Ancient underwater structure discovered?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh yes, forgot to mention this, in the Sun newspaper this friday (as anyone British knows, NOT the most repectable paper in the country). Right place, right size.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 255989.ece

Later explained by Google earth as being due to the lines made by boats mapping the bottom of the ocean.

http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/ ... ntis-city/

That data is vetted, refereed and cross-checked before publication. Scientist A scores Big Time if he points out an error in the work of Scientist B, particularly if B is big in the field. There is a built in adversarial system in the physical sciences that tends to keep the enterprise honest. In the long run, Facts win.

Which is why the computer you use to spew your nonsense world-wide is as reliable as it is.

ruveyn

Ok, not all scientists are egotistical bastards. That was an exaggeration that was not meant to be taken seriously. Egotistical people hate to be wrong and this affects their judgment.
Great scientists/inventors don't have egos that get in the way of their search for truth.

A good scientific mind wouldn't dismiss something or accept something so quickly.
I don't know if Atlantis was real, but at least I'm open to the idea of it being real or fantasy. I admit that my belief that it was real is just from my intuition. I don't go searching for evidence to back up these beliefs.

Cthulhu is awakening!

I would not be so certain of that. Read -Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of a Genius- by Hans C. Ohanian

ruveyn

Ooh, I know one: "God does not play dice."

The degree of scientific illiteracy I've been reading here is a real eye opener. I wonder how our culture has come to be one which depends so much on science. Yet, with the same breath, call science untrustworthy and then cling to superstition. The juxtaposition is truly surreal.

As far as science being subjective and influenced by scientists' opinions and biases: Opinions don't create computers. Mere opinion doesn't put man into space, or probes on Mars or take pictures of the ocean floor. If science was truly this deceptive game of egotistical bias like it's being made out to be, we'd be living like medieval europe.

Like I said before, math doesn't lie. If scientists were robots, I would be much less skeptical of their findings. The things I am skeptical about are theories and such that pertain to humanity, and not machines. Humans are not as predictable as machines and the modern way to study humans scientifically does not include viewing them from a wholistic stand point because then you get into "mystical" sticky subjects. Avoidance of this issue safeguards them from entering into mysterious taboos.

This is way off subject though...

That is not it. Einstein never properly proved E = m*c^2. Von Lau gave a correct proof. Einstein never did. Einstein got the formula right (he was not the first one btw) but he got the proof wrong. Ohanian's book deals with many other errors that Einstein made. And yes. After Einstein showed that light is quantified (his "light quanta" later were called photons) he still rejected quantum theory as a complete theory. Einstein also believed in strict locality. The experiments showing the violation of Bell's Inequality show Einstein to be dead wrong in that regard.

In his famous quip about God and Dice Einstein was expressing a preference for local, deterministic theories. Unfortunately such theories do not work.

ruveyn

That's interesting. How did he manage that?

How does any one know that?

Read the book. Ohanian goes into a great deal of detail.

ruveyn

are you looking for atalantis mybe?

What about R'lyeh