Ask An Atlanteologist

[Goodfella]

You do know what Newton's 3rd Law is, right?

Apparently it's not part of classical physics.

 

[Arakhor]

The Big Bang Theory, which is Religious in origin.

So you're a functional creationist, yet you have the gall to dismiss the Big Bang as being religious in origin? Have you no shame at all?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

• Black holes.
  [*]Neutron Stars
• The Big Bang Theory, which is Religious in origin.
• Mainstream T.V. Scientists (I don't believe every little thing they say, and I'm done waiting for them to drop "gravity Controls the Universe").
• Santa Claus.
• Flat Earth.
• That the Solar System is electrically neutral.
• The official account of the Stone and Neolithic Ages.
• Pink Unicorns, Purple Elephants, and blue polka-dot fairies. Did I leave anything out?

What? You don't believe in phenomena that have been shown to exist? And what is religious about the Big Bang Theory?

You reject certain-colored beings, so does that mean you believe in purple unicorns, pink elephants, and yellow polka-dot fairies? BTW, elephants are not mythical creatures; they really exist, unlike unicorns and fairies.

Please tell me your talking about these. If you're talking about the great pyramid, no, it doesn't sing. As for that, above, I don't have one.

Okay, humming pyramid. The guide was blathering about acoustics and started humming, but there were female voices too - neat trick...

You still can't squeeze two neutrons together to make a piece of Neutronium, this goes against basic chemistry.

You only find neutronium in Star Trek, much like unobtanium.

 

[Arakhor]

Ooh, that's a point - the Stone and Neolithic Ages? The Greek words νέος (néos) and λίθος (líthos) mean 'new stone'.

 

[Borachio]

Paleolithic. Neolithic. There you go.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/grimes-graves-prehistoric-flint-mine/

 

[Arakhor]

I've been to Grime's Graves, but I must have been only 7 or 8 at the time.

British archaeologists prefer palaeolithic.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, I made it through the Sphinx video (narrated by Charlton Heston) and found some of it very interesting. It lost me at Martian sphinxes, though, and the nonsense that Atlanteans could have built it.

 

[Berzerker]

do Atlanteologists also believe we didn't evolve from apes?

 

[Bootstoots]

Is there a substantial community of Atlanteologists with similar beliefs, or did you arrive at all these conclusions on your own? What sources of information do you tend to trust, and which ones do you distrust, and why?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So according to "Secrets of the Egyptian Pyramids" some ancient pre-Egyptian civilization predicted global warming and built a bunch of monuments all around the planet to warn us?

Since they went to all that trouble, why didn't they provide the solution?

And why was there an Olmec head in the video, when the Olmecs and Aztecs didn't live at the same time?

 

[_random_]

So you're a functional creationist, yet you have the gall to dismiss the Big Bang as being religious in origin? Have you no shame at all?

It certainly isn't the most outlandish thing he's suggested. The Big Bang was fist proposed by a Catholic priest, and many of his contemporaries dismissed it as wistful thinking, since giving the universe a chronological origin gibed better with the idea of a creator God than the popular cosmologies proposing an eternal cosmos.

I mean, our friend is about 80 years behind, but at least it wouldn't have always been a completely ridiculous claim.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

You still can't squeeze two neutrons together to make a piece of Neutronium, this goes against basic chemistry.

That is not related to chemistry. Neutrons themselves have nothing to do with chemistry.

 

[timtofly]

That is not related to chemistry. Neutrons themselves have nothing to do with chemistry.

Is that not what he said? There is no such thing in chemistry as squeezing two neutrons together. Seeing as how all this is basic science fiction, it would seem that even Atlanteologist can debunk science fiction.

 

[Arakhor]

a person said e=mc^2 has been proven wrong.

Who is this person and why has this not been reported?

 

[Ajidica]

Who is this person and why has this not been reported?

I was under the impression that he is technically correct, as there is more to the equation than just e=mc^2, but that it was simplified down with some minor variable omitted to capture the essence of the equation and what it told us.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Is that not what he said? There is no such thing in chemistry as squeezing two neutrons together. Seeing as how all this is basic science fiction, it would seem that even Atlanteologist can debunk science fiction.

Yep, there not such in chemistry because chemistry is not about such things. Chemistry is all about interactions among electrons in the outer layers of the atoms, which lead to that we know as chemical reactions. It does not include interactions among isolated subatomic particles or atomic nucleous or even inner electrons. That are matters for physics, and in the case of neutrons "squeezing" together high energy physics. Saying it goes against "basic" or even advanced chemistry is like saying Keynesian theory goes against electromagnetism.

He should have said instead that squeezing neutrons together is against physics which is wrong too. First because neutrons are not squeezed together in neutron stars, but protons and electrons to form neutrons and second because this is not against physics at all since physical laws allow for it. It is not something sci-fi related either since electron capturing is a common phenomena we can see here down in the Earth in many radioisotopes decay processes.

So, as most assertions made for our illustrioous Atlanteologist, it is wrong at so many levels it is even interesting.

 

[Goodfella]

So, as most assertions made for our illustrioous Atlanteologist, it is wrong at so many levels it is even interesting.

Honestly, with my only real physics background being the AP Physics C course I just finished and some reading about modern physics, there's just too much he's posted that I already know is wrong on so many levels (and that's just the stuff related to physics) that it would be far too time consuming to go through it all. From his electric universe, to the Lagrange points, to Newton's 3rd law, and whatever he thinks relativity is, it'd take a few thousand words to explain it all. For someone on this site with a degree (I don't know if that's you), I can but imagine how frustrating some of this would be.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I have got a master degree in chemistry and another one in chemical enginnering (not a doctor however neither have the knowledge of a doctor ), so i can stand when somebody destroys, abuse or insult physics but not chemistry!

 

[warpus]

Who is this person and why has this not been reported?

Albert Zweistein, he's in hiding because the illuminati don't want us to know that e=mc^2 is a lie.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

EltonJ, I just finished watching "Remembering the End of the World." It doesn't mention LaGrange points even once.

It is, however, an hour and a half full of absolute drivel.