Strange

We don't have a lot of information on the techniques used however, there is a vast amount of documentation relating to the workers: where they lived, what they were paid, what they ate, who they were. I wouldn't be surprised if the name of the foreman is known. Also, remember that the giant pyramids weren't the first to be built. They had been building pyramids for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years before then. Pyramids are common around the world because they are so easy to build. And, finally, people have reproduced the techniques probably used. Don't underestimate what can be done with a huge amount of manpower.

I have upvoted to remove it, as it seemed totally unreasonable. Actually you raised an interesting point at the end with the "telepresence" thing; I seem to remember some experiments that can reliably produce out of body experiences using some sort of set-up like that. I might try and find it later.

You can. It is called the interstellar medium or the intergalactic medium. But it is not required for light to propagate or for rockets to work.

Why not get someone to put a piece of paper, with a random words on it, in a location you could only see through astral projection. Then see if you can correctly "guess" the words. This will help you to distinguish between reality and your imagination. (Something you seem to struggle with.)

No. A lack of knowledge is not evidence for anything (this is the trap that UFO nuts fall into: unidentified does not equal "alien"). You would need specific evidence for a creator.

Do you have any evidence to support your beliefs? Or is it just a lack of knowledge and imagination? What does that mean? We know an awful lot about that period. Nearly half is documented. The rest is well evidenced from archeology. This appears to be an example of you not knowing much and therefore assuming that we know nothing. We have a pretty good fossil record. We see the development of early humans. We don't see evidence of structures or civilisations that are millions of years old.

Indeed. I just wanted to make it completely explicit for Mike.

Sorry. Not sure why I got confused about that. (You are much more rational ... ) I find it hard to imagine what scientific evidence could lead to that conclusion. But, quite obviously, if there were good evidence then science would accept it. But, like all science, people would continue looking for for alternative explanations and further evidence.

This has nothing to do with science. It is just a matter of opinion or philosophy. And, as you have no evidence to support these claims of astral projection, we can assume it is nonsense after all.

Space is NOT completely empty, so you don't need to worry about that. There is gas, dust, virtual particles and fields (such as the electromagnetic field). Rockets would work just as well if space were completely empty. And light would propagate if space were completely empty apart from the electromagnetic field.

I don't think such a graphic would tell you anything much. Especially as there is a lot of evidence that we have been having a significant effect on the environment. However, this is vaguely relevant and quite fun: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

Please provide a reference to the scientific paper where this was published. As many people have said similar things, I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to have this discussion. It has been happening for millennia.

It is a fantastically detailed and accurate model. We use it for everything from GPS satellites to detecting gravity waves from black holes billions of light years away. I suspect it is just your understanding that is "woolly".

ThIs page has a brief history and then an explanation of how SR was derived: https://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Writings/relativity.pdf The main relevance of Maxwell's equations is that they show that the speed of light is constant and invariant. I am not aware of any such disagreement. Can you explain and/or provide a reference? They are always invariant (under Lorentz transformation) at any speed. There is no such grey zone or transition. Lorentz transforms apply at all velocities.

The "reality" comes from comparing the maths against observation. What else can you do?

In order to project an image on a surface then that surface must reflect light (so you can see the light). If it reflects light then you can see it. On the other hand, if it is invisible, then light passes through it unchanged (that is what "invisible" means). Therefore you cannot project an image on it (the light from the projector will pass through it unchanged).

Not a new idea: http://www.fogscreen.com http://www.google.com/patents/US20120019784 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/24/tech/touch-display-projected-on-mist/ etc If it is not visible, then it won't reflect light and therefore you can't project an image on it.

Can you provide some references scientific papers referencing this debate? The experiment did not use sunlight and did not measure colour change so this doesn't make much sense. Please show the calculations using your model.

Nope. Not unless you think that the foot is defined by the length of a person's foot ...

Have you really never heard of that before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

Many people have had out of body experiences (in fact, almost everybody at some point). None has ever been able to reveal information that they gained that way.

Please show your maths. And then how the predictions compare with observation.

Go ahead. No one has ever produced such evidence before.

That just changes perceptions and, perhaps, the units used. So your giant alien might say it is 3 goobers per moolifrox, while we describe it as 1 million miles per hour (or 447 km/s or 2.7 billion furlongs per fortnight). It doesn't change the physics. It is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox And for the OP, here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigidly_rotating_disk_paradox

Two things here: First the easy one: Being large or small makes no difference to how fast things move and so seems to be irrelevant. The other one is more complicated. Yes, if you swing a long stick (or arm) then the end will move faster. You might think that if you double the length (and so double the length of the circle) then the end of the stick is moving twice as fast. That is close enough for small velocities. But, as you say, nothing can move faster than light. So what happens is that the speed does not increase according to that simple formula (off the top of my head, I'm not sure how you do work out the speed). This was, I think, one of the examples that led Einstein to realise that space-time must be curved. Hopefully, someone else can give a more detailed explanation.