nothing to see here - Chess Forums - Page 43

MIDYMAT

Aug 27, 2011

0

#841

If I can't explain something than I always blame the Aliens too.

SirVicious

Aug 27, 2011

0

#842

Bex1p wrote:

SirVicious wrote:

"add into the equation the ability to go faster than the speed of light to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away".

Not exactly, it was actually proven(almost a hundred years ago) that motion is not even necessary for traveling a given distance(time is relative and velocity=distance/time). It has also experimentally been proven that the entire universe exists in many different places at the same time;wave-particle duality is an example. Are these things that you understand?

Besides, regardless of whether or not extraterrestrials are visiting earth. You are not going to explain how hunter gatherers were transporting and cutting diorite stones weighing 131 metric tons. Evidence suggests contrary to your beliefs!

Some of the stones used at baalbeck were around 1000 tons. These stones are impossible to move now! Never mind that though, once these stones were quarried, dressed and transported sometimes 100s of miles and often hauled up mountains and across bodies of water, the knowledge of the solar system was needed to align these monuments to the stars creating in affect calenders that would predict celestial motion for thousands of years to come. All of this by stone age man? i think not.

1000 tones is about 1/3 of this cranes lifting power. It would take a hundred(my bad,actually ten, lol..close enough) land based cranes to move 1000 tons....wrong image,but, whatever

corrijean

Aug 27, 2011

0

#843

I don't think they ever moved or used the 1000 ton stones. They remain unused in the quarry.

SirVicious

Aug 27, 2011

0

#844

I see,well, i wouldnt know I know nothing about "baalbeck".

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#845

Mithras wrote:

Bex1p wrote:

corrijean wrote:

I think lifespan is most often related to the size of the creature, not the length of time a planet takes to revolve around the sun.

On earth yes, but imagine if there were life on mercury and we were to go there, wouldnt our lifespan be longer than the inhabitants there, what would be a year to them would be a fraction of a year to us. Just a theory that has been debated by scholars.

How do you figure that out ?

Using your logic all species on earth would have the same lifespan.

Not so, read the relevant comments again.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#846

Mithras wrote:

Bex1p wrote:

KeViN246 wrote:

lol good point corrijean. new planet between mars and jupiter. nice. that explains them downgrading pluto to a moon. got to keep it at nine :) fricken nasa bastards

Actually the sumerians depicted 12 planets and placed them all correctly 6000 years ago. The 9 we know of plus nibiru also the sun and the moon were included creating the pantheon of 12.

So what about Ceres Haumea, Makemake and Eris

where do they fit into this 12?

They do not as they are not relevant.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#847

SirVicious wrote:

If I could travel to alpha centauri and back in under a second. I would arrive here on earth 8 years in the future. Without having aged more than a second. Because time is relative and the speed of electromagnetic radiation("c" light) is a constant.

This is true. Because of this the particles inside the LHC could be said to be time travelling.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#848

corrijean wrote:

I don't think they ever moved or used the 1000 ton stones. They remain unused in the quarry.

Not true, there were at least 3 of these stones used in baalbeck, all alongside each other, with possibly even larger ones beneath, the stone you are talking about is called the stone of the pregnant woman, an image of which was posted earlier in this thread, which still stands partly quarried.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#849

SirVicious wrote:

Bex1p wrote:

SirVicious wrote:

"add into the equation the ability to go faster than the speed of light to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away".

Not exactly, it was actually proven(almost a hundred years ago) that motion is not even necessary for traveling a given distance(time is relative and velocity=distance/time). It has also experimentally been proven that the entire universe exists in many different places at the same time;wave-particle duality is an example. Are these things that you understand?

Besides, regardless of whether or not extraterrestrials are visiting earth. You are not going to explain how hunter gatherers were transporting and cutting diorite stones weighing 131 metric tons. Evidence suggests contrary to your beliefs!

Some of the stones used at baalbeck were around 1000 tons. These stones are impossible to move now! Never mind that though, once these stones were quarried, dressed and transported sometimes 100s of miles and often hauled up mountains and across bodies of water, the knowledge of the solar system was needed to align these monuments to the stars creating in affect calenders that would predict celestial motion for thousands of years to come. All of this by stone age man? i think not.

