If it is good science is to be determined by the their peers.
Your not understanding. If there was such a paper that proposed say that ancient Egyptians gained knowledge of chemistry and physics through their belief and conscious experiences. It would not get past the front door in the first place. You will have to go to alternative journals within philosophy or metaphysics to get such an idea published.
We are talking about two different things. One is the science in chemistry and physics for example. That can be tested and hypothesised within a certain method and paradigm. The quantifying sciences.
But apart from the tests and articles which I think were in journals already on the casting of stones and the potential energy in the pyramids this is ongoing. I think this is enough in the meantime to declare its not a conspiracy or psuedoscience.
To determine that I would need to test the hypotheses against each other.
If you see a melted of softened stone or one thats vitrified that your left with whether it was naturally formed or man made. When you see vitrified stones in caves or where only the works are vitrified and the surrounding natural stones are not you can begin to make some findings.
Its all the lines of evidence that are mounted together and the common practices and examples that build the case. By looking at all this we can make some conclusion. When tests then back this up with peered revied or not they cannot be dismissed.
Therefore you already have evidence you can deal with and offer your explanation as to why this is not human made changes to stone.
First we would have to look at the supposedly vitrified stone, to make sure it actually is vitrified stone.
Already done this and it was ignored. If people cannot first even acknowledge the images and that they need to be examined and determined then its not going to work.
First acknowledge that the examples at least look vitrified and we need to look further. Just like the many machine cuts that were exampled and ignored. Just admit they look like machine cuts and not like the orthodox method could produce them. Then we can take the next step to see if this is the case. But if the obvious observations are dinissed in the first place then how can we even find that out.
Then we have to make sure that the vitrification isn't the effect of some other process such as a lightning strike
Yes and yet some have declared that it was the result of natural occurrances without evidence. Thats the double standard.
I am quite open to any investigation. But you cannot do that if the examples are either fobbed off as naturalistic or not even acknowledged in the first place.
I think that was me, mentioning that vitrification happens in nature from time to time due to lightning strikes and fires. That would have to be excluded as a possibility of at least be shown to be much less likely.
Actually it was not just you which shows how this is the standard orthodoxy and the first explanation always assumed by the material science worldview. Has to have a naturalistic explanation and anything else is unreal or deemed less credible.
In fact the naturalistic explanation was forced. That I was a fool for even suggestion something other than the naturalistic explanation. Thats dogma not science.
Tell them to get it published.
Nah I am happy with the work so far. It doesn't need to be peered reviwed to be good science. In fact its a cop out to keep fobbing it off as not meeting some gatekeepers criteria.
Because it is premature before the researchers have sat down and written their article detailing their findings and have it go through the process
They already have written the analysis for the tests. Do you think they do tests and make observations an dthen not write anything about this lol.
I already know that you believe otherwise than me, that is not a problem.
It is a problem if we both take the position of just fobbing off what each other says without any explanation. Thats easy. Just say the opposite and give no reason. The discussion would breakdown in minutes and be going nowhere lol.
It needs to be evaluated by subject matter experts.
The problem like I said is that this is all fairly knew. For example the casting of stones was hyothesised a few decades ago but it was then a fringe idea and dismissed. It took one scientists to relook in recent years to realised that no one had actually checked the work. When he did he found it had some merit.
The whole subject of alternative knowledge and tech had been rejected and pushed to the sides. Its only been with modern tech and more independent archeologists and researchers in the field now discovering obvious evidence that was ignored for decades.
So its still a case of pushing against the mainstream to even get this stuff acknowledged let alone be accepted in mainstream journals lol. In the meantime the best e=we have is the research, analysis and tests I have been presenting which is not yet up to the stage of being accepted. But if you keep rejecting it because it is yet to get to that stage then how can it ever get to that stage lol.
This is all there is and if you reject it theres nothing else. Not because there is no evidence but because there has been a bias about even accepting it in the first place. Which is the point of this thread ironically.
So you will accept say the testimony of the ancients themselves. When they tell you that they did not make these works and that they were made by people from the gods or by some other peoples with great knowledge like the gods.
Will you accept this evidence as just as relevant as the material sciences. Or do you treat this with less credibility to begin with. See to the ancients they would regard this experiential and lived reality over westernised material sciences as the source of true knowledge and reality.
Like Christians. When the westernised material science or naturalistic paradigm claims there is no evidence for God or spirituality they are deying the testimony of Christ, the diciples and all those Christians who pass this knowledge down. They say that material sciences is the illusion and that God is the truth and reality.
Can you see the giant difference in the worldview outlook as to what is classed as real knowledge and the source of real knowledge.
If any process leaves an impact on the physical it can be studied.
Yes but this tells us nothing about what caused it or how the knowledge that created that physical impact was gained. Methologic al naturalism just describes what is happening. It offers no explanation of how or what the nature of that activity represents.
Like I said you could be describing something you have been programmed to percieve and describe. Just like a flea on an elephant may be describing what he thinks is the world and reality. Not knowing that there is a far greater reality beyond the elephant he is riding.
What is an electron. How is describing an electron tell us anything about whether nature or reliaty is fundementally physical or not. Or whether the ancients could not have understood the fundementals of electrons through their conscious experiences.
If Bohr is right and the electron displays rudimentary forms of consciousness. Then maybe this is the backdoor to a greater and deeper knowledge that the ancients discovered. You don't know and cannot dispute it because science cannot measure this. Its beyond science.
I have read works by Edmund Husserl. But vitrification is amenable to optical investigations microscopically and chemical investigations.
Already done and I linked this for you.
