Paradoxes of Traditional Mineralization Theory & the Ancient Lattice System

Status
Not open for further replies.
sagaistrue said:
Right, right. You don’t speak for the scientific community.
Click to expand...
I do not.

So, follow up question: where does the scientific community demand "absolute proof"?

Where on Earth are you getting your ideas about science from? Creationist pamphlets??
 
DaveC426913 said:
I do not.

So, follow up question: where does the scientific community demand "absolute proof"?

Where on Earth are you getting your ideas about science from? Creationist pamphlets??
Click to expand...
Your words are already full of contradictions, so I choose to remain silent.
 
sagaistrue said:
I have been sincere all along,
Click to expand...

We can't engage with sincerity. What we can engage iwth is well-formed arguments built on critical thinking that have at least a passing grounding in real world science.

So far, everything you have said is implicitly premised with "I can't tell you why I (or anyone) would think this, but I personally think that ..."


sagaistrue said:
aiming to solve the Earth's ecological problems for real.
Click to expand...
Then stop talking about crystal lattices and bronze relic energy.


sagaistrue said:
This is typical victim-blaming.
Click to expand...
When did you start flying a victim flag?

sagaistrue said:
I never let AI influence me. Please don't overestimate what AI can do.
Click to expand...
Nono. You just let it write paragraph after paragraph and then copy paste it here.

How do you think knew it was pasted from a chatbot?
 
DaveC426913 said:
We can't engage with sincerity. What we can engage iwth is well-formed arguments built on critical thinking that have at least a passing grounding in real world science.

So far, everything you have said is implicitly premised with "I can't tell you why I (or anyone) would think this, but I personally think that ..."



Then stop talking about crystal lattices and bronze relic energy.



When did you start flying a victim flag?


Nono. You just let it write paragraph after paragraph and then copy paste it here.

How do you think knew it was pasted from a chatbot?
Click to expand...
Wow, you’re amazing. You can just assume and judge what others are doing. You must be a real psychic.
This conversation has completely derailed from the topic, so there’s no need to continue communicating.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perfect. I knew you wouldn't have a response that didn't tip your hand about your science understanding.

Silence is a concession.
Click to expand...
sagaistrue said:
Wow, you’re amazing. You can just assume and judge what others are doing. You must be a real psychic.
This conversation has completely derailed from the topic, so there’s no need to continue communicating.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my knowledge far exceeds yours. We’re not even on the same level, so I think it’s best to stop communicating here.
 
sagaistrue said:
Wow, you’re amazing. You can just assume and judge what others are doing. You must be a real psychic.
Click to expand...
I only see what you write.

sagaistrue said:
Sorry, my knowledge far exceeds yours
Click to expand...
And yet, you have not produced a single bit of data. That is what counts here, not stroking self-aggrandization.

If you want to post fanciful ideas with zero support, start a blog. And turn off the comments,

sagaistrue said:
This conversation has completely derailed from the topic, so there’s no need to continue communicating.
Click to expand...
Agree. You have a lot of work to do before it's ready for public consumption.

You can't just drop stuff like "..underground ore veins ... are large-scale artificial structures built by ancient civilizations..." in to a public discussion forum without a stitch of evidence to support it. You are in the wrong place for that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I only see what you write.


And yet, you have not produced a single bit of data. That is what counts here, not stroking self-aggrandization.

If you want to post fanciful ideas with zero support, start a blog. And turn off the comments,


Agree. You have a lot of work to do before it's ready for public consumption.

You can't just drop stuff like "..underground ore veins ... are large-scale artificial structures built by ancient civilizations..." in to a public discussion forum without a stitch of evidence to support it. You are in the wrong place for that.
Click to expand...
Acknowledging individual differences is a reality we all have to face. But individual differences do not represent a hierarchy of life levels. Essentially, all lives are equal. So there’s no need for you to be so stubborn here, and I’m not going to argue with you any longer.

You keep saying there’s no data, but have you even bothered to look at all the data I provided?
 
sagaistrue said:
Acknowledging individual differences is a reality we all have to face. But individual differences do not represent a hierarchy of life levels. Essentially, all lives are equal. So there’s no need for you to be so stubborn here, and I’m not going to argue with you any longer.
Click to expand...
I am not being stubborn. You have some ideas that you have polished into a post using a chatbot, but it doesn't say anything.

You go on about global crystal matrices and bronze relics and ancient alien civilizations we're just supposed take all that as given?



