Spiritosophy

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Taking crackpot garbage seriously is not how science works at all.

However, one crackpot WILL listen and believe another crackpot. They come in pairs you know. Or maybe in quads.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Yes, sonhouse, I am an expert.
An expert at listening to ideas, to analyzing the information and then making informed and reasonable conclusions on the topic considered.
Case in point, this one.

In opposition to my modus operandi, you.

Well then, tell us idiots the engineering details of just how a pyramid generates energy.
My guess is you will just spit out more off topic bullshyte.
That is YOUR MO. NEVER give actual details just claim XY and Z and stick with it with no science to back you up.

When asked to actually give scientific evidence of ANYTHING you just refill the scrap bin with more bullshyte having nothing to do with the topic, pulling the 'I don't have to tell you how to do research, look it up yourself' card.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Well then, tell us idiots the engineering details of just how a pyramid generates energy.
My guess is you will just spit out more off topic bullshyte.
That is YOUR MO. NEVER give actual details just claim XY and Z and stick with it with no science to back you up.

When asked to actually give scientific evidence of ANYTHING you just refill the scrap bi ...[text shortened]... the topic, pulling the 'I don't have to tell you how to do research, look it up yourself' card.

FFS.
Watch the video if you want to know what it says.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Taking crackpot garbage seriously is not how science works at all.

Using the term "crackpot" without even hearing what's being said is about as unscientific as is possible.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Well then, tell us idiots the engineering details of just how a pyramid generates energy.
My guess is you will just spit out more off topic bullshyte.
That is YOUR MO. NEVER give actual details just claim XY and Z and stick with it with no science to back you up.

I watched the video and it seems like some combination of hydroelectric, hydraulic pressure and electromagnetic aggregation of energy, assuming that all the tunnels used to be lined with gold for conducting electricity. They show how this works using animated videos of the tunnels, without much in the form of engineering details. The energy is conducted into a gold cap on top of the pyramid and beamed from the Giza site to South America via a Tesla coil.

Not sure why Freaky cannot articulate the details, beyond referring folks to a long and overly-dramatic YouTube video. This is a forum after all.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I watched the video and it seems like some combination of hydroelectric, hydraulic pressure and electromagnetic aggregation of energy, assuming that all the tunnels used to be lined with gold for conducting electricity. They show how this works using animated videos of the tunnels, without much in the form of engineering details. The energy is conducted i ...[text shortened]... , beyond referring folks to a long and overly-dramatic YouTube video. This is a forum after all.

Summarizing it eliminates a fresh perspective.
Let people decide for themselves instead of relying on anyone's Clif Notes.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Using the term "crackpot" without even hearing what's being said is about as unscientific as is possible.

Embracing crackpot nonsense is about as unscientific as possible.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
...
I'm surprised you didn't point out another lunatic fringe trying to show the ancient Mayan's had interstellar travel, based on rock drawings of people with circles around their heads....

Ancient man carving circles around heads in stone. Gotta mean something.

Seriously, don't you find any pleasure in seeing castles in the clouds?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
... Clif Notes.

cliff

I mean Cliff Notes.

Originally posted by @apathist
cliff

I mean Cliff Notes.

Looks like we're both wrong: it's Cliff's Notes.
Who knew.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Embracing crackpot nonsense is about as unscientific as possible.

Embracing or entertaining: either one is too hard for those in the embrace of dogma.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Embracing or entertaining: either one is too hard for those in the embrace of dogma.

It matters little what semantics you portray, you are still full of shyte.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It matters little what semantics you portray, you are still full of shyte.

You don't even have the conviction of your own arrogance.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You don't even have the conviction of your own arrogance.

So answer my charge, you have to continuously turn left or right on the flat Earth equator.

You can't even answer something as simple as that.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So answer my charge, you have to continuously turn left or right on the flat Earth equator.

You can't even answer something as simple as that.

Let’s stay focused on this thread’s content.
You demonstrate a predictable antagonism toward any/everything you didn’t stumble upon yourself, and this topic is no exception.
Ancient man was no slouch, but you are intent to discount the many advances we continually uncover--- almost as though you think they just got lucky.
Or something.
They knew and used pi with precision thousands of years before modern science figured it out.
Their advances in hydro-energy, aqueducts, road making, steel, concrete and stone work remain unrivaled even today.
Thousands of years ago, they had developed and used astrolabes and machines--- analog computers--- such as the antikythera mechanism.
In your telling of the tale, despite all of their achievements far in advance of even what we have discovered and mastered to date, there is simply no way possible for them to have further harnessed the ecosystem’s energy in such a manner as described in the video.
Of course, you don’t know what the video even suggests, but that simply underscores what I’ve said at the outset.
Namely, your fear of being wrong doesn’t allow you to consider any path which doesn’t guarantee the warmth of popular opinion.

That is not science in any way, shape or form.