Popular scientific write-ups, are attempts to make the original article approachable to the general public, I can read the actual article why should I care about the popular version.
Then the same logic applies to your social media comments. Why should I or anyone care or take seriously someones coments on a social media platform.
Once again the fixation on single words making the entire meaning. So if I find a word that means 'definite' then you are defeated. See how silly it is. Please read the word its context.
But evenso. If we take your word meaning. This still means we should be treating the findings as correct until proven otherwise. They are the first step towards confirming a hypothesis. You don't then reject the findings out of hand as conspiracy as some are doing.
I am pretty sure you said that there is no way the casing stones were cast. Or that the evidence in no ways shows this. Yet ehere we have preliminary findings that suggest we do. This is the kind of completel and extreme rejection that is not coming from science but persnal belief.
So link the experimentally verified results when they are done then.
Ok and in the mean time people should stop rejecting the preliminary findsings as conspiracy or psuedoscience.
I'm perfectly fine with anybody doing experiments. What gave you the idea that I would find that troublesome? I want them to publish thier results in scientific journals.
Oh maybe the language that people used to completely reject those experiments as quackery or just not treat them as science at all as part of the process. The experiments of those who happen to find a different answer are rejected as qauckery simply because they contradict the orthodoxy.
It refers back to the same 2018 simulation study, this is why you shouldn't take scientific reporting from the Daily Mail.
The daily mail is saying the same thing as Phy.org science news who is saying the same thing as the scientists. They just put it in everyday language.
We have tests done in the Giza pyramid to determine the resonant frequency that is concentrated into the KIngs chamber. We have physical tests that show how certain stones and dimensions cause the Piezoelectric effects. This is fact. So modelled on a hypothetical structure is fact until proven wrong.
The Kings Chamber dimensions, which measure approximately 10.47 meters in length, 5.23 meters in width, and 5.81 meters in height, are also thought to have been chosen specifically to create a resonant frequency of around 117 Hz.
The precise frequency of 117 Hz has been identified through more modern methods, such as the use of sensitive microphones and spectrum analysers.
Flat out wrong. In the simulation study about electromagnetic waves they didn't.
I thought it was also the quartz in the stone and especially the granite was also what contributed to the resonance. Anyway other tests have shown this to be the vase. For example if you built the pyramid out of wood or plastic you will not get the same effect.
Don't mix up those who are talking about piezoelectric effects with the electromagnetic waves.
Ok, I am basing this on the material of the pyramid and stones. That certain material has a higher electromagnetic and piezoelectric effects that others. Either way it seems the pyramids have an effect on both.
Do you have an maps showing areas with "high electromagnetic"?
Why, what the science already tells us.
This is about the proposed plaster, why would you refer to it in this context about electromagnetic properties on the macroscale?
So a case of replying straight to the quote rather than checking what it was referring to. As we have been talking about both issues I assumed lol.
Relevent to possible advanced knowledge and other ways the pyramids were used besides a tomb.
Link the journal article instead if you got it.
In 1952, Winfried Otto Schumann (1888-1974), a German professor of physics, discovered that resonating electromagnetic waves with a frequency of around 8 hertz could be measured in the Earth's atmosphere. This natural phenomenon is called the
Schumann resonance frequency and mainly occurs when electricity discharges in the so-called 'closed waveguide' between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere. The predominant standing wave of this low frequency resonance effect has a frequency of 7.83 hertz.
Earth's resonance at Giza: The specific latitude of the Great Pyramid results in a fundamental Schumann resonance frequency of approximately
8.1 Hz.
King's Chamber resonance: The King's Chamber was constructed to have a resonant frequency of 16.2 Hz which is the second harmonic (or octave) of the 8.1 Hz frequency.
2. SIGNIFICANCE The significance of the study and its relevance to the wider field of archaeology and acoustics can be summarised by the discovery of archaeoacoustic frequency signatures in multiple locations in Upper and Lower Egypt. For space to be designed and built and present specific resonance it would be not only require highly detailed construction, but it also leads to a level of understanding of sound frequency beyond even our contemporary levels today.
Read the article. Antenna construction is interesting but there was nothing new learnt about it from that study, how do you think they have constructed the program calculating the effects on the electromagnetic field?
I am pretty sure they said that now the findings from the reserach can be applied to nano tech. They learnt something from the simulations. Plus this is theorectical science and this is common in how theories are supported. Many hypothesis are based on theorectical tests that simulate the real thing. Its part of science.
If that is true then it usually gets picked up sooner or later.
Yes eventually and if we look at the history we will see proven ideas being rejected by the mainstream. Thats whats called a paradigm shift. It doesn't come easy and theres resistence. But eventually the evidence builds up that it can no longer be denied. That is exactly what all these investigations are doing.
No, your claim. You prove it.
Lol I am saying I am supporting this with the science. But you are denying it without the science at all. You can call the findings and words "maybe" and dismiss them. You can make a counter claim that its not proving anything.
But you never supply any scientific papers or even scientific articles published to9 counter this. Just your own opinion which you somehow have elevated to the status of peer review. As though just making a counter claim on a social media site is good enough to refute the scientific articles from those who have actually done the tests and analysis. .
Higher than what? Limestone? Limestone was assumed in the of the radiowave calculation. They didn't use granite in their calculations.
Ok but other tests have and they also support that the granite chambers and the particular makeup of the stones have high quartz content makes it more conducive of resonance under certain conditions.
When we put the reserach together we not only have an entire object supporting a concentration of electromagnetic effects but the specific material used in the object also supporting the piezoelectric effects material.
