Bufofrog

I would say these statements are not clear enough and could lead to confusion. The clearest statement is that there was heat transfer from hot to cold.

I have a saying, "You can't think out of the box until you understand what is in the box".

You do realize that a cat cannot be in a superposition state, don't you?

Well that's a relief!

Correct, so you mean P = F/A

I don't think it does.

If you think you can violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics I can assure you that you are mistaken.

How ironic.

I think "neutrino plasma" is one of my favorites. This of course is a bunch of neutrinos stripped of their electrons?

This is supposed to be funny, right?

I hope he doesn't say something like, "I want to discuss section 4.2.2".

"All Particles Must Have 3 Types of Mass." Are you then telling me that massless particles have 3 types of mass?

What is the amount of time that the material will be subjected to that 190 C temperature?

AFAIK all materials conduct heat. Some materials conduct heat so poorly that they are used as insulation, but they still conduct heat. Is there a minimum thermal conductivity that you are looking for?

I'm not sure what you mean. The difference in the passage of time between reference frame is important for things like GPS. Not taking time dilation into account will make GPS inaccurate.

Sure. Comparing passage of time for 2 reference frames will never give an answer of zero, unless you add in gravitation time dilation, I suppose. I don't see how different reference frame could represent the 'speed of time', to be fair I don't know what the 'speed of time' is supposed to be exactly. To me it seems like asking what is the speed of length.

Then you are expressing a distance, not a velocity. In other words you are saying that the velocity of time could equal 1 km, which makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question, you just reiterated we are missing something. Ok. You think the pyramids were built using linear funiculars and not ramps. There is no test that I can think that could prove it either way.

What is it that you think we're missing from our understanding of ancient Egypt?

I disagree. Don't be absurd, you don't actually believe that. A conspiracy theory is not evidence.

And yet you seem to mostly ignore the input you receive.

I don't know what you are talking about. Your beliefs are not germane, evidence and citations are required. What characteristics? They don't defy explanation. Evidence for this claim? What are you talking about? Scientists and archeologist continue to study ancient Egypt.

This has nothing to do with stone vases as far as I can see. What does that have to do with stone vases and vessels? Good we are on topic. There are many ways the stone vessels could have been made. It looks like the Metropolitan Museum of Art has about 115 ancient Egyptian stone vessels, so they don't seem as rare as you thought. I don't see any big issues with obtaining any vases or vessels to test, but I also don't see burning reason to test them anyways, what do you expect to find? If you would like to buy one of these ancient stone vessels to test it, here is where you can buy one: Stone Vessels.

The publication does not show that 'science supports' your idea, the publication shows that 3 guys have written multiple articles together and separately saying seafood was vital for brain development. The overwhelming bulk of scientific literature on diet and the evolution of the human brain does not support your claim.

I don't believe that. What is your evidence that seafood is the cause.