theory with you; would that drive the point home?

 

[Tahir2]

It is a simple courtesy and should be the first common sense scientific thing to do, if one needs to bunk someone's theory or comment on someones work to have at least studied it. To use the said work to comment on a civilisation or make assumptions elsewhere relying on 3rd hand information that you have not studied leaves you open to mistakes, misunderstandings and misguidance.
But what do I know hey?

 

[KimB]

It does, the "beliefs" in question being your blatant misunderstanding of the claims. How about I forget everything I learned from Special Relativity and started pulling out misconceptions to argue Enistein's theory with you; would that drive the point home?

No, because it had nothing to do with misunderstanding, but rather not having the required information. Anyway, this all stems back to my original objections to Nesh about him being very nebulous in his posts.

 

[KimB]

No. But not having TV, video games, or even well-lit cities, they spent a lot of time looking at the sky and charting it...which was doubly important since they didn't have GPS systems and also thought they could predict the future from the stars. It didn't take them long to notice that while the stars remain in the same positions relative to each other year after year, the planets wander around.

Yes, but they didn't have the observational tools to measure a number of the things we know about today, even within our own solar system. But anyway, that's actually beside the point to the current argument anyway, as apparently Sitchin was claiming that these ancient peoples got their knowledge from extra terrestrials anyway...

 

[KimB]

It is a simple courtesy and should be the first common sense scientific thing to do, if one needs to bunk someone's theory or comment on someones work to have at least studied it. To use the said work to comment on a civilisation or make assumptions elsewhere relying on 3rd hand information that you have not studied leaves you open to mistakes, misunderstandings and misguidance.
But what do I know hey?

I don't buy that at all. If you want to plug a theory, it's upon you to try to convince other people. There's no reason why you should expect other people to do your work for you.

 

[Tahir2]

That is why we have a plethora of false information on forums and we just opine, thinking our opinions actually have merit.

And my post was not a dig at you it was a general comment but it does apply to you too.

 

[arjan de lumens]

It does, the "beliefs" in question being your blatant misunderstanding of the claims. How about I forget everything I learned from Special Relativity and started pulling out misconceptions to argue Enistein's theory with you; would that drive the point home?

Let's think about this logically:

If you know X, then it is either because you have figured out X on your own or someone else has told you X (unless we take into consideration stuff like Jung's 'collective unconscious' or similar ideas, which aren't really relevant for the rest of this post). This gives us two alternatives: The Sumerians either figured about the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt Objects on their own (implausible; there are AFAICS no other records ANYWHERE of anybody even observing any Asteroid belt objects before 1801 or Kuiper-Belt obejcts before 1930), or someone else, with technology comparable to what we have today (!) or higher told them. This sounds uber-implausible if we assume terrestrial cvilizations. That only really leaves UFOs, which have earned status as pretty much the #2 hallmark (hearing voices would be #1) that you are just bat-shit insane.

One could potentially argue that UFOs cannot be logically ruled out, but given the sociological nature of UFO belief coupled with the relative lack of hard evidence, it is *very hard* to give very much credence to any theory that involves UFOs.

 

[blakjedi]

Let's think about this logically:

If you know X, then it is either because you have figured out X on your own or someone else has told you X. This gives us two alternatives: The Sumerians either figured about the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt Objects on their own (implausible; there are AFAICS no other records ANYWHERE of anybody even observing any Asteroid belt objects before 1801 or Kuiper-Belt obejcts before 1930), or someone else, with technology comparable to what we have today (!) or higher told them. This sounds uber-implausible if we assume terrestrial cvilizations. That only really leaves UFOs, which have earned status as pretty much the #2 hallmark (hearing voices would be #1) that you are just bat-shit insane.

One could potentially argue that UFOs cannot be logically ruled out, but given the sociological nature of UFO belief coupled with the relative lack of hard evidence, it is *very hard* to give very much credence to any theory that involves UFOs.

But you would say that it would be highly illogical and narrowminded to beleive that there arent any other similarly or higher developed civilizations in our galaxy given the extraordinary amount of planetary systems in this region of space...? Which could make UFO's more plausible than terrestial civilization conclusions...? Right?

 

[kyleb]

I don't buy that at all. If you want to plug a theory, it's upon you to try to convince other people. There's no reason why you should expect other people to do your work for you.