1000 tones is about 1/3 of this cranes lifting power. It would take a hundred(my bad,actually ten, lol..close enough) land based cranes to move 1000 tons....wrong image,but, whatever

I dont think the sumerians were using massive cranes, and i dont know much about cranes but i have been told that no crane could lift something of that weight, regardless, what about the rest of the comment? And more to the point, if stone age man did do all this themselves, not only how did they obtain all of this celestial knowledge but why did they need it? Why waste all that effort building a stone calender for example when instead they might have built casinos and had an ancient las vegas going?

corrijean

Aug 27, 2011

0

#850

Bex1p wrote:

corrijean wrote:

I don't think they ever moved or used the 1000 ton stones. They remain unused in the quarry.

Not true, there were at least 3 of these stones used in baalbeck, all alongside each other, with possibly even larger ones beneath, the stone you are talking about is called the stone of the pregnant woman, an image of which was posted earlier in this thread, which still stands partly quarried.

According to my source, the largest stones used were about 800 tons, and the quarry was only a mile away.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#851

Those must be the 3 that are side by side but as i said, it is believed that the stone(s) beneath those are actually one huge stone dressed to look like two, regardless this is still extraordinary.

It is true that these stones were quarried nearby but it is not so for stonehenge for example, or for macchu picchu.

I have an unrelated question, can anyone tell me which of the night stars appears 3 times bigger than any other and shines the brightest?

p.s. i have respect for your knowledge.

goldendog

Aug 27, 2011

0

#852

Bex1p wrote:

I have an unrelated question, can anyone tell me which of the night stars appears 3 times bigger than any other and shines the brightest?

Apparent size varies, so hard to deal with that.

Sirius is our brightest star, followed by Canopus (which you need a little southerly lattitude to see).

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#853

I was hoping you would see that last post as i was sure you could answer it, i live in the north of england so is this star sirius? I thought it might be, the star the pyramids are aligned to no less.

I ask because i have recently moved into a village and the night stars seem so much brighter because there is less light here, i have never noticed a star that looks so large or shines so bright, one night it appeared right next to the full moon and looked ominous.

oinquarki

Aug 27, 2011

0

#854

Bex1p wrote:

I was hoping you would see that last post as i was sure you could answer it, i live in the north of england so is this star sirius? I thought it might be, the star the pyramids are aligned to no less.

I ask because i have recently moved into a village and the night stars seem so much brighter because there is less light here, i have never noticed a star that looks so large or shines so bright, one night it appeared right next to the full moon and looked ominous.

Can you post a picture of what you're asking about?

corrijean

Aug 27, 2011

0

#855

It's probably Venus.

oinquarki

Aug 27, 2011

0

#856

corrijean wrote:

It's probably Venus.

Indeed, but I was assuming/hoping someone who dwells on astronomy would be able to tell a star from a planet.

Bex1p

Aug 27, 2011

0

#857

corrijean wrote:

It's probably Venus.

Could that be so? im fairly certain it has its own light source and is actually a star, i know venus can be sometimes seen with the naked eye but this i see most nights and it is very bright, so bright in fact that it looks like the stereotypical star shape.

goldendog

Aug 27, 2011

0

#858

Bex1p wrote:

I was hoping you would see that last post as i was sure you could answer it, i live in the north of england so is this star sirius? I thought it might be, the star the pyramids are aligned to no less.

I ask because i have recently moved into a village and the night stars seem so much brighter because there is less light here, i have never noticed a star that looks so large or shines so bright, one night it appeared right next to the full moon and looked ominous.

Sirius is very bright, only excelled by planets, the moon, etcetera among permanent residents. On some nights when the atmosphere is really unsteady it twinkles like mad and puts on a light show.

It has a companion star (being a binary system) and though it is difficult the two can be visually separated in a typical scope like I have. Sirius visibly wobbles slowly as the two rotate around their common center of gravity.

Never been able to though.

The stars I heard that matched up with the pyramids are the three in Orion's belt--the three stars that point to Sirius, btw. I've also heard that the pyramids are not placed as we see the stars but in such a way that the uneven line of the stars and pyramids match up. So that if the ground were transparent and you were under the pyramids you would see the same pattern in each set.

I could probably explain that better. There's likely a diagram of this out there somewhere.

goldendog

Aug 27, 2011

0

#859

oinquarki wrote:

corrijean wrote:

It's probably Venus.

Indeed, but I was assuming/hoping someone who dwells on astronomy would be able to tell a star from a planet.

If you're seeing it now, it's not Sirius, as the sun is too close to it for that (Dog days of summer=August=sun close to Sirius the Dog Star.

corrijean

Aug 27, 2011

0

#860

Does it look similar to this?