Yes, this known but it has zero to do with the pyramids.
Why. If some material holds a better piezoelectric effects like granite and there is granite used in specific ways then it stands to reason the materials are going to influence what effects are created overall. Especially within the granite parts of the pyramid.
Acoustic testing in the granite chambers has been found and it magnifies from chamber to chamber. It is the resonance for the granite as it has a specific resonance.
Now your mixing electromagnetic and piezoelectric again. This is just another simulation of the pyramids as antennas for electromagnetic waves. They also model the pyramid as a single monolith (they don't even use any chambers)
You honestly believe that the piezoelectric effect has no influence on how the electromagnetic waves are scattered within the pyramid under certain conditions.
Now your mixing electromagnetic and piezoelectric again. This is the same article we have been discussing for a couple of posts now.
It is shown that due to the strong dispersion of the refractive index of the pyramid material, there will always be a part of the spectral range, in which the refractive index corresponds to the condition of electromagnetic wave localization (the photonic jet phenomenon).
And the articles actually studied the piezoelectric properties of the pyramids? Who has actually measured the electric power generated by the pyramids?
Lets just work out what what has been found first. Electrical energy is one of the effects proposed. To what extent is the next step. But that forms of energy are being generated is enough for us to investigate further that the Egyptians may have harnessed this is some ways for practical applications.
Its that you and skeptics don't even believe than anything was generated is the first problem let along that there may have been specific applications.
But we do have some indirect evidence signatures that point to messing around with chemistry and physics.
There is no original research in this article, it is at best a speculative review.
Ok so we don't need verification to know that crystal oscillators are capable of producing electro motive force when vibrated and Quartz is a naturally obtained crystal. The pyramids and works are full of this material. When used in specific ways they will produce certain effects.
The generation of electricity requires the pyramid to vibrate always. Hence the location at which the electromagnetic waves are more on the surface of the globe are chosen to be the perfect sites for the pyramid. The very shape of the pyramid is an amplified receiver or resonator of various kinds of energy fields.
What about this is false. You do realise that there was a reference list to the science.
I'm critical about your claims. If you are critical about someone else's claims ask them for corroborating evidence.
I should not have to. If they are refuting the science then it stands to reason that the science must be refuted with science epistemically. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose and we are mixing social media opinions with the science.
... were indeed consistent with with a reconstituted limestone.
Yes consistent and not inconsistent. Indeed consistent is defintely consistent with reconstituted limestone. If you want to play word games. Its as close as a scientists will get to saying abosutely the case.
Science just works that way where it never claims a truth. Its just consistent with observations and data. Thats as best as you will get for any science. Your playing semantics. You would never do this with any words that supported your views lol.
... indicates the Egyptians used...
Your fixation on words as being the truth has blinded you to the fact that
diatomaceous earth was added to the mix. Its not a natural substance in limestone. Its impossible for it to be in the limestones lol. So yes in the context 'indicates' means definitely added to the mix.
I just point out that the peer-reviewed articles don't support your claims (some times even your claims about the articles themselves, such as that the permittivity of anything but limestone was used in the calculations).
No your playing skeptic games to the point of cynnacism. You look for loopholes to undermine the findings. Even use words are the complete meaning of the findinds. So long as it undermines the findings. The aim is to discredit the sources which included the good scientists and researchers and the sources they come from because they don't meet your approval of what a good source is.
There was no (statistical) hypothesis testing. So they can't say how likely or unlikely the observed patterns were. Which makes your claim of near impossible nonsense.
Wait a minute. If you then add the other bits of evidence such as the non natural substances added into the mix tested and the precision joins where youy can't fit a human hair into. Or the over spills of softened stone. The lack of credible evidence that the Egyptians actually cut and chiseled the stones and the fact that the logistically impossibility of getting massive stones some 450 feet in the air.
Then the findings start to look more likely that are on to something. What you are doing is fixating once again on specific like words. On this occassion one aspect of the whole investigation. But when we put it in context and include all the lines of evidence it takes a completely different context.
What do you believe that I am recognizing? What are you talking about? Why can't that be remains of abrasive cut?
Lol of course. They cut the same block to look like an overspill of leaking soft stone. Tell me on what basis would they make such a cut and overlap. Have you not seen the other overspills of softened stone I showed you. Are you going to rationalise every single out of place shape to the magic of sheer pounding and cutting as the go to cop out of explanation.
Now show me the scientific evidence that its a chisel or cut mark from a chisel or saw. Lets apply the same standard to your claim.
It is not even clear that the best explanation is reconstituted limestone yet.
Its a better one that everything is the product of pounding, using small primitive saws and rubbing stone in shape lol. It certainly on preliminary results supports stone casting than chiseling.
I'm perfectly fine with people investigating what ever interests them, but I want the rigour of the scientific process to be used and that includes peer-review.
HUm yet you never point out when others who attack the evidence presented without one bit of rigor. Its double standards I tell you lol.
So why do you claim that they are unfairly refused then? If you don't have any data.
Because they are using peer review as a sledge hammer to reject any alternative views. Its not that peer review is no a good/ Its that its elevated by some was almost a godlike status. Its not and its be known to gatekeep info and alternative ideas that threaten the orthodoxy. Or the reputations and funding of those who have spent a lifetime defending the orthodoxy.
Its because those demanding the peer review do not apply the same standards across the board. When people attack the sources even before the content is investigated you know its more than science but belief. .
Yes as always. But in the mean time good science is being open to all ideas and giving them the same status as ideas that fall within the orthodoxy but may not yet be verified. Not just automatically reject them becuase they are different and may question the orthodoxy.