Nesh's has no obligation to paraphrase Sitchin's whole argument for you, and pointing out holes in what Nesh does say won't necessarily ever disprove Stichin's theory either. If you want to argue the position, then you've got some homework to do first, as right now you are acting like the kid in class who just read the cliff notes yet keeps trying to play it off like he knows what the hell he is talking about.

 

[kyleb]

Let's think about this logically:

If you know X, then it is either because you have figured out X on your own or someone else has told you X (unless we take into consideration stuff like Jung's 'collective unconscious' or similar ideas, which aren't really relevant for the rest of this post). This gives us two alternatives: The Sumerians either figured about the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt Objects on their own (implausible; there are AFAICS no other records ANYWHERE of anybody even observing any Asteroid belt objects before 1801 or Kuiper-Belt obejcts before 1930), or someone else, with technology comparable to what we have today (!) or higher told them. This sounds uber-implausible if we assume terrestrial cvilizations. That only really leaves UFOs, which have earned status as pretty much the #2 hallmark (hearing voices would be #1) that you are just bat-shit insane.

One could potentially argue that UFOs cannot be logically ruled out, but given the sociological nature of UFO belief coupled with the relative lack of hard evidence, it is *very hard* to give very much credence to any theory that involves UFOs.

It seens you missed the fact that I think Stichin is a crackpot.

 

[KimB]

But you would say that it would be highly illogical and narrowminded to beleive that there arent any other similarly or higher developed civilizations in our galaxy given the extraordinary amount of planetary systems in this region of space...?

I claim not in the least.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30301
(please note that some of the numbers put forward in my first post are incorrect, but were corrected later down the line and did not have a significant impact on my primary argument)

 

[KimB]

Nesh's has no obligation to paraphrase Sitchin's whole argument for you, and pointing out holes in what Nesh does say won't necessarily ever disprove Stichin's theory either. If you want to argue the position, then you've got some homework to do first, as right now you are acting like the kid in class who just read the cliff notes yet keeps trying to play it off like he knows what the hell he is talking about.

I see no reason to read further if some of the basic premises are so horribly wrong.

 

[arjan de lumens]

But you would say that it would be highly illogical and narrowminded to beleive that there arent any other similarly or higher developed civilizations in our galaxy given the extraordinary amount of planetary systems in this region of space...? Which could make UFO's more plausible than terrestial civilization conclusions...? Right?

While UFOs are not an impossibility in principle, the idea that they would wish to make contact with the Sumer civilization 5000 years ago and NOT wish to make contact (or more absurdly, that they are unable to make contact in a believable manner) with modern civilizations today sounds somewhat implausible again.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

While UFOs are not an impossibility in principle, the idea that they would wish to make contact with the Sumer civilization 5000 years ago and NOT wish to make contact (or more absurdly, that they are unable to make contact in a believable manner) with modern civilizations today sounds somewhat implausible again.

maybe they realized it was a waste of time/energy. maybe they found a much better one somewhere else. maybe they were drunken college fratboy aliens at the time. maybe they were hit by a space bus on the way back home. maybe they elected some pretard as the leader afterwards who abandoned space travel as a practical means of advancement of their race (given what they found...us).

 

[KimB]

Sitchin claims that these extra terrestrials created man, in which case it might actually make sense that they'd check back later. But given that he comes to these conclusions based upon complete misinterpretations of ancient texts, and given that his claims about what the ancient Sumerians learned about astronomy from these extra terrestrials are just plain wrong, there's no reason to read further.

 

[Tahir2]

I see no reason to read further if some of the basic premises are so horribly wrong.

So forget about it... and don't comment on it. :smile:

Edit:
If you do feel the need to comment because things are horribly wrong with this guys writings (and they probably are I.M.UNINFORMED.O), then inform yourself of his works so you can convery an informed opinion to us. You might need to read up on Sumerian civilisation too.

 

[KimB]

So forget about it... and don't comment on it. :smile:

Edit:
If you do feel the need to comment because things are horribly wrong with this guys writings (and they probably are I.M.UNINFORMED.O), then inform yourself of his works so you can convery an informed opinion to us. You might need to read up on Sumerian civilisation too.

Why? It's not like I launched this discussion in order to debunk his theories. If I had, then you might have a point. I was merely responding to Nesh's incomplete description of these theories.

And from my perspective, having some limited knowledge of solar system physics and astronomy, it was obvious the basic claims that were put forward are just plain wrong. And from that perspective, there's no point in reading further.