Want to know a secret? This thread already has a topic! It is right there in the title.
I went back to the building the pyramids thread and read the first dozen or two posts of yours.
You stated rather explicitly that although you could not read hieroglyphics, you decided to give new definitions to a groups of cherrypicked glyphs and as a result your hypothesis popped right out at you.
I must admit that is an amazing achievement, in the sense that I will be forever amazed by it.
I’d love to lose an argument!
Let’s start with something simple. Is the Earth (roughly) a sphere, does it travel around the Sun (along with the other planets and objects in the solar system), and is the medium they travel through (space) a vacuum (barring the odd molecule or three)?
Science primarily uses the precise language of mathematics. Something that you seem to disdain.
Maybe it’s because it doesn’t match your delusions.
Tell us again about the pyramids.
4025 is oddly specific. Are you sure you weren’t using Math to come up with that number?
In the year 4025 (BC)…
You don’t need language, don’t need your eyes..
You won’t find evidence to chew…
So nobody’s gonna look at you…
Apologies to Zager and Evans. 
Pie?
Someone said pie! 
In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pie you ate today
To paraphrase Neil Young, I’m about to bring the whole room down. Grumble.
For years I’ve studied the grammar, the underlying structure that can be applied to any system, of CTs and I’m fascinated – not amazed, not at all amazed – that they almost universally exhibit an overlapping set of what might be called axioms, if that word weren’t tainted by the math they so hate because it’s beyond them. Formal logic tells us that a false premise doesn’t necessarily beget a false answer, but literally any answer at all, true, false, or nonsensical. CTs have false premises because they are inevitably dependent on creating their own rules, which are selectively applied so that any contrary assertions or evidence can be ignored or denied.
Talk about ancient history, these edifices of contrivance go back thousands of years, as in the gematria (“a cabbalistic system of interpretation of the Scriptures by substituting for a particular word another word whose letters give the same numerical sum”), the anti-Stratford choice of Francis Bacon as the author, based on haphazard application of Bacon’s real cipher technique (“a steganographic method, which…hides a secret message within a seemingly normal text), or the more recent Bible Code, which can be manipulated to find anything in any long text.
@cladking’s technique is conceptually similar to MANTRAPHILTER’s, who redefined the mainstream definitions of terms in physics to ones that supported his notions. And both have large overlaps with CTs like flat earth, in that they fail to recognize that all science is completely interlinked by millions of experiments and equations so knocking out any fundamental aspect of any science is the same as undermining all science, even the parts they don’t want to give up, and that would require more than just a new set of words but an equivalent amount of math and experiential effort. The math that undergirds every aspect of our daily life – and especially our ability to argue over a worldwide computer network – allows standard scientists to compare experimental results to the predictions of major theories like relativity and quantum mechanics to ten or more decimal points. They cannot strictly be wrong, even if they might be incomplete or components of a larger system. Something similar can be said of all science.
Nor do CTs have to offer alternate science, as the examples I gave in a recent post show. The grammar of the opposing posts is just as revealing. The best part of understanding the grammar of CTs is that you can spot almost instantaneously, after a few posts. The adherents give themselves away, not merely by what they say but by how they say it. A great timesaver in a busy world.
Yeah, yeah.
But, I know a young man named Son-of-a-wrek who will wear you down. Til you consider feigning belief just to shut them up.
I’m sure a weaker person would really believe.
With or without math.
he does this for S&Gs. A hobby, I suppose
Thanks. I agree that QFT has made amazingly accurate predictions, including the existence of a Higgs Boson.
I recall that when quarks were first hypothesized, theory accurately predicted a triple structure, which was originally thought to be the up, down and strange quarks (the only ones known at that time) - until color charge was hypothesized.
Only according to our definitions.
Only according to our definitions.
No. Our orbit and each of its permutations are often intersected by solid and/ or gaseous bodies. Dependent on your definitions even “half” the sky precedes us through space. The moon as well gets into the path of our orbit quite frequently. I don’t know how to define the tides it pulls up when it’s in our orbit. You can’t step into the same river twice and the moon always pulls up a unique set of molecules and fish. Thanks for the fish.
I have no clue what a CT is but I wager long odds it doesn’t apply to me.
Ever hear of a paradigm? Science is frequently stood on its ear and people shrug it off like it never happened. It will continue to happen because.. …did I mention… …we reason in circles and this applies to even our finest scientists.
Science changes one funeral at a time and there are some big changes coming.
Conspiracy theorist.
I thought the earth was flat.
Thats great. We’re flying thru space like a frisbee.
Where is that dog star?
I usually say 4000 years ago but the dating could be off as much as 200 years. I believe it’s probably fairly accurate though.
I’m probably going to abandon this thread and was really hoping you guys wanted to talk about something I can talk about.
But if no one is up to it…
I’ll just hang around and jump in somewhere.
Moderating:
This was a good offer, and I think it’s long past time you did this. As was pointed out to you by @Czarcasm, this thread already has a topic, you are far from it and have been for quite some time.
Feel free to have your discussion, but please create a new thread to do so. Thanks.
CT = Conspiracy Theory, and yes. it does apply to your theories.
Sure, but the changes are coming from physics, ground checking, geology. etc. And if you are referring to recent studies claiming to find structures beneath the pyramids, they don’t match what you described before. Besides, the SRA method can only see just about 3 meters underground. Meaning that declaring that there are structures kilometers deep under a pyramid, that needs lots of confirmation. Just as others have done when looking for hidden structures in the pyramid, the evidence so far is that the latest CT from the Pyramid lunatics does not pass the sniff test.
What about the guy who thought you could get rid of floaters in your eyeballs by heating them by sticking your head in a running microwave?
In a baby-with-the-bathwater sense?