Arguments that are made without supporting evidence can just as easily be dismissed without supporting evidence.

So, when you evoke "global crystal lattices and shuffling of bronze relics and alien civilizations" without any evidence, we are free to simply say "but there are no "global crystal lattices or shuffling of bronze relics or alien civilizations. You just made that up." - and we're all done here, right? Point counter point.

I onus is on you to first present a case that we can examine. You have not done that.



sagaistrue said:
You keep saying there’s no data, but have you even bothered to look at all the data I provided?
Click to expand...
I am open to being corrected. Please point me at some data in some of your posts that supports your ideas.

Links do not show up well on this site due to CSS styling issues. It is possible I missed some links. But you should not be just linking off to contextless data. You should using your data here - in your posts - to make your case.
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
What data? You have only made a bunch of unrelated claims, most of which do not make sense.
Click to expand...
How can you deny statistical data? It is real data after all.

Thick forests have higher natural radiation underground, which stems from complete energy lattices. Such ordered energy sustains life.

After mining, lattices break down. Radiation turns into chaotic energy that cannot support life at all. It disturbs organisms, leading to poor physical conditions and falling reproduction rates among animals.

Scientists only see radiation data, but cannot tell the difference between orderly natural radiation and chaotic radiation. Their explanations are therefore incomplete.

Current testing devices can accurately measure radiation phase. We propose a comparative survey: the phase is highly uniform in forests, but severely disturbed in mining areas. This is a practical way to validate our judgment.

This is my method of argumentation.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I am not being stubborn. You have some ideas that you have polished into a post using a chatbot, but it doesn't say anything.

You go on about global crystal matrices and bronze relics and ancient alien civilizations we're just supposed take all that as given?



Arguments that are made without supporting evidence can just as easily be dismissed without supporting evidence.

So, when you evoke "global crystal lattices and shuffling of bronze relics and alien civilizations" without any evidence, we are free to simply say "but there are no "global crystal lattices or shuffling of bronze relics or alien civilizations. You just made that up." - and we're all done here, right? Point counter point.

I onus is on you to first present a case that we can examine. You have not done that.




I am open to being corrected. Please point me at some data in some of your posts that supports your ideas.

Links do not show up well on this site due to CSS styling issues. It is possible I missed some links. But you should not be just linking off to contextless data. You should using your data here - in your posts - to make your case.
Click to expand...
I’ve never claimed to have measured this myself. I’m just proposing a test that people with the equipment and expertise can perform. I’m a regular person with no access to those tools, I’m not a scientist, not affiliated with any institution, and I have no professional titles.

I’m not asking you to believe me on blind faith. I’m simply pointing out a possibility that can be verified with existing technology. If you don’t want to test it, that’s your choice — but don’t dismiss the idea just because I can’t run the experiment myself.
 
Pinball1970 said:
What data?



Citation please. Let's start here.
Click to expand...
You can think of this through the sci-fi movie The Butterfly Effect. The tiny disturbance of a single butterfly’s wings ripples through the entire system, leading to catastrophic outcomes.
This is exactly what happens with the planetary lattice field: mining breaks the local order, and the chaotic radiation spreads through the resonant network, triggering a chain reaction that eventually disrupts the whole biosphere.

Even the sci-fi movie The Butterfly Effect drew its core concept from the work of Edward Lorenz, the MIT meteorologist and father of chaos theory. His famous discovery showed that tiny disturbances in a closed, nonlinear system ripple through the entire field, triggering irreversible, large-scale changes. This is not just a metaphor—it is proven science, and it applies perfectly to the planetary lattice field I’m describing.

And ancient civilizations already understood this. They built megalithic structures and sacred sites not for worship, but to tune and stabilize this resonant field. They knew the consequences of disrupting it, even if modern science has forgotten how to read their work. You dismiss this as nonsense only because you lack the framework to see it.

If you insist on focusing on data, then go ahead and focus on it!
 
sagaistrue said:
How can you deny statistical data? It is real data after all.

Thick forests have higher natural radiation underground, which stems from complete energy lattices. Such ordered energy sustains life.
Click to expand...
This is not data.
It is not science.
It is not even an argument.
It is a baseless claim, invoking something made up, called "complete energy lattices".

sagaistrue said:
This is my method of argumentation.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

It's just fanciful ideas bouncing around in your head that you have let escape to your fingers.
Start a diary instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top